Well, then, it sounds like you’re a petty-minded individual. Let’s say you learn some anonymous writings and you agree with many of the thoughts in them. Then one day you find out that they were written by an “evil jerk”. You would suddenly say they weren’t excellent thoughts? If so, that’s absurd. Thoughts are just thoughts, and if they are excellent ones, it doesn’t matter where they come from.
I read your comment. Uh….is that some kind of joke? You cant’ do what you want? That’s hilarious, and let’s take a excellent, hard look at Bush/Rove’s doings while in office.
What a fool Roth is, equating Bush with Ahmadinejad. He likes Gore, meanwhile Gore has been a hawk on Iraq for 15 years. How dumb he looks now that Obama has truly ruined the country.
Roth said the head of Iran has some points with which he is in agreement, and is astounded that this is so. In fact, it’s part of the “catastrophe” he enumerates here. You misunderstand Roth and twist his clear terms to suit your function.
You call this brilliant man a poor political thinker even as you demonstrate publicly your own impoverished intellect.
What you fail to know is explicit in much of what Roth has produced in the past 40 years. He is, very often, an unashamedly ‘political’ intelligence [ see, The Plot Against America and the Prague Orgy for openers] and so to simultaneously give reasons for him as a brilliant writer trapped inside the body of an amoral political nitwit is to explicate only your cursory acquaintance with his body of work. Roth, like most liberals, does not despise America, he despises ignorance and wantonness.
Brilliant writer, but not much of a political thinker nor one with a sense of morality. It is astounding to have a Jewish person draw a moral equivalence of sorts between Bush and the insane criminal of Iran who wants to ruin Israel. What is it about the psyche of self-loathing, American-hating liberals, especially Jewish ones like Roth and Chomsky, that I don’t know???
No, its the ancient “if your arguments are absolutely onw-sided and only caters to the populus in order to sell more books, then you probably do not know what you are talking about”.
No, there is no logical leap. Saying that they ‘reckon they know’ does not imply that only certain people should be entitled to speak their minds on politics.
Who is allowed to speak against persons in charge? Well, the courts and the media of course.
I have no rage. But you have no knowledge of neither logic nor politics. Check these books and then come back: Forbes: Modern Logic. David Held: Models of Demcracy. Obviously, you also like to shoot your mouth on things you don’t know.
not sure you have made a logical leap there. firstly you say Roth “thinks he knows about politics” implying that only certain people are entitled to have political opinions. then you say “being in charge doesn’t mean you can do what you want” well, who is allowed speak out against persons “in charge”? unless you reckon Roth is “in charge” in which case, he’s entitlted to an opinion. too many contradictions- you have rage, but no real opinion.
Roth claims to be a proud Jew, but cares nothing about halting the obsessive Muslim anti-semetic worldwide conspiracy. No, he just despises America.
No problem.
Itzik Basman
Right, and I apologize.
yo yo!
read what I jusy wrote you.
I agreed with you.
Itzik Basman
Well, then, it sounds like you’re a petty-minded individual. Let’s say you learn some anonymous writings and you agree with many of the thoughts in them. Then one day you find out that they were written by an “evil jerk”. You would suddenly say they weren’t excellent thoughts? If so, that’s absurd. Thoughts are just thoughts, and if they are excellent ones, it doesn’t matter where they come from.
I don’t remember my “thinking ” or what I was saying. But I’d never want to be heard to say that an “evil jerk” can’t have a excellent thought.
Itzik Basman
Well, according to your thinking, then, an evil jerk can NEVER have a excellent thought? Sorry, but that just doesn’t stay on logically.
I read your comment. Uh….is that some kind of joke? You cant’ do what you want? That’s hilarious, and let’s take a excellent, hard look at Bush/Rove’s doings while in office.
What a fool Roth is, equating Bush with Ahmadinejad. He likes Gore, meanwhile Gore has been a hawk on Iraq for 15 years. How dumb he looks now that Obama has truly ruined the country.
Roth said the head of Iran has some points with which he is in agreement, and is astounded that this is so. In fact, it’s part of the “catastrophe” he enumerates here. You misunderstand Roth and twist his clear terms to suit your function.
You call this brilliant man a poor political thinker even as you demonstrate publicly your own impoverished intellect.
What you fail to know is explicit in much of what Roth has produced in the past 40 years. He is, very often, an unashamedly ‘political’ intelligence [ see, The Plot Against America and the Prague Orgy for openers] and so to simultaneously give reasons for him as a brilliant writer trapped inside the body of an amoral political nitwit is to explicate only your cursory acquaintance with his body of work. Roth, like most liberals, does not despise America, he despises ignorance and wantonness.
yeah, what he said
People like you need to travel.
You need to look outside of america.
You have been radicalized.
Brilliant writer, but not much of a political thinker nor one with a sense of morality. It is astounding to have a Jewish person draw a moral equivalence of sorts between Bush and the insane criminal of Iran who wants to ruin Israel. What is it about the psyche of self-loathing, American-hating liberals, especially Jewish ones like Roth and Chomsky, that I don’t know???
No, its the ancient “if your arguments are absolutely onw-sided and only caters to the populus in order to sell more books, then you probably do not know what you are talking about”.
ah, the ancient “if you disagree with me you clearly don’t have a grasp of my intensity” line…
No, there is no logical leap. Saying that they ‘reckon they know’ does not imply that only certain people should be entitled to speak their minds on politics.
Who is allowed to speak against persons in charge? Well, the courts and the media of course.
I have no rage. But you have no knowledge of neither logic nor politics. Check these books and then come back: Forbes: Modern Logic. David Held: Models of Demcracy. Obviously, you also like to shoot your mouth on things you don’t know.
not sure you have made a logical leap there. firstly you say Roth “thinks he knows about politics” implying that only certain people are entitled to have political opinions. then you say “being in charge doesn’t mean you can do what you want” well, who is allowed speak out against persons “in charge”? unless you reckon Roth is “in charge” in which case, he’s entitlted to an opinion. too many contradictions- you have rage, but no real opinion.
No, I do not open my mouth on matters I do not know.
Besides, being in charge doesn’t mean you can do what you want.
yeah, when you know so much more… man, if only you were in charge, then you’d show ‘em, huh? aptly? am I aptly??
Fuckin authors thinks they know about politics.
I absolutely adhore Roth’s work. I dread after Kurt vonnegut’s death that Roth is one of the few “fantastic” writers alive.
I’ve read Portnoy’s Complaint, The Breast, and most of the Zuckerman novels. And I like his writing style.
why do all my acquaintances call me a slut? :
im so asinine xv
i fortuitously hit the thumbs down, but I sought after to place thumbs up because I had the exact same reaction. Anne from austin
he was not a prominent candidate at the time….and gore looked more liable to run….at the time.