Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

Interview with Philip Roth (Part 2)

May 31th 2006  
 
Customize

More From: moinbo

Loading...

QuickList(0)

52 ratings
Sign in to rate
20,419 views
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...

Video Responses (1)

Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (35)   Options

Loading...
detectivesyme (1 month ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
What a fool Roth is, equating Bush with Ahmadinejad. He loves Gore, meanwhile Gore has been a hawk on Iraq for 15 years. How dumb he looks now that Obama has truly destroyed the country.
drewsyboy24 (9 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
yeah, what he said
dennisoneill4 (10 months ago) Show Hide
 -7
Marked as spam
pakarpis (10 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
People like you need to travel.
You need to look outside of america.
You have been radicalized.
molloyx (9 months ago) Show Hide
+3
Marked as spam
What you fail to understand 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 describe 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 hate America, he hates ignorance and depravity.
StoutHaus (8 months ago) Show Hide
+2
Marked as spam
Roth said the president 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 words to suit your purpose.

You call this brilliant man a poor political thinker even as you demonstrate publicly your own impoverished intellect.
schrire39 (1 year ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
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 those "in charge"? unless you think Roth is "in charge" in which case, he's entitlted to an opinion. too many contradictions- you have anger, but no real opinion.
somor98 (1 year ago) Show Hide
 -3
Marked as spam
No, there is no logical leap. Saying that they 'think they know' does not imply that only certain people should be entitled to speak their minds on politics.
Who is allowed to speak against those in charge? Well, the courts and the media of course.
I have no anger. 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 understand.
schrire39 (11 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
ah, the old "if you disagree with me you clearly don't have a grasp of my brilliance" line...
somor98 (11 months ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
No, its the old "if your arguments are utterly 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".

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.