She asks her questions as though she really finds the ideas in his book as new concepts, proving that conservative pundits are unencumbered by both facts and history. Robin must have had to grit his teeth when he learned that a lightweight like Cupp would be interviewing him for C-Span. Such a bittersweet promotional exercise.
I don't care to address your whole point and I'm not even going to bother with a retort on your points. But on the subject of religion let me just say I think that if you can't develop a religious view that is both personal and inqusitive to the point where it is always taking in more and more educated notions. Then you might as well surrender to group think, which is all to common and ironically it is the antithesis of religion.
Actually, no: each believed in or believes activity, and supports that activity in decency in impulse, . . . and not in mere imagination, such as say, 'Lord' Bentsen, Edward Kennedy, Pelosi, Frank, and Reid. Here, just now, the difference is that, I will state in reliance upon reason, and your post is an attempted reliance upon mere conclusory allegation, . . . Pal, ya need some book-larnin', . . .
I think he's extremely confused, which is probably why the rest of this interview was cut short for this video. One of the massive problems with this man's book is that he compares Liberalism to Conservatism as opposing forces. He forgets (or ignores the fact) that Liberalism is one of the components that makes up Conservatism. Conservatism is just Liberalism extended through time. Conservatism is only opposed to PROGRESSIVE liberals, who seek change out of boredom, rather than necessity.
She asks her questions as though she really finds the ideas in his book as new concepts, proving that conservative pundits are unencumbered by both facts and history. Robin must have had to grit his teeth when he learned that a lightweight like Cupp would be interviewing him for C-Span. Such a bittersweet promotional exercise.
Why cut the interview off?
Can you give me some examples of progressive changes that were done out of boredom and not necessity?
Where's the rest m8
Author to author? Bwahaha. Just had to throw that in, huh, Mr. Cupp? As if a children's author is the same as a real one.
That was rather smirkable.
Yeah, I heard that too. An embarrassing moment, IMO.
Se cupp is NOWHERE near the league of corey robin
Listen to how sophisticated this is...
S.E. Cupp so very much makes my skin crawl.
I don't care to address your whole point and I'm not even going to bother with a retort on your points. But on the subject of religion let me just say I think that if you can't develop a religious view that is both personal and inqusitive to the point where it is always taking in more and more educated notions. Then you might as well surrender to group think, which is all to common and ironically it is the antithesis of religion.
Actually, no: each believed in or believes activity, and supports that activity in decency in impulse, . . . and not in mere imagination, such as say, 'Lord' Bentsen, Edward Kennedy, Pelosi, Frank, and Reid. Here, just now, the difference is that, I will state in reliance upon reason, and your post is an attempted reliance upon mere conclusory allegation, . . . Pal, ya need some book-larnin', . . .
Who cares?? All you people putting down her looks must be either gay, or jealous women. She's a fine looking woman.
I think he's extremely confused, which is probably why the rest of this interview was cut short for this video. One of the massive problems with this man's book is that he compares Liberalism to Conservatism as opposing forces. He forgets (or ignores the fact) that Liberalism is one of the components that makes up Conservatism. Conservatism is just Liberalism extended through time. Conservatism is only opposed to PROGRESSIVE liberals, who seek change out of boredom, rather than necessity.
Opinions are like noses: everybody has one.
What about Tycho Brahe
Yes mate you've illustrated nasal anatomy quite well here. I'm afraid that's all you've done
phony glasses