prager university

This clip is not from prager university, but from a speech he gave in 2008. It is not for the squemish when it comes to the ideas of the left and the right. He does not hold back in this clip, and it might not be easy to listen to if you are left of center. If you are on the left you probably will not like this clip, but I am going to post it because I like the clip. Watch of your own free will, and please do not complain about the content, I have let you know up front about its content. Anything else is fair game for discussion. Criticise him and what he says all you want, that isn't a problem, and he would agree. I have tried to warn you.

Topics: Howard Zinn, the american left, fighting evil, leaving iraq, and others...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuF4pqPl1wM&feature=related
 
This is another clip of Dennis Prager at Denver university where he talks about the failure of past generations to pass on distincly American values. Another warning, a double dog warning, ****WARNING, FORMER GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN IS AT THIS EVENT AND IS SEATED NEXT TO MR. PRAGER**** Her part of the discussion as well as Hugh Hewitts part, he is seated next to Sarah Palin, are not part of the video. This is another insensitive video to some people. Watch of your own free will, don't blame me if you do not like what he says on the video. Then let's chat a while. Thanks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
billcihak said:
I am a big fan of Dennis Prager,
Click to expand...

A pretty fair scholar, and Jew who called for a newly elected Muslim U.S. Congressman to cermonially take his oath of office on a Christian Bible instead of a Q'uran.( I point out that he's Jewish to show the irony of a Jew insisting that a Muslim use the Christian Bible...:lol:) ........clearly a little confused about how this country is supposed to work. :lol:

billcihak said:
This clip is not from prager university, but from a speech he gave in 2008. It is not for the squemish when it comes to the ideas of the left and the right. He does not hold back in this clip, and it might not be easy to listen to if you are left of center. If you are on the left you probably will not like this clip, but I am going to post it because I like the clip. Watch of your own free will, and please do not complain about the content, I have let you know up front about its content. Anything else is fair game for discussion. Criticise him and what he says all you want, that isn't a problem, and he would agree. I have tried to warn you.

Topics: Howard Zinn, the american left, fighting evil, leaving iraq, and others...

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuF4pqPl1wM&feature=related[/URL]
Click to expand...

Just for the record, Bill, no matter what you might think, I'm not "left of center," though I might be thought of that way on some issues. In any case, I have to question is definition of "evil," and his definition of "fighting 'evil'" as "the highest good." There are those who would state-as simply as he has-that all wars are "evil," and "the highest good" is staying or getting out of them, and they're not all on "the left," some of them are rather experienced military officers.

As for Howard Zinn's answer to his question, I don't know is a perfectly valid answer, and the mark of an intelligent man who isn't about to speculate about something as speculative as whether or not the world would be a better or worse place if the U.S. had never come to be....there are no stupid questions, but posing that one to a historian comes close.
 
Last edited:
He mentions two specific examples of evil, Islamic terrorism, and communism, and you stated above that you would have to question his defintion of evil. He points out that the left has a problem in facing evil. It would seem that you might fit into that category with your questioning his definition of evil.

You said his question to howard zinn about the world being worse off without the United States was a borderline stupid question. Zinn had no answer and you seem to agree with Zinn.
 
where do you fall on the World war 2, korea, vietnam and islamic terrorism questions elder. Were they worthy noble undertakings and are communism and islamic terrorism evil? Have to sleep, talk to you later.
 
Here is dennis pragers column on the congressman swearing in on the Koran instead of the bible.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn...des_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on


First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath. Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

My star wars, footy pajamas are now on, so good night.
 
billcihak said:
He mentions two specific examples of evil, Islamic terrorism, and communism, and you stated above that you would have to question his defintion of evil. He points out that the left has a problem in facing evil. It would seem that you might fit into that category with your questioning his definition of evil.

You said his question to howard zinn about the world being worse off without the United States was a borderline stupid question. Zinn had no answer and you seem to agree with Zinn.
Click to expand...


Well, while we'd agree that Islamic terrorism is "evil,"ut I don't know that "fighting evil" is a higher good than "doing good for your fellow man."

I don't know that "communism" or "socialism" are "evil." Israel certainly doesn't think so, and neither do a few other countries. I don't know that it's possible for a simple political/philosophical ideology to be "evil" without outright embracing of "evil."

The Cultural Revolution and state-sanctioned cannibalism in China? Evil.

"Communism?" Not so much...in fact, it's most prominent examples of U.S. enmity mostly faded away as communist states: the Soviet Union is no more, and China is approaching the status of capitalist superpower, as well as demographically and culturally defeating it's bankrupt political ideologies.

And it was a borderline stupid question: how in the name of Zeus' balls is Zinn supposed to know what the world would be like without the United States? Without the United States we all might still be British, and have defeated Germany once and for all in 1918. The world could be a British Empire, and we could be driving Russian cars to go with our Japanese ones. It might have been a peaceful paradise since WWI-one without nuclear weapons, concentration camps of any kind, the Holocaust or the state of Israel (much more interesting question: would the world be a better place without the socialist paradise of Israel?) or Islamo-terrorism.

Of course, that's not the answer he was looking for, but it's just as possible as the dark place he was envisioning. In the meantime, I'm an American: I love the U.S. and I love being from here-but I don't know is an honest, intelligent answer to a question that doesn't really have an answer.

billcihak said:
where do you fall on the World war 2, korea, vietnam and islamic terrorism questions elder. Were they worthy noble undertakings and are communism and islamic terrorism evil? Have to sleep, talk to you later.
Click to expand...

WWII? Sure-a worthy undertaking. Don't know that I'd call it "noble," but we might not have the same definition there, either. After all, the U.S.'s reasons for entering the war can't be seen as entirely altruistic-that sneaky Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor notwithstanding.

Korea? A fair response to what was, for the time,reasonable to view as a legitimate threat. Worthy undertaking? Sure. Noble? See above.

Vietnam? History shows that except for the economic benefits to the U.S. while it was taking place, it was an almost complete waste of time, spent in support of a corrupt and cowardly regime that was no more interested in "winning" than we ever were.

No, communism isn't "evil"-a few of the governments that have called themselves "communist" have had some evil practices, just as all governments-including (some would say especially)ours-have. It's also debatable for many just how "communist" the Soviet Union actually was (heck, many Communists from Trotsky on said that the Soviet Union was a "degenerated worker's state"), or China and North Korea actually are. In any case, Plato and Thomas More both espoused the central themes that communism defines itself by:a classless society with common ownership of production, free access to products and no wage labor or private property-all things that neither the old Soviet Union or China have achieved, but hunter-gatherer societies and various Christian movements from the 13th centrury on did, in keeping with the Acts of the Apostles: "all things held in common."

"A classless society with common ownership of production, free access to products and no wage labor or private property." What's "evil" about that? It isn't how I want to live, but it's certainly not "evil." It just doesn't work for larger, diverse societies like ours, or Soviet Russia and its various satellite states, apparently.

I've already said that yes, the actions of "islamic terrorism" are "evil"-so, how is Prager talking about me, exactly?
 
Last edited:
billcihak said:
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Click to expand...


This is, perhaps, the single most jingoistic pile of bovine excretia I've ever encountered here.:rolleyes:

Prager is just plain wrong in a few places, but chiefly he's wrong beccause he's got it completely bass ackwards.

From Article VI, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Click to expand...

So, the Founders, and our foundational government document, says that Mr. Ellison decides what book he swears on, and not "America." more to the point, the oath is administered to all the newly elected at once, absent any book, and the individual thing with books is a repeated, largely ceremonial photo-op.

billcihak said:
Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
Click to expand...

Culbert Olson, the 29th governor of California-elected in 1939, was an atheist who refused to say "so help me God," or put his hand on a Bible when sworn in, and said "I affirm" instead. Prager is FOS on this one. As for the "racist" swearing on Mein Kampf, I'd argue that if his constituents knowingly elected such a hypothetical individual, it would not only be his right-one that our troops fight for-but it would be what the people he worked for expected.

Of course, "Mein Kampf" can hardly be compared to the Q'uran, which is the holy scripture of 1.57 billion people-nearly 1 in 4.
 
Last edited:
billcihak said:
He points out that the left has a problem in facing evil.
Click to expand...

Thats nuts. After 9/11 happened, everybody, including the left, sympathized with the United States. I was in university then, and that time, as well as on the first anniversary of it, thousands gathered for a 2 minute silence out on the university campus - I was there and that included all my friends and acquaintences including profs who are on the left of center. Leftists dont agree with evil any more than anyone else does.

This year is the tenth anniversary, and I intend to hold a 2 min silence by myself.
 
elder999 said:
Well, yeah, that'd be another shining example of the kind of thought processes you've introduced us all to since arriving here. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

heh. I have to admit, I like Billcihak. Sure his beliefs are funny and weird to me and I dont agree with them nearly 100% of the time lol - but he's nice and he dont treat me bad just cause Im a leftist. :)
 
billcihak said:
where do you fall on the World war 2, korea, vietnam and islamic terrorism questions elder. Were they worthy noble undertakings and are communism and islamic terrorism evil? Have to sleep, talk to you later.[/quote]


I can't decide whether you are 12 hours ahead or behind me in real time ( in political time I'd say you were back in the 1950s lol) This is a bit important as Bob has posted the site is going offline at 1000hr New York time and I'm damned if I know when that is!
Click to expand...
 
Tez3 said:
can't decide whether you are 12 hours ahead or behind me in real time ( in political time I'd say you were back in the 1950s lol) This is a bit important as Bob has posted the site is going offline at 1000hr New York time and I'm damned if I know when that is!
Click to expand...


Irene, NY is 5 hrs. behind GMT, so 2200 hrs. ("10:00 PM") on 1/16 is 0300 1/17 for you. :wink:
 
I have family stuff but real quick, the communists who committed evil will more than likely not believe they are actually doing evil, the same with most evil actions. Talk to anyone who is involved with criminals, they will probably tell you the same thing.

Communism, is evil, you can see it in its results. the men who led the communist movements didn't call themselves capitalists, and we didn't have the Union of Capitalist republics. They also didn't set up gulags and death camps because of Adam Smith and the wealth of nations. Adios.
 
billcihak said:
I have family stuff but real quick, the communists who committed evil will more than likely not believe they are actually doing evil, the same with most evil actions. Talk to anyone who is involved with criminals, they will probably tell you the same thing.

Communism, is evil, you can see it in its results. the men who led the communist movements didn't call themselves capitalists, and we didn't have the Union of Capitalist republics. They also didn't set up gulags and death camps because of Adam Smith and the wealth of nations. Adios.
Click to expand...


Sigh, There are evil people everywhere. I don't suppose they thought they were doing evil, I imagine they thought they were doing it to give themselves power and wealth all the usual things dictators go for. Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin, Franco, Tito etc. etc. etc. all have one thing in common and it's not their politics, it's that they were men out for themselves. Communism is an inanimate political theory, it can't be evil. In the hands of evil men it can be used for evil but the same can be said of capitalism, in the hands of evil men it too can be used for evil.

Long before communism was thought of and named there was more than enough evil, it was done in the name of religions and monarchs, two things that are the polar opposites of communism. Evil has been done in the name of wiping out communism, it's been done in the name of patriotism and it's been done in the name of the people as well as the state.
Focussing on the 'evils' of communism means you will miss the evil that is elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Michelle Malkin's collection of hate

Previous Thread

Suggestion Study posters.

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top