# prager university



## billc (Jan 15, 2011)

I am a big fan of Dennis Prager, and I just found his video series, Prager University, on youtube.  He has made a bunch of 5 minute videos where he discusses various topics.  For an example, I present:  Are people basically good?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWzj78fSm-4&feature=channel


----------



## billc (Jan 15, 2011)

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


----------



## billc (Jan 15, 2011)

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.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I am a big fan of Dennis Prager,


 
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]


 
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.


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

Elder, I do believe Mr. Prager was talking about you in two of those clips.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Elder, I do believe Mr. Prager was talking about you in two of those clips.


 

Well, yeah, that'd be another shining example of the kind of thought processes you've introduced us all to since arriving here.


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

Hugs and kisses right back to you elder.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Elder, I do believe Mr. Prager was talking about you in two of those clips.


 

Okay, then, bill-in the interest of discussion-which two was he "talking about me", and just  how is it "me" he was talking about? (Since you seem to know *so much* about _me_....:lol: )


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

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.


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

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.


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

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.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2011)

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.


 

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.


 
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?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2011)

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*_.


 

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

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*.


 
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?


 
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.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> He points out that the left has a problem in facing evil.



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.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 16, 2011)

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.



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.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2011)

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!


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2011)

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!


 

Irene, NY is 5 hrs. behind GMT, so 2200 hrs. ("10:00 PM") on 1/16 is 0300 1/17 for you. :wink:


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Irene, NY is 5 hrs. behind GMT, so 2200 hrs. ("10:00 PM") on 1/16 is 0300 1/17 for you. :wink:


 
Thanks for that!


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

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.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2011)

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.


 

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.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> 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
> 
> ...


 

So I would not be able to use a Torah?

Only some of America regard the Xtian bible as their holiest book.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 16, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> So I would not be able to use a Torah?
> 
> Only some of America regard the Xtian bible as their holiest book.



good question considering you're Jewish, so by Bill's argument if you were in america you'd have to use the bible and who cared if you didnt follow that religion, you'd be forced to use that book.


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

From the aricle on the bible:

But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.


When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization.

  From me:  At a minimum, tradition, and by not doing it the way everyone else has done it, it is disrespectful of that tradition.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> So I would not be able to use a Torah?
> 
> Only some of America regard the Xtian bible as their holiest book.


 
I imagine that would include a great many Native Americans?


----------



## granfire (Jan 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> From the aricle on the bible:
> 
> But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.
> 
> ...



Stop and think of that for a second:
Swearing an oath on something that is not important or relevant in your believes, how good is that oath?!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2011)

Bill, you seem to have simplified it all again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an_oath_controversy_of_the_110th_United_States_Congress


"The United States Congress does not officially swear anyone in using any holy book, "No Member of Congress is officially sworn in with a Bible. Under House rules, the official swearing-in ceremony is done in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office _en masse_. No Bibles or other holy books are used at all"



"In 1825, John Quincy Adams took the presidential oath using a law volume [that contained a copy of the Constitution] instead of a Bible, and in 1853, Franklin Pierce affirmed the oath rather than swearing it. Herbert Hoover, citing his Quaker beliefs, also affirmed his oath in 1929 but did use a Bible, according to the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Theodore Roosevelt used no Bible in taking his first oath of office in 1901, but did in 1905."[21] Other sources have noted that after John F. Kennedy was assassinated a Catholic Missal was used as no Bible could be found when Lyndon B. Johnson (who was not even Catholic himself, but a Disciple of Christ[26]) had to assume the Presidency"

"Prager's Nov. 28, 2006 article claimed that "for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament".[3] While for all of American history Jews elected to public office have indeed taken their oath on the Bible, several American members of Judaism elected to political office "have departed from the [Christian] Bible as well. Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle used the Tanakh when she took her oath in 2002, and Madeleine Kunin placed her hand on Jewish prayer books when she was sworn in as the first female governor of Vermont in 1985."[21] In the Federal Congress Debbie Wasserman Schultz also used a Tanakh (see above), as did Ed Koch (D-NY) who served in the US House from 1969 to 1977.[34] Likewise, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) who is now entering his seventeenth term of office, stated "he had never used a [Christian] Bible at his own swearing-in ceremonies."


Of course this is the bit I like.

"Mohammad Sarwar  the United Kingdom's first Muslim Member of Parliament  was elected in the 1997 general election. He swore the Oath of Allegiance on the Qur'an"[ *with no notable controversy or criticismhttp://martialtalk.com/forum/#cite_note-Koch-33*


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

idn't swear by it, because I believe he was a Quaker. That's a very different story."[28] On "Hannity and Colmes" Prager stated "The only president who did not have a Bible was Theodore Roosevelt, first term, and it was because [President William] McKinley had just been shot. Every president used a Bible.

In the Federal Congress Debbie Wasserman Schultz also used a Tanakh (see above), as did Ed Koch (D-NY) who served in the US House from 1969 to 1977.[34] Likewise, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) who is now entering his seventeenth term of office, stated "he had never used a [Christian] Bible at his own swearing-in ceremonies."[34]

When asked about this Prager said these "Jewish officeholders who had insisted on the Hebrew Bible were "secularists" who didn't believe what was in it anyway."[33]

When confronted on November 30, 2006 CNN's Paula Zahn Now by Eugene Volokh with the fact that "[Associate] Justice [of the Supreme Court, Arthur] Goldberg used the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible." Prager responded "Justice Goldberg used [the] Old Testament, which is part of the American Bible." Volokh began to point out that the lack of New Testament in Goldberg's Bible proved that Prager's assertions were mistaken, but was cut off as the segment ran out of time.[28]

In his Dec. 5, 2006 article Prager again acknowledged some Jews had used the Tanakh, "Even the vast majority of Jews elected to office have used a Bible containing both the Old and New Testaments, even though Jews do not regard the New Testament as part of their Bible. A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it."[5]


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 16, 2011)

I would never get close to a Xtian bible. And Jews don't swear, they affirm. The idea of using your religious text is that you are taking your oath in the presence and the name of your G-d. If I have to use a Xtian bible might as well use a phone book.

Believe me, I understand tradition. Very likely more than you. But forcing non-Xtians to use your bible because of 'tradition' is downright insulting and I'd say verges on bigotry. It can also be viewed as setting a religious text. 

Contrary to Prager's assertion, it is the Jews who used the Xtian bible that were secularist and did not care. The ones insisting on a Hebrew bible cared a lot more about religion.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> idn't swear by it, because I believe he was a Quaker. That's a very different story."[28] On "Hannity and Colmes" Prager stated "The only president who did not have a Bible was Theodore Roosevelt, first term, and it was because [President William] McKinley had just been shot. Every president used a Bible.
> 
> In the Federal Congress Debbie Wasserman Schultz also used a Tanakh (see above), as did Ed Koch (D-NY) who served in the US House from 1969 to 1977.[34] Likewise, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) who is now entering his seventeenth term of office, stated "he had never used a [Christian] Bible at his own swearing-in ceremonies."[34]
> 
> ...


 


What a ridiculous argument, firstly it's *all *Jews have used the Bible then when it's pointed out that some haven't so it's 'well they aren't real Jews'. If he really were a religious Jew he'd know that using a Bible would carry as much weight as a dictionary in making the oath religiously valid, it's truly a farce.

Nothing this man Prager says is anything other than glory and publicity seeking. He's laughable.


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

He didn't say they weren't "real" jews, he said they were secular jews.  State level office holders are not the same as federal office holders as each state has their own constitution and traditions and practices.  In each case, at the federal level an element of judeo christian belief is part of the ceremony, and remember, these people are already sworn in so it is not a religous test.  Praeger also does not say he should be kept from serving, it is, in my opinion a flaunting of tradition.  The notion that other texts may start popping up in the ceremonies is also valid.  We'll see what happens in the future, once that door is opened you never know what will walk in.

For example, now that Don't ask, don't tell has been repealed, the move for putting women in frontline infantry combat is starting up.  Just heard that on the news.  Change tradition slowly or you won't like what you get in the future.


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

Well, communism, in its practice is evil.  It has been tried around the world, by different cultures and has produced destruction on a massive scale.  You do not see communim as evil.  Howard Zinn answered the question with " I don't Know,"  you essentially did as well.  That is two out of three of his points where you line up with liberal thinking.  Would the world be a better or  worse place without the United States having existed is a question that reveals a basic view of the united states and its contribution to the world.  It doesn't seem that Zinn gave an on the one hand or other hand response, just " I don't Know."  If you see the united states on balance as a positive force for good, the anwser is easy. the world would be worse off without its existence.  
If you see america as no better, and in a lot of ways worse than other countries than an "I don't know," is probably an answer that best reflects that viewpoint.  It is sort of an ink blot test.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well, communism, in its practice is evil. It has been tried around the world, by different cultures and has produced destruction on a massive scale. You do not see communim as evil. Howard Zinn answered the question with " I don't Know," you essentially did as well. That is two out of three of his points where you line up with liberal thinking. Would the world be a better or worse place without the United States having existed is a question that reveals a basic view of the united states and its contribution to the world. It doesn't seem that Zinn gave an on the one hand or other hand response, just " I don't Know." If you see the united states on balance as a positive force for good, the anwser is easy. the world would be worse off without its existence.
> If you see america as no better, and in a lot of ways worse than other countries than an "I don't know," is probably an answer that best reflects that viewpoint. It is sort of an ink blot test.


 
Who is this aimed at and what are you actually saying?


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

Sorry, responding to Elder.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The notion that other texts may start popping up in the ceremonies is also valid. We'll see what happens in the future, once that door is opened you never know what will walk in.


 

Other text have been used in the past. Never was a problem.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> He didn't say they weren't "real" jews, he said they were secular jews. State level office holders are not the same as federal office holders as each state has their own constitution and traditions and practices. In each case, at the federal level an element of judeo christian belief is part of the ceremony, and remember, these people are already sworn in so it is not a religous test. Praeger also does not say he should be kept from serving, it is, in my opinion a flaunting of tradition. The notion that other texts may start popping up in the ceremonies is also valid. We'll see what happens in the future, once that door is opened you never know what will walk in.
> 
> For example, now that Don't ask, don't tell has been repealed, the move for putting women in frontline infantry combat is starting up. Just heard that on the news. Change tradition slowly or you won't like what you get in the future.


 


I'm sorry but you are talking from a country who's 'traditions' are younger than my garden wall. We have tradtions but can change them as you can see by allowing a Moslum PM to take his oath on the Koran, nobody thought it odd, in fact it would have been odd if he had not.
Our armed forces have been taking gays legally for a long time now, no problems and our army and navy are considerable older and have far more 'traditions' than yours. 

For a young country America is very staid and prudish as well as being old fashioned, where's the revolutionary fire you had when you started, to be new, to be free from 'traditions', to be your own country?


----------



## granfire (Jan 17, 2011)

Frankly, I think they ought to swear on the constitution, I don't care if God or their Mother-in-law helps them...


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 17, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'm sorry but you are talking from a country who's 'traditions' are younger than my garden wall.
> 
> For a young country America is very staid and prudish as well as being old fashioned, where's the revolutionary fire you had when you started, to be new, to be free from 'traditions', to be your own country?



Newfoundland has traditions that are older than America. and we're just a little tiny island.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 17, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> For a young country America is very staid and prudish as well as being old fashioned, where's the revolutionary fire you had when you started, to be new, to be free from 'traditions', to be your own country?


 
Not everything needs to, or should, change.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not everything needs to, or should, change.


 
One should be open minded about change, sometimes it's needful, sometimes it's not.
To get entrenched though isn't a good thing. If some people hadn't thought change was a good thing would you still have segregation?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 18, 2011)

billcihak said:


> 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.


 
Remember that.

I want to address this first, though, because it demonstrates a distinct lack of critical thinking on your part, and just downright _lazy_ thinking on Prager&#8217;s fault:




billcihak said:


> Howard Zinn answered the question with " I don't Know," you essentially did as well. That is two out of three of his points where you line up with liberal thinking. Would the world be a better or worse place without the United States having existed is a question that reveals a basic view of the united states and its contribution to the world. It doesn't seem that Zinn gave an on the one hand or other hand response, just " I don't Know." If you see the united states on balance as a positive force for good, the anwser is easy. the world would be worse off without its existence.





billcihak said:


> If you see america as no better, and in a lot of ways worse than other countries than an "I don't know," is probably an answer that best reflects that viewpoint. It is sort of an ink blot test.


 
It is no sort of ink blot test at all.

I demonstrated up thread just one of the ways that the world might be better off without the United States ever having been,and how the world might not have needed the U.S.&#8217;s contribution. With a little imagination, it&#8217;s easy to recognize that if we&#8217;d remained British colonies, slavery would have been abolished in 1815, and there would have been no civil war. The British-as in the government of Great Britain, not colonial authorities-also never broke a treaty they made with the Indians-just ask the Mohawk Nation.

One really cannot answer a positive question from a negative supposition, though-any more _than we can answer that the world would be better off without having had Nazi Germany, and *the unifying influence* of their_ enmity in WWII. &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; means just that, *I *_don&#8217;t know_, and how could he? The question is only meant to prejudice the weak minded against Howard Zinn&#8230;&#8230;those of us who can *think for ourselves* aren't about to wave the flag with our chin, like Hannity:_the United States is the greatest, best country God ever gave to man."_
Please. 




billcihak said:


> Well, communism, in its practice is evil. It has been tried around the world, by different cultures and has produced destruction on a massive scale. You do not see communim as evil.


 



billcihak said:


> 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.


 
Yes-much evil was done in the _name_ of communism, but are the evils and depredations of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and their followers the evils of communism, or just those of men? As a case in point, communism is supposed to be a classless society, but none of those places was ever truly &#8220;classless.&#8221; Indeed, the Soviet Union (of *Socialis*t Republics) made the distinction of calling itself &#8220;socialist&#8221; because Marx and Lenin called socialism a transitional step towards communism. In the meantime, they were never truly &#8220;communist,&#8221; they just claimed to be, and that&#8217;s what we called them.

On another front, I can list a long line of evils, including gulags and death camps (what you might call &#8220;Indian Reservations&#8221 done almost entirely y in the name of capitalism-as well as depredations like mass poisonings, both chronic and acute, as well as their cover ups. I could start, in fact, with Love Canal, in my home state of New York, and continue right through the Bhopal disaster-neither in itself willfully evil or intentional, but their intentional cover up and years long litigations to avoid responsibility *were*. One can also look to our government&#8217;s direct interference in places like Iran-the deliberate unseating of a democratically elected government and replacement with an oppressive monarch that ultimately led to the student uprisings, installation of theocracy and all our current troubles with Iran-just one case of the evil capitalism has sewn being reaped by us all.


----------



## billc (Jan 18, 2011)

bhopal, accident.  Love Canal, as I remember reading in Dixie lee ray's book, I think it was, the town and school board were told not to build anything on the site.  The article you sited specifies this,

"Hooker Chemical sold this site to the Niagara Falls School Board with a deed explicitly detailing the danger contained within the site, and including a liability limitation clause about the contamination."

Far different than the intentional mass murders of close to 100 million people in the pursuit of true communism.  Just because they didn't actually become communists didn't meant that they weren't eliminating both class enemies and personal enemies and anyone who got in their way.  From Hitler, to Stalin, mao, Ho, pol pot, and the othe little communist movements, they all murdered in the name of the state.  Intentionally.  Not accidents with the crimes being the cover-up.

The reloacation and Indian wars were in the 1800's.  The Mass murder of 70 million people happened after world war 2, the modern age.  Stalin and Hitler were the 1930's and 40's.  Vietnam and cambodia 1960's.   Communism is based on destroying the current system and eliminating class enemies.  Not exactly "turn the other cheek" philisophical content.  Jealousy and hate for those who have more than you are part of the lifeblood of communism.  As Capitalism advances it becomes better, as communism advances it kills more people.


----------



## billc (Jan 18, 2011)

throwing out a Soviet, communist puppet, not a big deal.  Carter helping religous fanatics take over, big mistake.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 18, 2011)

billcihak said:


> throwing out a Soviet, communist puppet, not a big deal. Carter helping religous fanatics take over, big mistake.


 

Again, a lack of critical thinking, for you wouldn't have had the one without the other, so long before......and Mossadegh's distaste for socialism was open and public; it was Winston Churchill's lies, born of frustration at the nationalization of Iran's oil, that labeled the freely and democratically elected president of Iran a Soviet, communist puppet.



billcihak said:


> The reloacation and Indian wars were in the 1800's. .


 
My friend and teacher, Henry Gomez, like many others, was forcibly removed from his home in Taos pueblo, was taken to a "boarding school," had his hair cut off, was made to wear unfamiliar clothing, and forbidden-_to the point of beating-_from speaking his native language.

In *1925.*


----------



## billc (Jan 18, 2011)

Millions of Kulaks were starved to death or outright murdered because they owned their own land.  Was it a third of the cambodian population was murdered in order to create a "new Man."  70 million chinese, murdered in pursuit of the communist utopia, which they are now abandoning in favor of a more captialist model.  What happened to your friend was wrong and shouldn't have happened.  That doesn't make communism any less evil.  Communists committed more murder than any other economic or political system.  It has been tried around the world and resulted in the same tragic outcome.  It's hatred of the rich leads to death and tragedy.

  Love Canal was government incompetence as sited by your own source.  the school board was warned of the danger and If I remember correctly they were told not to build anything on the site, let alone a school.  They ignored the warning.


----------



## billc (Jan 18, 2011)

Nice talking to you elder, sweet dreams.  Don't let the bed bugs bite.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 18, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Love Canal was government incompetence as sited by your own source.


 

In my world, next to negligence, there is no greater evil than *incompetence,* and all of our governments, local, state and federal, in this, the _greatest, best country ever given by God to man_, are *capitalist *in their incompetence: Love Canal is a perfect example of evil motivated by base concern for profit and production, in this case from government entities at the onset, and corporations at the close: both the school board and Hooker Chemical refused to accept responsibility.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 18, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well, communism, in its practice is evil. It has been tried around the world, by different cultures and has produced destruction on a massive scale.


 
Im not sure Communism in its self is evil.  In theory its the perfect society. The reason it will never work is because its done by man and man is not perfect.  Its just not practical because man itself is flawed.  For communism to really work we would have to give up things like a drive to do better, wanting nicer things, our individuality, our dreams of our kids doing better then us.  It would rely on people inventing new ideas and products for the greater good and not for self benefit.  It would rely on nobody being lazy and everyone doing their own part.  I think where it has gone bad is people are not willing to do these things so they must be forced at gun point and killed to get them to comply and thats where it becomes evil.  Communism is just an idea and cant be good or bad its how its applied.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 18, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> communism is just an idea and cant be good or bad its how its applied.


 
*qft*


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Millions of Kulaks were starved to death or outright murdered because they owned their own land.  Was it a third of the cambodian population was murdered in order to create a "new Man."  70 million chinese, murdered in pursuit of the communist utopia, which they are now abandoning in favor of a more captialist model.  What happened to your friend was wrong and shouldn't have happened.  That doesn't make communism any less evil.  Communists committed more murder than any other economic or political system.  It has been tried around the world and resulted in the same tragic outcome.  It's hatred of the rich leads to death and tragedy.
> 
> Love Canal was government incompetence as sited by your own source.  the school board was warned of the danger and If I remember correctly they were told not to build anything on the site, let alone a school.  They ignored the warning.



Actually at the time of Lenin's 'war communism' as it was called that period between 1918 and 1921 (when the New Economic Policy was introduced, true real kulaks, using the word as defined by the bolsheviks and not by tthe russian peasants themselves, made up about actually only 1% of the total peasant population. 'Kulak' a Russian word that means 'fist', as defined by the bolsheviks, was essentially a myth.



ballen0351 said:


> I&#8217;m not sure Communism in its self is evil.  In theory its the perfect society. The reason it will never work is because its done by man and man is not perfect.  Its just not practical because man itself is flawed.  For communism to really work we would have to give up things like a drive to do better, wanting nicer things, our individuality, our dreams of our kids doing better then us.  It would rely on people inventing new ideas and products for the greater good and not for self benefit.  It would rely on nobody being lazy and everyone doing their own part.  I think where it has gone bad is people are not willing to do these things so they must be forced at gun point and killed to get them to comply and that&#8217;s where it becomes evil.  Communism is just an idea and can&#8217;t be good or bad its how it&#8217;s applied.



Wow, did I just agree with Ballen on something? 

Probably the right thing to do is to have a mixture of a society with elements of both theories, the capitalist and communist/socialist. we cant be perfect but there are some good ideas in both theories.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 19, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Probably the right thing to do is to have a mixture of a society with elements of both theories, the capitalist and communist/socialist. we cant be perfect but there are some good ideas in both theories.


 
Having a *society *work in this manner I don't have a problem with.  Having a *government *work in this way is where I have the problem.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 19, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Having a *society *work in this manner I don't have a problem with.  Having a *government *work in this way is where I have the problem.



well there seems like would be problems if a government decided to work using only one or the other, does there?

I am mostly leftist but even I can see that.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 19, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> well there seems like would be problems if a government decided to work using only one or the other, does there?
> 
> I am mostly leftist but even I can see that.


 
As it has been a long and stressful day for me, for now I will simply have to ask: what problems?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 19, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> As it has been a long and stressful day for me, for now I will simply have to ask: what problems?



There are many collective action problems (i.e. tragedy of the commons)that crop up in capitalism and other systems that only a government of some sort is well suited to address.   A pure _laissez faire _government would be unable to address these problems, to the detriment of all.  Mixed systems work best, which is certainly borne out by the data - and yes, the United States is a mixed system too, and it works pretty well.


----------



## billc (Jan 19, 2011)

I saw a discussion of the tragedy of the commons on John Stossles show, and the tragedy occurs when there is a lack of private ownership, because no one feels solely responsible for the "commons."  They pointed to public parks in New York, Indian reservations in the west and another one.  When a private company came in and took over running several public parks, the parks were cleaned up and people started coming back.  the criminals were chased off and the homless people were still there, I forget exactly what they said about the homeless people.  I think it was that since there were more non-homless people in he park the homeless were less of a problem.

Capitalism fixes the "tragedy of the commons," it doesn't cause it.

John Stossles column on the "tragedy of the commons"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_tragedy_of_the_commons.html

            What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. But the problem has been known since ancient Greece. As Aristotle noted, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."
   When action is divorced from consequences, no one is happy with the ultimate outcome. If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in it, each person has an incentive to be a free rider, to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon, the pot is empty and will not be refilled -- a bad situation even for the earlier takers.
   What private property does -- as the Pilgrims discovered -- is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce far more. Then, if there's a free market, people will trade their surpluses to others for the things they lack. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer. 
   Secure property rights are the key. When producers know that their future products are safe from confiscation, they will take risks and invest. But when they fear they will be deprived of the fruits of their labor, they will do as little as possible. 
              That's the lost lesson of Thanksgiving.

                                                           Copyright 2007, Creators Syndicate, Inc.










    Facebook     |    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




    Email    |    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Print           |    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Comments *Related Topics:* 
*Sponsored Links*




Login  |  Register  |   RSS 





*John Stossel* 
Author Archive 
*Latest From this Author*



 Legalize All Drugs
 

 The Entitlement Mess
 

 Will McCain Let Us Fight?
 

 Windfall-Profit Nonsense
 

 McCain Finds His Crisis in Global Warming


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2011)

Plymouth suffered? good grief you haven't seen in on a Saturday night when the bootnecks and matelots are on a run ashore! It's GLORIOUS!, booze, fights, amazing craic, a wonderful place to be! Ah, Union Street...the memories.....sigh.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2011)

You do know-from your prievious thread-that Stossel has the wrong "Thanksgiving," demonstrating sloppy scholarship, and sloppy and lazy journalism? The feast we all commemorate took place in 1621, under the communal rules-the 1623 event that he and the Pilgrims referred to as "Thanksgiving" was a day of prayer where the Pilgrims gave thanks for being saved from their stupidity and incompetence by new settlers, boats and livestock.

Odd, too, that tribal villages have thrived under communalism for thousands of years. Israel was founded under communalism, and "hasn't" suffered from it.

 I say the flaw isn't in the system, it's in the people.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I say the flaw isn't in the system, it's in the people.


 And thats for all systems communism, capitalism, democracy, dictatorships.  All systems could be good or bad its all in the people that run them.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> You do know-from your prievious thread-that Stossel has the wrong "Thanksgiving," demonstrating sloppy scholarship, and sloppy and lazy journalism? The feast we all commemorate took place in 1621, under the communal rules-the 1623 event that he and the Pilgrims referred to as "Thanksgiving" was a day of prayer where the Pilgrims gave thanks for being saved from their stupidity and incompetence by new settlers, boats and livestock.
> 
> Odd, too, that tribal villages have thrived under communalism for thousands of years. Israel was founded under communalism, and "hasn't" suffered from it.
> 
> I say the flaw isn't in the system, it's in the people.


 
I've stopped taking this seriously, as you've said we've done all this.

I vote we write a script for Blackadder as a Founding Father and Baldrick as always his loyal servant trading with the Native Americans.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I say the flaw isn't in the system, it's in the people.



thats cause people suck. lol.


----------



## aedrasteia (Jan 19, 2011)

Bill

maybe this can help:
full explanation  www.scq.ubc.ca/tragedy-of-the-commons-explained-with-smurfs/
*TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS EXPLAINED WITH SMURFS*

By Ryan Somma​   	  		Our Earth is filled with finite resources that we, as the Human  Race, exploit for personal gain. Oil, Fish Stocks, Forests, Clean Air,  and water are just a few of the resources that nobody owns, but  everybody needs in order to survive. However, in our current system,  nobody who is taking away these natural resources from the whole of us  has to pay back into the natural system. Thus, there is a great  incentive to consume all of the available resources before somebody else  gets to them, Garrett Hardin called this nuance the Tragedy of the  Commons.
 Lets take Smurfs as a natural resource. There are 100 smurfs living  in smurf village and they do not reproduce. Every Saturday in the 1980s,  entertainment producers broadcast a show documenting the life and times  of Smurf Village, and made money from the advertising revenue brought  in from millions of viewers watching the show. The cartoons producers  use the smurfs in the manufacture of intellectual goods. 





 The intellectual use of the smurfs does nothing to detract from their  smurfiness. Just as Thomas Jefferson said, He who receives an idea  from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine.  Similarly, you can draw a smurf without taking anything away from anyone  elses use for the smurf.
 Also every Saturday, Gargamel, the smurfs antagonist, tries to catch  the Smurfs so he can convert them into gold. Gargamel wants to use the  smurfs in the manufacture of material goods....

see web site above - for the rest of the story

all best wishes, A


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 19, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> There are many collective action problems (i.e. tragedy of the commons)that crop up in capitalism and other systems that only a government of some sort is well suited to address. A pure _laissez faire _government would be unable to address these problems, to the detriment of all. Mixed systems work best, which is certainly borne out by the data - and yes, the United States is a mixed system too, and it works pretty well.


 
What's interesting to note in this concept is that one of the means that has been theorized to solve the problem is private ownership.  I will posit some anecdotal evidence. 

We are issued by my department AR-15 rifles.  They continually get beat up, suffer from mechanical problems, have bent sights, etc.  The same thing for our shotguns.  We recently were allowed to purchase our own rifles.  Although they get used and by necessity suffer cosmetic damage due to training, they are well-maintained and cared for by the individual officer owner.  

But, as Elder pointed out, it is not the system but people, which are the problem.  Pure Communism may work out great in it's niche, and the same can be held for pure Capitalism.  The problem is when you interject people into the mix.

The problem with the tragedy of the commons as I see it is that it has the underlying assumption of the grazing metaphor is that it is rational for the herder to over-exploit the resource for short term gain.  This is an assumption that I don't necessarily hold to be true.  For instance, how rational is it for me to put short term gain over long term insolvency.  Not very.  

Of course, the way that we regulate businesses in the U.S. may actually be causing more problems then it is solving.  There is not a day that goes by here that someone complains that corporations are doing x, y, or z and destroying the middle class, engaging in class warfare, etc.  But they are doing so because the government is allowing it to occur.  Not only that, but the government is enforcing those regulations which are allowing them to do so.  Not only that, but they are beholden to those corporations due to monetary influence, whether by straight bribery, promises of lucrative jobs after they leave office, or money towards their re-election campaign.

Perhaps if we make people personally liable for the decisions that they make which harm people, rather then the corporations, then we could significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the problem.  

But, if we had limited government that would allow the people to decide whether the corporations business practices are such that they would support, then what is the problem.  I am not against all government intervention.  After all, when a resource is owned by no one, there must be some means of fairly distributing the benefits.  This will by necessity leave some people out.  But this is completely different then the idea of communism in which the state owns all property, and the individual owns nothing.


----------

