Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Dennis Prager on the Differences Between Leftism and Liberalism

I have been absolutely inundated with projects for work lately, so unfortunately my writing for the blog and even responding to some of the wilder comments posted on past articles simply hasn't happened.  That said, I came across this article written by Dennis Prager that I found to be quite interesting.

There are absolutely differences between a liberal and a leftist.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, the leftists are growing as a group in their influence, often times hardened through invincible ignorance. Conservatives and Liberals should unite in their denunciation of some of their more extremist views. Enjoy the article:

           Leftism Is Not Liberalism. Here Are the Differences.
What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal?
Answering this question is vital to understanding the crisis facing America and the West today. Yet few seem able to do it. I offer the following as a guide.
Here’s the first thing to know: The two have almost nothing in common.
On the contrary, liberalism has far more in common with conservatism than it does with leftism. The left has appropriated the word “liberal” so effectively that almost everyone—liberals, leftists, and conservatives—thinks they are synonymous.
But they aren’t. Let’s look at some important examples.
Race: This is perhaps the most obvious of the many moral differences between liberalism and leftism.
The essence of the liberal position on race was that the color of one’s skin is insignificant. To liberals of a generation ago, only racists believed that race is intrinsically significant. However, to the left, the notion that race is insignificant is itself racist.
Thus, the University of California officially regards the statement, “There is only one race, the human race,” as racist.
For that reason, liberals were passionately committed to racial integration. Liberals should be sickened by the existence of black dormitories and separate black graduations on university campuses.
Read more... 


39 comments:

Rain Trueax said...

wow, that was good and explains a lot. I have seen the leftists and liberals as the same and lost track of how a shift had happened with leftists taking over the liberal view. Of course, the same thing happened to the conservatives with those who are not remotely conservative as the word used to mean being the loudest. :(

T. Paine said...

Me too, Rain. I too had lost track and found "leftist" to be synonymous with "liberal". This article puts it back into perspective. Also, you are right, by the same token, being a "right-winger" is not necessarily the same thing as being a conservative.

Majormajor said...


Good Luck With the Mandatory Evacuation In Your Car That Requires Electricity, You Stupid Leftards.

Majormajor said...

Anyone surprised?

Leftists Regurgitate North Korean Propaganda
the violent anti-Trump groups Refuse Fascism and the Workers World Party are siding with North Korea and spouting pro-North Korean propaganda talking points, and in at least one case, copying and pasting official North Korean statements into communiques.

http://www.diogenesmiddlefinger.com/2017/09/leftists-regurgitate-north-korean.html

Paul said...

I have always described myself as a JFK liberal. Even people my age don't understand what that means, and that kind of political liberalism no longer exists.

JFK could not win the nomination for president for the Democratic party today, but Reagan could not win the Republican nomination for president for the Republican party today.

Times change, politics change. The Southern Democrats of yesteryear were the racists and bigots and KKK members. Today most would say that character belongs to right wing conservatives (Republicans).

Politics, like most human endeavors, are cyclical.

JFK's tax cuts proved trickle down economics, but by the time Reagan tried it the economy was so large, it didn't work and it probably would not have worked even if he got tax cuts - depending on how big those tax cuts would have been. Reagan's tax cuts did bring more money into the treasury, but it was a minuscule amount to dent the huge spending. Similar solutions do not work in different times. The founders had no taxes, just tariffs. But when the country grew to a certain point, that no longer worked and would not have worked even if we raised the tariffs astronomically.

Having seen the waste in government and knowing it would not stop, I became a liberal with the idea that that excess should go to the people in the form of helpful programs, not into corporate welfare and corporate tax cuts. The Constitution talks about the welfare of the people and rights for individuals, not corporations, or groups.

Here is JFK's definition of being a liberal:

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
(cont)

Paul said...

(cont)

Of course Dennis Prager is correct, but if anyone took the time to think about it and knows American political history, it is not a new observation.

Anyone who thinks Trump is the most racist president ever just doesn't know history, or the thinking of our founding fathers. Of course we hope to progress and have, that's why Trump seems so repulsive to so many people, including his own Republican party members.

Jefferson claimed Adams was keeping a whore and paying for her living expenses. That was a total lie. Is that less offensive than some of the lies Trump was saying about his opponents? This is human nature folks! That changes a lot slower than culture, or laws. We make laws to hopefully better our society, not return to what we know was harmful.

I wonder what political thinking will be 60 years in the future. I never thought the thinking of being a JFK liberal would be rejected by the Democratic party 60 years later.

The food stamp program has a 1.5% waste cost. I wish EVERY government department could say the same, especially the military. JFK was a hawk. He grew our nuclear weapons programs. He enlarged the Vietnam war and defined the domino effect in Southeast Asia. He was a WW II hero. This garbage I've heard from the right over the last four decades, that Democrats cannot defend America, is bullshit!. Wilson was president during WW I. FDR was president during WW II. It was JFK who faced down Russia during the Cuban missile crisis and forced them to remove their missiles from Cuba.

Where would we be without safety net programs after the 2007-2008 financial crash? These programs have proven their worthiness, it's the Congress who has failed to lead to fiscal health. End Social Security? A program that saves 10's of millions from starvation, homelessness, and early death. Why? Because Republicans cannot lead to the truth that higher taxes have to pay for these life saving programs?

Science was cheered. It got us to the Moon and back. It helped grow the economy through innovation. Now we deny science for the backward politics of "we can't afford it." Having the best lifestyle in the world and being the best, is expensive! And communal, progressive taxation was the only way we could do it.

We are no longer #1, we are # 10, or #25, or #40 depending what issue we are talking about. We are #1 BY FAR in the military, yet, Trump want to double our military and have the largest tax cuts in history. Who does he think is going to pay for all this? His whole net worth would not equal one days expenses of the United States.

Attack what I said and I will respond, but I have to stop now.

Dave Dubya said...

Well, well. So Prager is the infallible impartial observer now? LOL.

How gullible can you people be? Enough as a nation to elect Trump, I suppose.

I will point out Prager's hypocrisy, dishonesty, demonizing, con-servative redefining of words, and manipulative language when I have time.

For now, a bit on the born-again Trumpist Prager.

His 2011 column, “F-Word Laced Speech Disqualifies Donald Trump From Presidency,” where Prager declared that Trump’s public utterances of profane words “render him unfit to be a presidential candidate, let alone president,” especially because, “and this IS important, he used it once and, upon seeing the enthusiastic reaction, felt encouraged to use it again and again.”

“Any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture. Its exercise has been a blight on humanity.” Trump favors torture. “If we cannot count on Republicans and conservatives to maintain standards of public decency and civility, to whom shall we look?”

Um, not Republicans and conservatives for sure.

Prager has sacrificed his principles on the altar of Trumpism. Why? Because he hates Hillary and democrats so much he surrenders any moral high ground he imagines he holds.

Now he resorts to the same old con-servative playbook in defining, smearing, and demonizing those he hates.

"Conservatives are not your enemy.The left is."

Conservative Trumpist liars and propagandists like Prager are the enemies of liberals, and the enemies of truth and democracy.

For those too lazy or lacking in intellectual curiosity, I will offer reality to counter Prager's "alternative facts".

But then again, those are the kind that have already gulped the koolade.


Paul said...

To clarify myself after reading Dave's comment:

When Mr, Paine says,

Liberals are, "often times hardened through invincible ignorance." I would say that's exactly where Republicans are today and have been for quite a while. It's the kind of ignorance that denies what 95% of scientists say about our planet, not to mention the ignorance of the failure of "trickle down economics" which Republicans keep pushing only to keep doubling the national debt. There are plenty of more examples.

When Prager says,

"What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal?" "Answering this question is vital to understanding the crisis facing America and the West today."

That is total BS! Prager correctly points out the misuse and misunderstanding of the terms leftist and liberal, but that is not the cause of the crisis we are in today. What is his idea of the crisis? The financial crisis is caused by Republicans irresponsible fiscal policies over 40 years. The military crisis is caused by the bad decisions based on lies after the 9/11 attack on America that opened the flood gates of worldwide terrorism and our, so far, 16 year war.

My rant above accepts Prager's theory on the misuse of terms, but totally disagrees with his supposed cause of the crisis. I defend Democratic policies and ask where would we be without them. I defend Democrats responsible chant that taxes have to be raised. Mondale was right! Bush Sr. was right, it was/is Voodoo Economics!

Bush Jr. put his wars on the credit card. Bush put his drug plan on the credit card. He never asked Americans to make any sacrifice at all, not even a financial one. Meanwhile he was sending Americans 600 dollar checks. He cut the Veterans budget during a war and then two years later during Obama's first term the Veterans Dept. turns out to be broke and inept and Republicans blame Obama. That is the case of total ignorance.

Prager's rants are always biased and slanted to the right, that's to be expected, but he intentionally left out the crisis caused by the Republican policies over the decades, or he is blind and stupid. He uses the same lie many Republicans use, that only Democrats are responsible for our problems. That is a lie and always has been. Of course Democrats have blame, but when faced with the idea that Republicans have no blame, I have to call that bullshit! Prager's claim that a misuse of political terms is the cause of our crisis is bullshit.

Another blaring omission by Prager is that Republicans have a similar problem with their accepted political terms like conservative, right wing, religious conservatives, and I'll throw in climate denying conservatives. Just because 5% of scientists disagree with the accepted facts of 95% of scientists doesn't mean they are right, or even have standing to say the 95% are wrong.

Prager's article is dishonest in the extreme. Not because of what he said, but what he did not say and the fallacy he tries to imply.

Paul said...

In my first comment I meant even if Reagan got spending cuts.

Dave Dubya said...

Shall we open our minds and investigate a few of the claims, insinuations and false assumptions?

This is the old pattern of the Right defining the Left and liberals on its own unilateral terms. Now magically, “The left has appropriated the word liberal”!!

They have historically demonized the word “liberal”. Remember that kiddies? Mr. Paine and his Uncle Rush have done this regularly. They have always demonized FDR as a socialist and commie. Remember “Liberalism is a mental disorder”?

We’ve already exposed enough of this bile to dump it into the mountain of trash that is con-servative dogma. It’s all about who to blame and hate, isn’t it?

And true to pattern, blame is leveled and the Left is accused of causing the “crisis facing America and the West”. Evidence cited? None. Just opinion. “Those evil Leftists must be in cahoots with those evil Muslims. They are in league to destroy America.”

Now look: The most revered liberal in American history is probably former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who frequently cited the need to protect not just Western civilization but Christian civilization.

See how they shift their famous doctrine of flexible reality and alternative facts. Somehow “moderates” even take them at their word without question. Hmm. Very enticing indoctrination, I must say.

However, to the left, the notion that race is insignificant is itself racist...the University of California officially regards the statement, “There is only one race, the human race,” as racist.

This is not true. Again context is ignored. The context of the phrase was in their discussion of “microagrression”.

The context of the relationship and situation is critical. Below are common themes to which microaggressions attach….

[Theme:] Color Blindness[:] Statements that indicate that a White person does not want to or need to acknowledge race.
[Microaggression Examples:] “There is only one race, the human race.”
“America is a melting pot.”
“I don’t believe in race.” …


The far Right must ignore context and leave critical factors out of their accusations and dishonesty. This is in reference to conservative white comments in dismissing blatant discrimination by law enforcement or other authorities.

Whoa, too much context already. By now the conservative brain is tuned out of the explanation and will cling to the simplistic and misleading dogma.

(Liberals) were never opposed to capitalism, and they were never for socialism. Opposition to capitalism and advocacy of socialism are leftist values.

More simplistic and dishonest claptrap. Socialist Bernie Sanders is the most popular US politician. Majorities of Americans support socialized health care, Social Security, unemployment compensation and other socialist programs. They understand capitalism, especially de-regulated capitalism fails. The Bush Great Recession is one example. Capitalism fails in employing every able bodied American. Because of abuses by a small minority, cons want to destroy safety nets and food stamps for the needy. Group punishment is their idea of fairness.

(Cont.)

Dave Dubya said...

(Cont.)

Nationalism: It says we are the superior country and should dominate the world. This is the domain of the Right. It is the root of Nazism and military aggression. Contrast this with patriotism. This is love for our country, our people and our democracy, and to work for a more perfect union.

To the left, America is essentially a racist, sexist, violent, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamophobic country.

This is a lie. The Left correctly notes the fact it is the far Right that exhibits those characteristics, not America.

The Polish far Right bussed in their crowds for Trump’ s praise of “western civilization”. Nationalism and racism both fall into this view. Western civilization produced Hitler. It is flawed, but nationalists see only minorities and liberals to blame.

Western civilization, also code for White civilization, reeked of racism from Hitler to the Klan and to the Republican party’s suppression of black voters. When Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilization he said he thought it would be a good idea.

Note how Prager frames Jesse Jackson as one who wants to end “Western Civ”. The con-servative liar won’t tell you this was about a college curriculum, not our civilization.

Superman is an illegal alien, idiots. No birth certificate either. How about voter ID? LOL!

Now the Left is accused of “nationwide suppression of free speech”. That is some giant conspiracy. I will grant the point that some colleges, not a majority, are dancing around some absurd political correctness. Even Bill Maher was excluded from one campus.

Campus political correctness has no bearing on our rights off campus. We have intact our freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The contempt that the left has—and has always had—for religion (except for Islam today)... If the left is not defeated, American and Western civilization will not survive.

And there we have it. “Those evil Leftists are in cahoots with those evil Muslims terrorists. They are in league to destroy America.”

That is the slimy evil subtext here all along. Does anyone care to guess who alone gets to define “the Left”?

Liars of the far Right, of course.

T. Paine said...

Dave Dubya, I am done responding to your hate, projection, demonization, and ignorance. I will no longer waste my time and effort on such a trolling bully. I have literally spent years providing facts, sources, and data to substantiate my opinions while continuously trying to engage you in civil debate. You have summarily dismissed everything I have said as being right-wing biased and therefore incapable of being true. Only left-wing sources are accurate in your world evidently. The fact that you consider me as a right-wing, stupid, authoritarian, science-denying, racist, Trump supporter should make it easier for you to realize that I am demonic and a lost cause; therefore, you may now go and try to convince/bully other more susceptible and gullible people into a lock-step mindset with you. Hopefully you will do so on other blogs as I will not respond to your foolishness, falsehoods, and nastiness on my blog any more.

Paul, let me start by saying that I appreciate your reasoned comments. I do not agree with all that you said, but I respect how you have arrived at such conclusions where you have provided such context. I would like to applaud you as an example of what folks with disparate views on politics and other topics can and should do when debating or discussing with those that don't hold those same views. Thank you!

Next, it is interesting that you mention JFK as being unable to be the Democrat presidential nominee these days. It is the very same statement that I have made years ago. For a party that nearly nominated (and probably should have) the only self-avowed socialist senator as its nominee, I don't foresee a return to more political moderation in my lifetime. That said, I would have dearly loved to have had Cruz and Sanders as the two party's nominees so that we could have had a national discussion on policy and ideas instead of the reality show drama offered up by Trump and Hillary.

I am not certain that I agree with you regarding Reagan being unable to win the GOP nomination today though. If anything, the GOP has put forth more moderate rather than staunch conservative in recent times. Dole, George W. Bush, McCain, and Romney are all hardly right-wing firebrands. The conservative wing largely voted for these nominees, but did so holding their collective noses. I know that is absolutely the case for me.

JFK's tax cuts did work. Reagan's also brought far more revenue into the federal coffers. The problem, as you noted, was that we did not cut spending to go along with this, so the federal debt grew. Trump's forthcoming hypothetical tax cut also will not help our national debt if we don't concurrently massively cut our spending. I agree that we cannot sustain expensive programs and tax cuts without compensating for it elsewhere. There truly is not a free lunch here.

I do agree that corporate welfare should similarly be cut. Now I do think that we need a federal corporate tax rate that is lowered to be more competitive with the rest of the world, but all of the loop-holes and write offs must absolutely end. In that way, tax reform could be a very good thing. It can make us more globally competitive and place more of the costs for goods and services on the consumers, which is where corporations will shift their costs to when they lose their corporate welfare.

Dave Dubya said...

Mr. Paine,

I understand you will not respond to this, but after all your accusations I feel deserve one more comment.

Your response to my discussion of Prager’s propaganda piece seems to be an overreaction beyond your usual evasive outrage to my facts and reason.

Once again I stand accused without evidence of “hate, projection, demonization, and ignorance. .. a trolling bully. foolishness, falsehoods, and nastiness”.

You left out commie this time. ;-)

My only mention of you was this: “Mr. Paine and his Uncle Rush have done this regularly. They have always demonized FDR as a socialist and commie.”

This is true. But you appear very angry about my noting it for some reason.

”you consider me as a right-wing, stupid, authoritarian, science-denying, racist, Trump supporter”

Now you’re back playing the role of victim, after all those accusations and personal smears for me, yet. By the way, it was the Pope who called you stupid for your denying of climate science.

I have stated numerous times that I don’t consider you a racist, no matter how many times you are in agreement with them. Those are your chosen positions and you are obviously uncomfortable when I note those facts. I have also commended you for having the basic decency to not vote for Trump. You only get angry when I point out where you agree with him. Again, those are your chosen positions and you are defensive when I note them as such.

I worry that something in your world is stressing you beyond your usual temperament. It’s none of my business, but I do care. I don’t want anyone suffering, even those who disagree with me and smear me with unfounded accusations. I’m used to that. I’m merely trying to understand your reasons, but all I’ve been getting are accusations and evasions.

I hope whatever is troubling you passes and circumstances improve for you. I really do.

T. Paine said...

(Cont. for Paul)

Trump has demonstrated racism in his words and actions over the years. That said, we have come a long way from the racism of Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson.

We think this last presidential campaign was the nastiest in history, but as your example proved, this has always been something that has plagued our politics.

"I wonder what political thinking will be 60 years in the future. I never thought the thinking of being a JFK liberal would be rejected by the Democratic party 60 years later." ~ Paul

Indeed, sir. If I had been able to, I could have seen myself having voted for JFK; indeed he is far more conservative than some of the more recent GOP nominees for president. Nowadays, there are few Republicans and no Democrats that come to mind that are worthy of my vote.

I truly wish We The People could convene a constitutional convention and start to truly drain the swamp by passing a constitutional amendment that installs term limits for both the House and the Senate. My own Utah Senator Orin Hatch first ran against his opponent in 1976 by saying he had served too long and was out of touch with the people. Interesting for the doddering fool who has been in the Senate now for over 40 years and has become very out of touch with Utah.

T. Paine said...

Paul, respectfully, I think the "97% of scientist agree with anthropogenic global warming" is a fallacy sir. Here is a recent article that articulates pretty well of why I think that is:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/3/#6b12a7844081 From the article:

"Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.
Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false."

As for trickle down economics, if executed properly, it does indeed bring more revenue to the federal coffers. The problem is with our politicians in the House and Senate that refuse to cut spending in order to shrink our national debt. (And yes, the GOP is probably even more culpable than the Democrats on this because they supposedly are the ones that are touting their "fiscal responsibility.")


"Prager correctly points out the misuse and misunderstanding of the terms leftist and liberal, but that is not the cause of the crisis we are in today." ~ Paul

I would agree with that sentiment. That is indeed NOT the cause of today's crisis. My interest in the article, was not that hyperbolic statement, but rather the defining of the terms leftist and liberal.

"He uses the same lie many Republicans use, that only Democrats are responsible for our problems. That is a lie and always has been." ~ Paul

Of course that is not true. Anyone that is even remotely objective and not a stalwart partisan can easily see that blame lies squarely on the policies of both parties. I agree far more often with most of the Republican policies in theory, but somehow even the best intentions are usually perverted when it comes to the execution of those policies.

As for Prager not taking to task the Republicans for similar blurring of political terms, well... I suspect that Prager is a Republican. :)

Just the Facts! said...

Mr. Paine,

Just remove Dave's posts like he does on his blog, give him dose he his own medicine! You have taken enough of his liberal hate filled group speech. Dump the Dubya.

woodenman1954 said...

I would say if 90% of scientist and 195 countries believe in man made global warming then you do not have a strong position Mr. Paine.

I wrote about this in the last topic.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

T. Paine: "Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%."

Mr. Paine, when the 90th percentile of anything is approached, it means it's pretty close to a foregone conclusion that whatever it is being measured is just about a certainty.

You're splitting hairs.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

T. Paine: "I am done responding to [Dave Dubya's] hate, projection, demonization, and ignorance. I will no longer waste my time and effort on such a trolling bully."

I would guess that's alright with Mr. Dubya. A less bias opinion may be welcomed by many of your readers. But, I have to ask you...why? He was critiquing and responding to the idiotic nonsense of Prager, and for this you call him out for "hate, projection, demonization and ignorance"?

Tsk tsk, Mr. Paine. I think your perceived impenetrable comfort zone is starting to show cracks and fissures.

T. Paine said...

"Just remove Dave's posts like he does on his blog, give him dose he his own medicine! You have taken enough of his liberal hate filled group speech. Dump the Dubya." ~ JTF

JTF, while I have been tempted to do so in the past, I am very hesitant to start removing posted comments and curtailing free speech on my blog. That is the reason why I have made several appeals to Mr. Dubya in the past to quit with his name-calling and demonization when he responds, all of which have been fruitless. I stopped commenting on Mr. Dubya's blog awhile back because of the way he treated others so when he started commenting on my blog again, I was hopeful he would do so with some sense of decorum. In the end, I figure it is better to leave the writings of those that are hateful and foolish up so that objective readers can see and discern the truth.

T. Paine said...

"I would say if 90% of scientist and 195 countries believe in man made global warming then you do not have a strong position Mr. Paine." ~ Woodenman

I understand that, sir; however, the original assertion was that all scientists (100%) agreed in AGW. They reported it as 97% as a "margin of error." The truth is that they are being a bit fast and loose with what they consider as "agreement" with their AGW position. In actuality, depending on the methodology and whom you look to for reporting, the truth of the matter is that there is 10 to 20% of those scientists that do not agree with the concepts of AGW. 97% sure sounds better for an AGW marketing perspective though.

The bottom line is that if 1 in 5 scientists find credible reasons to dispute anthropogenic global warming, then it really is not "settled science", particularly when you start to look at the motivations of many of the folks that are often times the loudest proponents of the AGW theory, sir.

T. Paine said...

"I would guess that's alright with Mr. Dubya. A less bias opinion may be welcomed by many of your readers." ~ JG

A less biased opinion? Can't ... stop... laughing... Do you mean to tell me that Mr. Dubya is more objective in his opinions, sir? If so, I think you are suffering from confirmation bias, JG.

I explained previously why I was done with Mr. Dubya. The fact of the matter is that even when I post on other blogs things that you would assume he would agree with, such as a criticism of President Trump, he still felt the need to rhetorically vomit all over the place in accusation. I could say "black" and he would reflexively shout "white". That is all fine and dandy, but I am not interested in school yard shouting matches and juvenile name calling. "You don't agree with me and the Pope, then you are stupid and immoral." Yes, that is a paraphrase, but accurate nonetheless.

I am not afraid of differing opinion. Indeed, I seek it out on other left-of-center blogs, as you well know. I can and have taken the ridicule and scorn for many years and sleep just fine at night. What I won't put up with is when someone wishes to come over to my blog and not debate but simply crap all over the place.

The final straw that was the impetus for my leaving his blog was when you and Mr. Dubya started questioning Majormajor's salvation. Now maybe that is just another school yard insult to people that aren't Christian, or don't believe in a Divine Creator, (and I fully support your right to believe or not as you choose, btw) but that is something that is really beyond the pale to me. I simply choose not to debate any longer with people willing to go that route.

That said, I have always tried to be respectful towards you, JG, and I think that has largely been reciprocated by you towards me. For a long time, I had hoped that Mr. Dubya and I could likewise remain civil, if not friendly, in our disagreements. Indeed there are some areas in which he and I shared common views, albeit always on the left of the political spectrum. Anyway, I wish Mr. Dubya well, truly. Whether he continues to comment here or not is up to him; however, my tolerance for any continued sophomoric comments has grown very thin indeed.

Dave Dubya said...

Just to clarify:

Accusations are not as one sided as Mr. Paine would want you to believe. See the list above. He was also quite liberal in his evidence-free accusations at my blog as well. That’s fine with me. I’m used to it. This has always been a tactic of the Right.

He and I shared common views, albeit always on the left of the political spectrum.

“Always”? Not on the Second Amendment. I am a firearm owner. I have also agreed with his condemnations of vandalism by Antifa. There are more cases, but my point is made.

The final straw that was the impetus for my leaving his blog was when you and Mr. Dubya started questioning Majormajor's salvation.

I questioned how one’s Christianity is compatible with deliberate lies and refusal to acknowledge the falsehoods. Salvation was not the issue.

The specific lie was accusing Democrats of not standing in respect to a war widow during Trump’s speech. That was a false and vicious slime. I proved it to be false and asked him to retract the lie. Major held to his hateful lie, of course. My question was basically , “How Christian is that”? Mr. Paine defended the liar. If anyone is interested, it’s all there for anyone to go see.

Specifically it came down to this:

Majormajor wrote, “And when President Trump honored the widow of a fallen American SEAL the Democrats sat stone-faced and silent.”

Mr. Paine wrote, “What did it for me was when Mr. Dubya and another commenter then started questioning the soul and salvation of Majormajor for telling a “lie” on the site.”

DD:
I have to wonder though, why my response to an obvious lie from Major elicited your condemnation for me, and support for him.

And why does that lie need to be referred to as a “lie”?

It is either true or it is not. If you reject the truth, refuse to disavow the lie, and support the liar, then you are being Trumpist in that regard. Not voting for him was commendable, but emulating him is not.

Don’t take it personally. Just ask yourself why you would choose to do such a thing.

woodenman1954 said...

I think this place is like the bar in Cheers and Mr Paine is the barkeep. This is all for entertainment and maybe learning a few things but Dave took this too seriously and only had one gear, full confrontational. Even though Dave and I share the same views politically, I felt his approach was wrong. When one party gets so pissed off they walk away then the whole endeavor was a failure.

Even though Mr Paine and I disagree on many issues, he is an intelligent fellow and his views are as valid to him as mine are to me. A little respect goes a long way.

Dave Dubya said...

Woody,

You are right about my being confrontational. I do confront lies. And I confront those who repeat them or stand by them in the face of contradicting evidence and the truth.

By their long history of blaming, accusing and demonizing liberals, cons have been inviting confrontation.

By their long history of falsehoods, cons have been inviting confrontation.

Lies, falsehoods, ignorance and hate must be confronted and never accepted. I responded with truth, not ideology.

Majormajor’s lie still stands as his lie, because it has not been renounced, nor the truth acknowledged. Neither Mr. Paine nor Majormajor would retract or renounce the lie. As I see it, they both own it.

You saw the dialogue that followed. Mr. Paine defended the liar and quaintly referred to the lie with quotation marks. That is when Mr. Paine walked away...with the lie he still shares with Majormajor’s loyal support.

Lies piss me off, and I don’t walk away in a huff. When I am falsely accused, I still don’t walk away in a huff. I confront them. Then the accusations follow, deflecting from the lies they promote. (Note how I am the subject now, not my case against Prager.) Deflection accomplished.

So, yes, I stand guilty of confrontation, but I do not stand guilty of the uncounted false accusations leveled at me.

T. Paine said...

"A little respect goes a long way." ~ Woodenman

And that is why you are both a gentleman and a scholar, sir, and why your voice is always welcome here at Saving Common Sense.

When one takes snarky and uncalled-for swipes at those with whom one disagrees, even pleasant moderates, simply because they have the temerity to not tow the same ideological line you do, then something is truly amiss.

I have many loved ones that voted for Trump. They are good and decent people and not worthy of being so maligned as being morally inferior. I have many loved ones that voted for Hillary. They similarly are good and decent people unworthy of the venom spit at them for disagreeing with others.

The bottom line is that for the vast majority of Americans, both conservative and liberal, we only want what we think is best for our nation. We don't always agree on what that may be, but if we can at least come together and work on areas where we can find common ground, perhaps we will be able to one day work on those really controversial issues and find reasonable compromises. Such are my hopes towards people of good will, regardless of their political affiliations or ideologies.

Some folks are more invested in their side "winning" than in trying to do what is best for our country, especially if they have to give in a little to do it.

Just the Facts! said...

Dump Dubya!!!

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Woodenman1954: "When one party gets so pissed off they walk away then the whole endeavor was a failure."

Walking away, pissed off, means a person either cannot justify their stance, or they've been caught in an overt lie.

As an example, one shouldn't feel entitled to hide behind their religious views, which they themselves have openly proclaimed and made public, and yet cower and feign outrage when criticism is made of their viewpoints when juxtaposed against their political and economic leanings.


"Even though Mr Paine and I disagree on many issues, he is an intelligent fellow and his views are as valid to him as mine are to me."

Whether or not viewpoints are self-valued is not the issue here. Isn't it whether or not those viewpoints are factual and truthful? I believe most here are searchers of truth -- otherwise, why the hell are we wasting our time? If so -- that most are truth-seekers -- doesn't it seem reasonable to confront the non-truth makers (the "liars") and stop them in their tracks?


"A little respect goes a long way."

Goes a long way toward...what? Respect is earned, Woodenman1954. I hope you agree that the clown-ass who frequents this blog and Tom Degan's (and Dave's, until he added access-control) and goes by several monikers, is the most disrespectful liar on either blog. His only intention is creating disruption, deceit, deception and mayhem, yet Mr. Paine panders to his trivialities and nonsense -- and outright lies. Dave Dubya was making this quite clear, yet gets condemned.


Dave Dubya: "You are right about my being confrontational. I do confront lies. And I confront those who repeat them or stand by them in the face of contradicting evidence and the truth."

And there's nothing wrong with this -- contrary to what our host believes, and apparently Woodenman1954. As a matter of fact, it's admirable. We live in very dangerous and perilous times, and dangerous and perilous times call for very direct confrontation against the non-truth makers. Since the election of Donald Trump, my motto has been "resist, and keep fighting".


"By their long history of blaming, accusing and demonizing liberals, cons have been inviting confrontation."

I agree with you, Dave. As I mentioned to Mr. Paine not too long ago on Tom's blog, our differences are so pronounced and the divide so wide, it's virtually impossible to find common ground with modern-day Republicans and conservatives. They've turned even more to the right over the last few decades, while "corporate-liberals" (Democrats) have followed them.


"Then the accusations follow, deflecting from the lies they promote. (Note how I am the subject now, not my case against Prager.) Deflection accomplished."

Recognized this, and noted.


T. Paine: "Some folks are more invested in their side 'winning' than in trying to do what is best for our country, especially if they have to give in a little to do it."

Mr. Paine, we've gone around-and-around on this subject. Until you realize, that we realize, that nothing "best" for this country will ever come to fruition under a plutocratic corporatocracy, we have no commonality.

Once you recognize this fact -- and reject what's happening to this nation, due to it -- then you'll be "saving common sense".

Paul said...

Mr. Paine,

The Constitution sets term limits on federally elected offices. I'm sure the founders considered that one person could be continuously reelected and remain in office for decades. Elections are a term limit. The freedom of the people's choice. This would be an example of a rewrite of the Constitution to better fit contemporary culture and behavior. I would support term limit changes to the Constitution as happened with the presidency. We would lose the possibility that it might be best for the country to have a strong leader in an office for a long period of time.

95% is overwhelming enough to convince me. I would be convinced if it were only 75%. Our past experience with air and water pollution shows that simple regulations can change and fix the damage done. I don't need to be a scientist to know what humans spew into the Eco-system would not be something the Earth would naturally produce. I have read the opposing scientific view points, but I am not convinced. I have learned over the decades to have confidence in science. Even if you do not believe, what could it hurt to stop putting pollutants into the air, earth, and water? The Bible commands us to be good stewards of the Earth. I am also convinced that renewable energy is the future of good paying jobs that will not be exported to other countries. I have to add that the same 95% of scientists that declared the Earth's climate is changing also told us the symptoms to look for - warmer global temperatures, melting polar ice, stronger and more extreme storms, global weather extremes, and rising ocean levels globally - all of which have happened and have been measured factually.

In order for Reagan to achieve a balanced budget with the tax cuts he got out of Congress the spending cuts needed would have totaled 35% of the total budget of the time. That would be impossible. Claiming Reagan did not get spending cuts promised (I don't remember any promise just political BS) does not salvage Reagan's reputation for leaving an over one trillion dollar debt and setting the irresponsible fiscal policies for Republicans for the next 40 years. You might remember that after Reagan got those tax cuts the economy went sluggish. He got a tax increase in the next budget and the economy sprang back up.

I don't see how Reagan could be given the nomination for president by today's Republican party. Today's Republican party disagrees with Reagan's position on to many issues, no matter how often today's Republican party wants to invoke his name. One glaring example would be gun control. Reagan passed gun control in California when he was Gov. Reagan supported the AWB for federal law. The AWB passed with Republican votes, but years later when it came up for renewal today's Republican party just let it lapse, and if it had come up for a vote, would have failed according to a poll of Republicans taken by the Republican leaders office. There are many other examples.

My two cents worth

woodenman1954 said...

JG, in your comment you got to the heart of this whole issue, we are truth seekers and you, I and Dave want to spread the truth to those who are lost in the the very effective war on the Truth.

I have tried the confrontational route on the Rant with Chuck and it got me nowhere. I might have even played a part in Tom changing the forum into the mess that it is today.

My comment to Dave was that he was losing the ability to communicate with Mr Paine because of his tactics. If he gets banned from this site he will not be spreading anything.

This is a very frustrating mission we are on and it requires a lot of patience but looking at Mr Paine as an equal is the first step.



Dave Dubya said...

Looking back, I suppose my outrage was still firing over a recent highly contentious issue; one that we needn't revisit.

I have to confess I made some harsh remarks. I apologize to those effected. I also blustered crude words to no one in particular.

Woody, you are right. That was a stupid way to convey information, wasn't it?

For his kind hosting, I owe Mr. Paine due respect to dial that tone down. And I owe respect to the readers, such as is their due, as well.

Just the Facts! said...

Dubya admits to being out of control, and promses to be a good "boy".

Dump the Dubya!

woodenman1954 said...

Chuck, it take a big man to apologize, something you never did and you said a lot of extremely offensive things in the past on the Rant. Should I compile a collection of your sickest comments and post them here? We can all take a trip down memory lane!

woodenman1954 said...

Dave, I am very impressed with you, courage is not something you lack.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

These are words of warning, not to be ignored or ridiculed or denied. To do so, is to our own peril. Read the words of a very wise and learned man. The framework he proposes is what must be done. We have no other recourse. Link through and read "Laudato si' - On Care For Our Common Home". An excerpt:

"The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. As these gases build up in the atmosphere, they hamper the escape of heat produced by sunlight at the earth’s surface. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes."

Mr. Paine, I was remiss when I mentioned earlier that we have no commonality. I stand corrected. We share a planet; we have a common home.

Majormajor said...

So much "courage" he removes posts he doesn't agree with.

Dumb the Dubya.

T. Paine said...

"95% is overwhelming enough to convince me. I would be convinced if it were only 75%. Our past experience with air and water pollution shows that simple regulations can change and fix the damage done. I don't need to be a scientist to know what humans spew into the Eco-system would not be something the Earth would naturally produce. I have read the opposing scientific view points, but I am not convinced. I have learned over the decades to have confidence in science. Even if you do not believe, what could it hurt to stop putting pollutants into the air, earth, and water? The Bible commands us to be good stewards of the Earth. I am also convinced that renewable energy is the future of good paying jobs that will not be exported to other countries." ~ Paul

Paul, there is much that you said here with which I do agree. While I am still quite agnostic on AGW, regardless of whether it is human caused or not, we absolutely do have an obligation to protect our environment. Scrubbers on factory smoke stacks, preventing factories from dumping pollutants into our water, making more emission-friendly cars and other such environmental protections are not only vital, but they have helped clean up many of our cities like Los Angeles where you could not breath outside on some days in the 1980's. Or places in the rust belt where acidic rain would fall because of pollutants pumped into the air. All of these measures are very good and necessary, and I fully support them.

What I don't support is draconian restrictions that would literally decimate our economy and hurt all of us, particularly the poorest among us, for a nearly insignificant and negligible return. I know that there are many good and sincere scientists that believe in AGW and only want to protect our earth. Unfortunately, I also know that there are those that are simply not allowing a "good crisis to go to waste" and wish to leverage this for their own ends and control of populations.

In the meantime, we must all strive to protect our air, water, and soil. After all, conservatives need to breath, drink, and live on the land too.

T. Paine said...

"JG, in your comment you got to the heart of this whole issue, we are truth seekers and you, I and Dave want to spread the truth to those who are lost in the the very effective war on the Truth. I have tried the confrontational route on the Rant with Chuck and it got me nowhere. I might have even played a part in Tom changing the forum into the mess that it is today. My comment to Dave was that he was losing the ability to communicate with Mr Paine because of his tactics. If he gets banned from this site he will not be spreading anything. This is a very frustrating mission we are on and it requires a lot of patience but looking at Mr Paine as an equal is the first step." ~ Woodenman

Woodenman, I greatly appreciate your sentiments here, sir. It is far easier for us people to tear something down than it is for us to build something good and useful. Dave Dubya, in the past in my opinion has chosen to tear things down. That said, I greatly respect and admire his recent comment in realizing this tone of his. I am hopeful that we can again return to vigorous and civil discussions going forward.

Majormajor, while we agree on many issues, I would greatly appreciate it if you too would stop with your antagonistic tone. It does nothing to further rational debate. It simply creates a trench warfare environment. I try to approach things like this: If someone whom you are debating chooses to be nasty and hyper-confrontational, it is best to remember who you are and not lower yourself to that same least common denominator. While we do seek common ground in finding the truth, we don't want to find common ground by both being at the bottom of a cesspool. And yes, I have been guilty of this in the past and will work even harder not to fall into that trap again going forward. I think that you have many great things to contribute, it just needs to be done without that assumption that "the other side" is the enemy. If that is what you think, why waste your time? They won't be able to hear a thing you say. That attitude just chases others away or makes them entrench further into their own positions, as Woodenman said.

Paul said...

I appreciate you support those kind of measures, but the Republican party does not and has not for decades. Doing nothing and denying reality is making the problem worse.

"What I don't support is draconian restrictions that would literally decimate our economy and hurt all of us, particularly the poorest among us, for a nearly insignificant and negligible return." - Mr. Paine

I have heard this talking point from Republicans for years. I have not seen the facts that prove that kind of statement. Restrictions and regulations apply to all, unless it is shown that one party is solely responsible for a particular problem. The US has been the biggest polluter of the world for over 100 years. It's in our best interest that China, India, and other larger populations do have pollution regulations.

The Paris agreement regulations apply to all. What are the ends of scientists? They propose these regulations because a real problem exist. They are not some evil power looking to dominate the world.

The reality is the rest of the world will be making trade deals according to the regulations in the Paris agreement and the US will be left out of those worldwide trade deals, because we will not meet those regulations. We will also be left out of being the leader of the new technology needed to achieve those regulations. American capitalists and corporations understand this and have said they will gear their companies policies to meet the Paris agreement regulations, because they don't want to be left out of that growth, or the profits that will result. The Trump administration offered no alternative, or were even willing to negotiate, they simply pulled out. Trump's inaction will hurt America even if he doesn't believe as you have said you don't. The world will move on without America and we will spend decades as 10th place finishers again.