Dennis Prager: The left and hysteria

Dennis Prager is at the top of his game again today!  Commenting on the way the world work for the left he states…

If you want to understand the left, the best place to start is with an understanding of hysteria. Leading leftists either use hysteria as a political tactic or are actually hysterics.

Take almost any subject the left discusses and you will find hysteria.

He goes on to discuss the war,  risks to health, the environment, global warming, animal rights (pigs are people too you know!), racism and now, drum roll please…. and Christianity.  And all this from a good Jew.

Check out his commentary today!  The Left and Hysteria

waynem

About waynem

As a Minnesota based photographer and artist I have been greatly influenced by the Upper Midwest. I focus my skills and energies on portraits, landscapes, cityscapes, architectural and fine art work. My best work comes from images first painted in my mind. I mull over a prospective image for weeks or months, seeing it from different angles and perspectives, then finally deciding what to capture. The result is images that deeply touch people's emotions and powerfully evoke memories and dreams. My images are used commercially by companies and organizations ranging from Financial Services firms, mom and pop Ice Cream shops and The Basilica of St Mary to communicate their shared vision and values. Book and magazine publishers have featured my images on their covers. My photographs also grace and enhance the decor of many fine homes.
This entry was posted in Cultural Commentary, Current Affairs, Politics, Wisdom and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Dennis Prager: The left and hysteria

  1. Scott says:

    It wasn’t a particularly well written commentary. Prager has a style in which he drones on, systematically accusing the “left” repeatedly of the same things over and over. In this case he talks about the “left” being hysterical. Hysteria is seen in accusations which he believes are false. This however, like much of Prager’s writings, is circle logic. The “right” could also be accused of “hysteria” using Prager’s same logic. As someone who has picked a few true ideas to support, mixed them with a few false ideas, Prager doesn’t impress me. He speaks as though he knows what he is talking about, but if you systematically look at his arguments, you see a man who does not reason well and who focuses on the errors of those he dislikes while excusing or ignoring evil among his own ranks.

  2. Wayne M says:

    Ok, so you don’t like Dennis much. It is one thing to throw out a bunch of accusations, now are you going to back any of this up?
    BTW if you follow Dennis at all, you will know that he is very hard on the current administration. Dennis is a free thinker and not just marching in goose steps with some conservative movement.

  3. notaRighty says:

    Why is it “hysteria” to say that President Bush lied, when there is evidence to suggest he did? Why is it “hysteria” to say the Patriot Act is a threat to our liberty, when there is evidence that can be misused? Why is it “hysteria” to say there are dangers to secondhand smoke, when there is evidence it is? Why is it “hysteria” to oppose drilling in ANWR, when there is evidence that shows it will harm the environment? Why is it “hysteria” to say that climate change is likely caused by human activity, when there is a great amount of evidence that it has? Why is it “hysteria” to favor a seperation of church and state, when there is evidence there are those who oppose that seperation? On all of these issues, which the right takes one side, and the left takes another, he accuses the left of being “hysterical”. He is he one who is hysterical, because he takes only the most radical leftist people/positions as his proof. And that makes him guilty of “hysteria”, as usual, his logic is circular and worhtless.

  4. Jim S says:

    If Bush lied about WMDs then so did Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Dean. Do your research, they all said there were WMDs. That being said that was not even the main reason to go to war so get over it.
    I agree with the patriot act. Taking away liberties is a very dangerous thing. So now give me examples of how it has been missused.
    Second had smoke is bad science. Again do you research. Many more people are killed each year in car accidents. I make a motion to outlaw cars! If you don’t like smoke ask the person around to put it out. That is called respect.
    Climate changed caused by human activity is again bad science. Do you have any idea how much ozone killing chemicals are given off by the ocean? Do your research. Man could never put out that much “Poison”. That being side, of course we should reduce, reuse, recycle. That only makes sense. But how come I see so many lefties driving monster SUV’s? Gee guys, be consistent please.
    Where do you find seperation of Church and state in the constitution? Please help me with this. All you find is that government is not to establish a state religion and government is to keep their hands out of religion. That does not mean government can not support programs that “religious” organizations run if those programs are effective. Of couse the government if they do support any organization, they should only support ones that are effective. That should be the main measuring stick.

  5. Wayne M says:

    Well said Jim. I could not have said it better myself.

  6. notaRighty says:

    Clinton and the others did not take us to war and base it on lies. Bush did. Your point is invalid.
    Cigarette smoke has carcinogens in it. That is a fact. Your point is invalid.
    The vast majority of scientists say global warming is caused by human activity. You show me the proof that man could never put out that much “poison”. I don’t know where you come up with that statement.
    The constitution says nothing about a “state religion”, it just says “religion”. You have somewhat of a point, but your reading of the constitution is wrong — look up “establish” in the dictionary and read the constitution.
    You do your research.
    One other thing — “lefties driving SUVS” — more Dennis Prager-style arguments — your evidence is anecdotal and biased. Show me the proof that “lefties’ drive SUV’s.

  7. Jim S says:

    Bush did not take us to War on WMD argument only. Point is still valid
    Everything you eat has carcinogens in it. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=carcinogen+in+our+food&sp=1&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&fr=FP-tab-web-t&SpellState=n-1489873209_q-y.s5vumsxXI88.hgpb8I4AABAA%40%40
    Life is dangerous, get over it.
    Ocean destroying the Ozone: Here is about a million stories on it.
    http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ocean+destroys+the+ozone&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8
    A few years ago I met Ted Mondale at a parade. He was one of the most distasteful people I have ever met but we will leave that for another conversation. He was driving a Cadalac Escalade. Also check out this post… http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/799399/posts
    There are millions more like it.
    And of course only your reading of the constitution can be correct! State (meaning national government) is implied in all of the constitution. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So, government should not establish a national religion. I am all for that. But it does not say government can not support people of faith or values that stem from a Christain world view. This has nothing to do with separation of church and state the way many have come to understand it, Sorry. So where did you say you found seperation of Church and state in the constitution? It just isn’t there. In fact if you go back and read many of the speaches and private writing of many of our forefathers you will find God and religion ooooozing out everwhere.

  8. notaRighty says:

    He did not take us to war on WMD alone? Now it is morphing into a different rational. He sure did take us to war on WMD alone, and only after that did it change into all the other rationals.
    While many foods have carcinogens in them, how many have all the carcinogens that second hand smoke has? Why do smokers have a right to impose their carcinogens on others? Your logic is flawed — it is like saying since everyone sins, then it is okay to sin — get over it. No, that is not right.
    When did the global warming issue morph into an ozone destroying issue?
    The consitution does NOT say “government should not establish a national religion”, it says it shall not “respect an establishment of religion”, nor restrict the free exercise thereof. It is to be neutral, it is not to stick its fingers in. You want it too, you want government to respect your religion. How about other religions, like Islam, how about the Wahabbi sect? If you have your way, then any religion has the right to recieve funds from the government.

  9. Jim S says:

    WMDs: The point here is that the case for the war was much bigger than WMDs. The case is valid with our without WMDs. That being said, Bush did not lie about WMDs, he believed the same information that all the other polititians did. This is a total lark!
    Second had smoke: If you don’t like it have the guts to ask the person not to smoke or leave the situaition. That is called freedom of choice.
    Global Warming etc: Environmentalists lump global warming and a whole host of there issues into the huge category “All the mean bad things that bad conservatives do to Mother Nature.” I am just showing you that mother nature is doing more damage than man is and mother nature has an incredible ability to heal. Again, I agree it is wise to care for our environment but not the crazy overzellous way that much of the left want’s to do it. No Forestry, No Drilling, No Nuclear power, No Water power and on and on and on. It is like the left is for anything that will kill our economy.

  10. Middle Ear says:

    “I am just showing you that mother nature is doing more damage than man is and mother nature has an incredible ability to heal. Again, I agree it is wise to care for our environment but not the crazy overzellous way that much of the left want’s to do it. No Forestry, No Drilling, No Nuclear power, No Water power and on and on and on. It is like the left is for anything that will kill our economy.”
    You might want to think through your first sentence. Humanity is the cause of environmental degradation, not nature. And while agreeing with economic topics more often with the right than the left, I find your last sentence to be unjustified with no data to back it up.

  11. Middle Ear says:

    “It wasn’t a particularly well written commentary. Prager has a style in which he drones on, systematically accusing the “left” repeatedly of the same things over and over. In this case he talks about the “left” being hysterical. Hysteria is seen in accusations which he believes are false. This however, like much of Prager’s writings, is circle logic. The “right” could also be accused of “hysteria” using Prager’s same logic. As someone who has picked a few true ideas to support, mixed them with a few false ideas, Prager doesn’t impress me. He speaks as though he knows what he is talking about, but if you systematically look at his arguments, you see a man who does not reason well and who focuses on the errors of those he dislikes while excusing or ignoring evil among his own ranks.”
    I personally find one of Prager’s most ‘impossible to prove yet highly fishy’ motives to be his linking of the greatness of Bush to his religiousity. I have the general belief that public officials can do much good, but there is also an aura of evil that is best kept behind closed doors. Prager is constantly building up Bush’s sainthood with the liking of his values when he all knows to well Bush and/or his administration is hardly the stuff served up during a church service. Being Prager does this again and again gives me but no alternative to draw my own conclusions since his given word is too closely associated with the RNP for my liking. I find it remarkable how a person who claims to be ‘challenged all the time’ in phone calls rarely takes calls of the challenge variety. To say he doesn’t ever isn’t the point. To say he takes calls that put question into his integrity is another matter.

  12. Middle Ear says:

    An example of that integrity would be here:
    http://www.saint-augustine.org/_jul05/ef0705a.htm

  13. Middle Ear says:

    “BTW if you follow Dennis at all, you will know that he is very hard on the current administration. Dennis is a free thinker and not just marching in goose steps with some conservative movement.”
    I’m not hearing it. Dennis is primarily a ‘right on left’ political host through and through. Rarely does he ever take the time to criticize his own party’s misdeeds. I have trouble wanting to promote him because of the hate element he’s so often criticize for, but I think of all of the syndicated hosts, Michael Savage is the closest to a “free thinker” you describe. He is more than willing to take swipes at either side without much compulsion. Whether it be Prager, Medved, Ingraham, Limbaugh, etc., they all are quite agenda-driven in their pursuit against the left. When I think of a single moment of genuinity over all others, I think of Savage. The way he will just take time out from politics and talk with a caller about his experiences in the Bronx or what have you is far more human to me than the controlled itineraries of the above mentioned. Again, I cannot necessarily support Savage wholeheartedly, but I think his summary of the two-party system being about whose “less worse” is more accurate than whose “better.”

  14. Wayne M says:

    I think If you follow Dennis much you will know that he was much more of a liberal in his youth and you will know that he is still left of center on quite a few issues, Abortion being one of them.
    I frequently Here Dennis taking pot shots at Bush and his Happiness hour on Fridays is in my humble estimation the best hour on all of radio.
    Wayne

Comments are closed.