This is videosift, not youtube and most sifters are well informed and certainly know the proper reasoning of the first amendment. It's correct interpretation is exactly how Cenk stated, which makes perfect sense since many of the founders were agnostic at best.

I think the general demeanor of VS is that its denizens are "well informed" in the sense that they carefully follow the far-left blogosphere's opinions as doled out by HuffPo, Kos, et al. I am pleased to introduce actual facts and history to an audience with a rigid and limited mindset.

Cenk and others on the left very much desire the "wall of seperation" to be defined in 'their' way. Problem is that defining it their way requires the burial of facts and history with the substitution of personal interpretation and more than a little willful miscontruance.

For example, just because "the right" doesn't agree with the radical far-left's interpretation of the 1st Ammendment does not mean that they want a 'state religion'. The left for many years has trotted out this crazy 'either or' vision of the right on the issue of seperation of church & state. The level of intolerance inherent within such a view is what makes people protest such innocuities as christmas trees in schools, or the 10-commandments in a courthouse.

Most other folks are far less (for lack of a better word) insane when it comes to the 1st Ammendment. They don't want the states or the Feds imposing a religion on them, but they don't mind innocent, harmless displays OF religion in government or public life. This is where the left totally loses the issue. The right isn't and never has advocated the far-left's racial fear based vision of state-mandated religions. And yet in their fear of such a vision, the neo-lib left has to wrest the 1st Ammendment, Madison, Jefferson, and a host of other things in order to paint the "wall of seperation" in such a way as to advocate their radical interpretation. And so whe Tea Partiers CORRECTLY frame the issue, they flip out as if the TP guy was saying, "And we'll force you all to go to church after we're elected..." because that's how neolibs see it. Craziness.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Sigh - typical MSN hack job. The Tea Party guys saying "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution are absolutely correct, especially in relationship to how left-wing douchebags like the YTs perceive the issue. Cenk is an idiot. The 1st Ammendment is there to prevent the Federal government from establishing a state religion. At the time of drafting, the individual states had official STATE religions, and the states were worried that the establishment of a federal government would create a national religion (which they were against). To the Founders, the 1st Ammendment was a simple limitation put on the FEDERAL government to stop it from making a law establishing a state religion, and also to stop it from passing ANY law that limits the people's right to exercise whatever religion they had in any way they see fit. The problem here is that the far left's interpretation of the 1st Amendment in regards to religion is very different than that, and they keep trying to convince other stupid far left fools that their idiot vision is the one the founders had.


as per your usual, you cherry pick the factoids that promote your philosophy while ignoring the other half in order to call people "fools" and/or "stupid".
your single-mindedness becomes tiresome WP which is a shame because i find you an intelligent person to discuss issues with.
jefferson's quote is pretty self explanatory and while you do point out the one half concerning religion you ignore "there shall be no law respecting an established religion"-now what do you think "respecting" could possibly mean in this context?
it means..quite simply...that there will be no deference or special consideration in regards to any established religion.
so while your comment does refer to the government staying out of peoples faith and religion it totally ignores the other side which is to keep the influence of religion out of the business of government and lawmaking.
cenk's point on the threat of theocracy was accurate.
unless that is what you are hoping for WP and if that is the case and it is a theocratic USA you seek then i recind any objection to you manipulating the argument in order to better become united states of jesus.

Who do you think you're fooling WP? This is videosift, not youtube and most sifters are well informed and certainly know the proper reasoning of the first amendment. It's correct interpretation is exactly how Cenk stated, which makes perfect sense since many of the founders were agnostic at best.

As far as Cenk being on MSNBC I really don't mind. I watch shows not the channels.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Sigh - typical MSN hack job. The Tea Party guys saying "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution are absolutely correct, especially in relationship to how left-wing douchebags like the YTs perceive the issue. Cenk is an idiot. The 1st Ammendment is there to prevent the Federal government from establishing a state religion. At the time of drafting, the individual states had official STATE religions, and the states were worried that the establishment of a federal government would create a national religion (which they were against). To the Founders, the 1st Ammendment was a simple limitation put on the FEDERAL government to stop it from making a law establishing a state religion, and also to stop it from passing ANY law that limits the people's right to exercise whatever religion they had in any way they see fit. The problem here is that the far left's interpretaion of the 1st Ammendment in regards to religion is very different than that, and they keep trying to convince other stupid far left fools that their idiot vision is the one the founders had.

Sigh - typical MSN hack job. The Tea Party guys saying "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution are absolutely correct, especially in relationship to how left-wing douchebags like the YTs perceive the issue. Cenk is an idiot. The 1st Ammendment is there to prevent the Federal government from establishing a state religion. At the time of drafting, the individual states had official STATE religions, and the states were worried that the establishment of a federal government would create a national religion (which they were against). To the Founders, the 1st Ammendment was a simple limitation put on the FEDERAL government to stop it from making a law establishing a state religion, and also to stop it from passing ANY law that limits the people's right to exercise whatever religion they had in any way they see fit. The problem here is that the far left's interpretaion of the 1st Ammendment in regards to religion is very different than that, and they keep trying to convince other stupid far left fools that their idiot vision is the one the founders had.

I'll ammend my comment to saying, that's a bad libertarian, then slap him in the face.

How amusing. All of a sudden when it comes to weed the 10th Ammendment starts mattering again to neolibs. Of course, it doesn't matter squat when it comes to illegal immigration enforcement, gay marriage laws (when the people vote 'no'), or repealing Obama's unconstitutional health care law. But hey - even broken clocks are 'right' twice a day...

For the record - if Cali wants to legalize weed then I support it. Because unlike neolibs, I am consistent in the application of my political philosophy. I'm a state's rights, small government, low-taxes, fiscal conservative, and I don't change my stripes. I think people who use weed recreationally are stupid idiots, but unlike neolibs I don't seek to use government to impose my standards on others.

Yes, it's all a neolib fantasy.

Time to get rid of the highways. And anti-child-porn-legislation. And any of these other newfangled neo-liberal shackles.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.
O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.
Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.
It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.
Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.

O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.

Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.

It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.

Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

@jimnms

I did some digging and I found this. Section 1245 notes that the U.S.C ammendment may be cited as the "'Ballistic Knife Prohibition Act of 1986'." So according to the U.S.C the bill that I referenced above actually became an ammendment to Title 15 Commerce and Trade.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C29.txt

SHORT TITLE OF 1986 AMENDMENT
Pub. L. 99-570, title X, Sec. 10001, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat.
3207-166, provided that: "This title [enacting section 1245 of this
title, amending section 1716 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal
Procedure, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section
1245 of this title] may be cited as the 'Ballistic Knife
Prohibition Act of 1986'."

But guys, guys. Guys. But. Hey guys, but.

My aunt's dog's goldfish's girlfriend's friend got killed by a guy with a ballistic knife. If everyone else in the country was allowed to carry ballistic knives, he might not have died. I present a motion to ammend the constitution to make sure everyone carries a ballistic knife.

And i present an organisation to promote the use of ballistic knives in every-day life. We'll call it the National Ballistic-knife Association, or the NBA.

I wonder how the 4th ammendment is really interpreted by the douche-bags who come up with these tools.

Is the property owned by the government? If so then the government has an obligation not to have a mosque built on it pursuant to the 1st ammendment; which states that the government shall make no favors for any religion.

If it's freely rented, or bought property, then tough titty.

How DARE the Dems make it so GOP can't put on the "BP is innocent" ammendment on it! Now the bill is worthless, WORTHLESS!

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.
-@NetRunner

Read the history of my comments and you may find that I harbor no love for the enrichment of the Military Industrial Complex. I find the creation of the F-22, and C-17 a little like creating weapons platforms just so money can be wasted. In reality, is it really necessary to have a F-22 when there are Nuclear devices?

I guess it's fine to violate a nations sovereignty in the pursuit of justice, but to use military force is another thing completely. - Sarcasm. I point to the US and its relation ship with South America.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war? I also have a hard time believing that Ron Paul is the saint that he's made out to be.
-@NetRunner

It is quite clear that the Republican party is pro war. I can't argue that and to do so would betray my opinion of a corrupt party so bathed in neo-conservative foolishness.

You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.
-@NetRunner

EDIT: I shouldn't have to remind you of my stance on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Corporations are not people, they are conglomerations of people. But that's the problem with this country isn't it? The root of the problem, is that this country's policies are dictated by the almighty dollar, and who has the most; corporations.

What is clear to me about the Supreme Court is that it is divided by partisan ideology. They are not impartial, and pragmatic about laws. They constantly make decisions based on political ideology. For example, the 2nd ammendment. I wonder if anyone from the Judicial Branch has taken a good look at unbiased statistics (I'm not concerned with how the statistics point now, for gun or against gun). If arguments could be put in a more emotionally independent fashion, perhaps that would make a difference. To often is politics a game of ideology and emotion. Although I wonder if this solution is simply evil arbitrarily.

The military industrial complex does not demand war. Supply and Demand. The Military Industrial Complex exists out of a need to meet supply, and make a profit on it. For this I point you to Germany, a Documentary called "Bullet Proof Salesman". How do you stop supply and demand? Stop the wars, no war at all. Cut military spending. I think that would have been the best way to deal with Terrorism with good police work and diplomacy. The military is, by design, not for police work; they exist to fuck shit up.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.
-@NetRunner

The elimination of one party would leave only the other party. A situation rife for Majority Rule, which is counter to a Democratic Republic, or a Republic at all.

But know this, I agree with you that it's time for a change of scenery; republicans need the boot.

The US hasn't declared war since 1944. Congress has simply authorized the use of force. "War does not decide who is right, only who is left" - George Bernard

>> ^srd:

Ah come on. 65 feet is plenty with TV cameras. 300 feet is over the top and I would be able to understand. But do you REALLY need to stick your TV camera up a stressed out oiled birds beak to get the images needed to penetrate the jaded mind-shell of the average TV viewer who is happily munching his TV dinner, exhilirated in his induced 30 second outrage? And do you need to get closer than 65 feet to a clean up boat to shoot it? Maybe you'd be interfering with their work if you're any closer? And not just one, but a whole flock of journalists in boats.
You're behaving as if a media black out was being enforced - and all that's happening is getting the media to give a little room. So what?


40 Thousand dollar fine, and Class D felony charges. Pretty much says, "Fuck you 1st ammendment." As if the media being two feet from boom on the beach is a problem. Perhaps you weren't watching the same video as I was. But it's not just a water 65ft rule. It's also for beaches too, if not by extension but by use. If a boater cannot get to an island that is affected by oil because of the rule, then they cannot photograph the impact it has having on said beach.

It's not the rule itself, or the numbers. It's a matter of principle. If you can't understand that, go read a constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#United_States:_three_branches

The Media should be up the cleanup crew's, coast guard's asses with a flashlight and magnetic probe, after all that's exactly what we expect of them.

The article below is beside the point, but interesting nonetheless.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/26/the-missing-oil-spill-photos.html