Um.... when the EMPs hit and people have to rebuild society, this guy will rule a good-sized village, and maybe a couple of outlying settlements. WOW.

Oh what a glorious metaphor for the West Bank settlements.

Nothing he espouses is particularly radical in any way. He mostly goes along with the majority of Americans, like how he says we should stop threatening Iran. Or we should accept the two state settlement on the table that the American government and Israel have been denying for almost 40 years now. I can't think of very many stances he takes that are radical at all.

Also you haven't understood any of his talks if you think he subscribes to "Corporate conspiracy theories". He explains it very plainly, if you are the head of GM your best interest is in maximizing your profits in the short term. That's not a conspiracy that's just sanity. In order to do that you lobby to keep wages and restrictions down and work to throw doubt on global warming.

The main point I'm trying to put to you is you have to read the books, you can't "Trust" Chomsky just on your own. He provides the citations, you can look them up. The one book I would suggest you start with is "Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky". That book is a collection of his talks and interviews and it's followed up by research done not by him but by a couple of smart editors who put the book together. He uses it now as reference sometimes because he was surprised at what a good job they did. The best part about the book is that it has a dedicated website that contains the references and you can check it while you read.

The most important thing you can know about Chomsky is that he has a LOT of enemies that look for whatever they can to use against him. Which is why he can't make very many mistakes, so he's quite conservative and careful with his research. I expect you to be too, you shouldn't just trust people, you should do your own work on the subjects that interest you.

to be a great man it matters what one does off the playing field (Muhammed Ali) . Trying hard and being skillful at something are not qualifications for greatness, just as receiving a large divorce settlement does not make a woman a "whore". That's to say nothing of the super inflated pay packets that are routinely handed out to top sports people. Sounds like a bitter misogynist.

The residents of Nabi Saleh and their supporters who are international activists.

It cannot be disputed that Palestinians do and have used children for political gain. Nor can it be disputed that Israelis have used excessive and lethal force against.

In this particular instance they are protesting about the expansion of the Israeli settlement of Halamish. Halamish is not a border settlement like we are led to believe most settlements are. It is 10 miles from the Israel border.

https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Halamish&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x151d295311c3dc3d:0xe8c9eec7d4996da0,Halamish&gl=au&ei=aJWbUISYCcTqiAf664CgDA&ved=0CIMB
ELYD

It has the constant protection, and therefore tacit approval, of the Israeli government and violates a multitude of international agreements and laws regarding occupation. Each week there are protests which are met with a military presence against an unarmed mob. These protests are monitored by Amnesty International. Unfortunately their site is down at the moment and I can't find any reliable links to this other than the BBC which says little. However you can read the following if you want to know more.

http://www.bikyamasr.com/80182/amnesty-international-declares-palestinian-activist-a-prisoner-of-conscience/

I guess the crux of my argument is this: To what extend does the use of children for political purposes compare to the often brutal and expanding occupation of a homeland? What is the right thing for these villagers to do under the circumstances?

I think as part of the settlement the cop should be subjected to being tazed by the 10 year old that he tazed. Also, the kid will be awarded a new car, and the offending FORMER officer will be required to wash it, with his tongue.

What do you mean by "History is bunk" Yogi?

Re: previous post.
What a wonderful "Jewish State" it is too.

Here's a snippet of the official nature of it's democratic and liberal proclivities.

http://nigelparry.com/diary/ramallah/plates.html

"Jewish settlers living in Bet El settlement near Ramallah do not get plates with an "R" on an orange background. They have yellow Israeli plates. In other words, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jews and Arabs have license plates that show their race."

You can follow up with more official sources if you are in any way interested.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Kofi:
The Daily Show covered this (I'm in Australia so I can't find the link) and they showed, through Fox news, that the 2/3rds say Aye was actually already on the teleprompter.
Either way, surely its WEST Jerusalem that is the capital of Israel if anything. Does history mean nothing??

History is mostly bunk.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Liberals purport to hate fascism but also hate Israel, the freest, most liberal nation in the Middle East.
The liberal mind, who can know it?
>> ^lantern53:
The UN set up Israel, didn't they? I thought the libs loved the UN.
What happened?


Well... the freest nation with mandatory military service, anyway. Occupying and oppressing the natives doesn't sound all that liberal to me, either. As far as the "liberal mind", you can't know what you're incapable of hearing.

It's also a "Jewish State" that has lots of Non-Jews yet they are held to the same laws. Because a state based on a religion will never work and cannot in anyway be Democratic.

>> ^Yogi:

Is this for real? I've been hearing that it blows.

Its not the revolution this review seems to make it but its not bad. The strongest aspect of the game is how fucking gorgeous everything looks. The areas are pretty draw dropping, you'll want to level just so you can explore further. The combat is also fairly fun, at least for MMO standards.


The questing differences are really only superficial. While WoW might have you collecting hides from random critters GW2 has you doing much the same thing. The dynamic events are painfully formulaic. They pretty much all call for you to kill a boss that spawns, defend a small settlement, escort supplies etc and frankly it becomes quite monotonous.

The principle criticism of GW2 was that it wasn't really a persistent MMO. They've tried to address this in GW2, but in doing so they have introduced a lot of the flaws of the MMO genre. ANET have been very keen to talk about how different GW2 is from the rest of the genre, but really its less of a departure than GW1 for better and for worse. Its a pretty good effort, but its not all BIG ASS party.

They kinda did. They know that if they always defend their clients' killers, sometimes they'll defeat their families, and the savings on average will outweigh the legal costs. They probably only have to win 1 in 50 such cases. Now, maybe, they'll also factor in the negative publicity costs.>> ^ambassdor:

From Fight Club, 'Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.'
I guess Progressive didn't do their math?

From Fight Club, 'Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.'
I guess Progressive didn't do their math?

>> ^shagen454:

They say the people they are sending up are going to stay there for their whole lives? That sounds like a fucking survival horror disaster reality television series waiting to happen. I mean I would probably sacrifice myself to do it and hate myself for the rest of my life for it, or go for a suicide walk in the caves to meet the local specimens deep inside there... but it's messed up I tell you, it's meSSED! It reminds me of a book I read a long time ago... Red Planet?


Well as long as they don't start a religion I think it sounds like a cool way to retire. Peaceful, you're earth-famous, hopefully provided with an internet connection (slightly laggy), you can go play space-golf etc etc.

Hope she pushes for a nice big settlement on top of her job being reinstated....because just getting her job back isn't enough to make the point.

Needs to go for a 7 figure settlement, that way if they do it again chances are they'll be paying even more..

And while it may hurt the students by making school more expensive, at least it'll help keep some kind of sanity in the workforce..... Not a big fan of "think of the children" type arguments when it comes to screwing one person over royally and being OK with it just so some theoretical group may not experience some of the backlash of justice being done.

Just pay him a settlement in counterfeit dollars.

Nancy Grace is a pathetic excuse for a "reporter"

she was disbarred in Georgia for illegal practices, the bar had enough of her and ran her out of practicing

she was a suspect in the murder of her husband, and there are still questions surrounding the case and many think she had something, or knew something was going to occur but didn't stop it.

she was successfully sued and forced into settlement by CNN over the Melinda Duckett suicide the day after her interview with Nancy.

she slandered and condemned the duke lacross team and daily insults and trash talking and never apologized when it was found out the girl lied from the beginning and instead of showing up, she took a week vacation when it was found the girl had lied about the rape. Therefore 'disappearing' till the story blew over.

Her latest crap is she's screaming at top of her lungs and adamantly stating that Whitney was murdered that someone drowned her. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/nancy-grace-whitney-houston-comments_n_1282410.html)

Repeatedly gave false info on air on the Caylee Anthony case, to the point of fabricating evidence that actually got her investigated by the team investigating the murder all to find out it was "fabricated for ratings" she was forced to take another week vacation this time from her bosses at CNN who owns HLN.

She was fired from her old tv spot on a local Atlanta station for slander.

the lists go on and on and on, heck even Wikipedia has a loooooong list of her offenses...

she's trash that should be done away with, it only proves that media cnn/hln are 1 step below trash jerry springer type television and there is no longer any news in america only sensationalism for ratings.

>> ^shinyblurry:


>> ^LukinStone:



You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

Let me try a different tactic to get us back on track. I think, at least within the discussion between you and I, three different points have been made:

1. Santorum's point, that Kennedy now supported by liberals or atheists or evil citizens was using the establishment clause to say people who believe in God can't participate in government.

2. My point, that Santorum is mistaken and the establishment clause is meant to keep organized religious groups from affecting changes based on solely religious beliefs.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

Your point is related to the initial discussion, but the length you are willing to go with your conclusions is not. In addition, you take political ideas with many interpretations and cherry pick your support. This, I'll admit, is great for making a partisan argument. But, that's not my goal here.
Can you see how a more focused discussion is useful? I know I am a long-winded writer, and so, if you can't stay on track, I feel we'll be forced to trade dozens of pages back and forth as we're continually side-tracked.

I don't have time for that. So, this will be my last comment on this video (may all Videosifters rejoice!). I will give you the honor of last word between us, if you want it. I only offer one challenge: Make your argument without quoting any additional sources. At first, I was impressed that you went to the trouble to research, but now, it seems you are addicted to them. And I'm not convinced they are helping move the discussion along.

I can't let everything you've said fly, not coupled with the conclusion you so righteously came to. So, I hope that you'll forgive me when I pick and choose what I think has the most relevance to the discussion at hand.

Let's get back to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Why is language like this in the constitution if, as you've so thoroughly proven, the founders were all Catholics…wait no, Quakers…wait Presbyterians…wait Baptists…oh, right deists…

I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others.

Do you really have to ask, given how great you think Christianity is, how it is these (to varying degrees) religious men all compromised on this point? They understood that religious differences between Christians had taken their toll on European governments. This was a way to temper such strife. That handy link you provided, breaking down the religion affiliations of the founders, shows that a majority of them were Episcopalian/Anglicans. Do you think it was a valid concern that a Christian sect believing the King of England was the head of the church might be seen as a potential threat to our fledgling country?

I think the interpretation that sees the establishment clause as a protection against and for Christians addresses some other minor points you made. In a state like North Carolina, where Protestants dominated, their individual state's government could more easily make such religious restrictions without having to compromise with different sects. That, in the future, they were forced to change "Protestant" to "Christian" I think shows the national example, which was less tolerant of specific religious language, was more just. The North Carolinians, as well as other state governments, stubbornly held onto the word "Christian" because that's what they knew. Maybe the national founders didn't know how effective the language they used would turn out to be, but by employing the more secular god of deism instead of the specific one of Christianity, they protected the future of all Americans instead of just the most popular sect of the time.

And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care.

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian.

Supreme Court Justices are entitled to their opinions and certainly deserve respect, but Rehnquist's support of your position is not the final word in this discussion. Justices are human like anyone else, and they often make mistakes. They are often politically biased. Upon further research, I found a much more harshly worded version of this letter and learned the political implications of its creation. It was indeed written by Jefferson to make a political point and to caution against aligning politics with religion, as the opposition party did at the time. He cautioned against things like proclamations of thanksgiving, such as the one by Washington you quoted in your initial post directed at me, as they were reminiscent of the proclamations made by the English monarchy.

Justice Rehnquist read the same words, no doubt had a better understanding of history than I and came to a different conclusion. I don't feel like I'm blaspheming when I say, on this, I think he was wrong.

There have always been opposing political parties, vying for power in America. Religion has always been used as a political weapon. That the ire against Great Britain was unpalatable enough for even the most religious of Americans to compromise and allow the establishment clause to be written as it was is no accident. I think it stands to as an example of how important the constitution is that, in the face of tyranny, the founders identified something they all held dear that had been corrupted by governments throughout history, and found a way to work around that problem.

I think to argue that the constitution needs to remain static, without an intelligent and modern understanding of the principles it puts in place, is childish. The founders essentially kicked the ball down the road concerning the issue of slavery. Some believed it morally wrong but saw it as too big of a challenge to tackle at the time. And, I imagine not many men believed in suffrage for female citizens, but that too was something future generations were able shape our laws to include. My point in bringing up examples like these is simply to show each generation's duty to interpret laws, and when necessary, to make changes. If the founders thought the benefits of allowing organized religion to guide the country, in an official capacity, outweighed the dangers, I think they would have explicitly stated so.

The fact that people, humans, immediately went back to using the tool of organized religion to divide each other and seize power is not surprising to me. Testing limits and making amendments is our prerogative as Americans. And, if anything, the wall of separation has proven to be a good idea, as we've only created more religions which have duped more people to believe more untrue things as time marches on.

FINALLY: Two points I have purposely overlooked. They, in my opinion, are outside the realm of this discussion. So, think of this as a Post-script.

1. All of your citations of a Christian god being mentioned by founders and their church-going activities.

As I've now said over and over, I accept that the founders were all Christians, to some degree. The language of government had, up until that point, been tied to that of religion. It makes sense to me that it took a while for the full intent of the separation between church and state to trickled down into the collective consciousness. I hope you can understand how this idea incorporates the foundations of early religious settlements in North America as well as church services being held in tandem with government work after the constitution was written. Obviously, a book could be written about it; I don't think it influences the primary discussion nearly as much as you do. I think the key with this one is that you take a breath and understand where I'm disagreeing with you.

2. Your last paragraph.

The idea that religion has influenced our culture and morals is not the issue here. The evolution of government has shown that organized religion has, in the past, been yet another institution no more intrinsically moral than any other institution established by man. Organized religion has been responsible for education and liberal reform. It has also been responsible for wars, corruption within communities of all sizes and has been used to justify inequality.

The idea of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous? I'll do you one better. I think American history reflects an implicit endorsement of Christianity. And, going back further, before Christianity took hold in Europe, other non-Christian religions were tangled up with government and culture to the point these ideas couldn’t be considered without each other.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.