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.

Americans Elect is Shady

-They refuse to disclose most of their funding.
-The funding that has been disclosed comes mostly from Arno Consulting, a far right organization that has been involved in 5 different voter fraud cases.
-Chairman Peter Ackerman is an investment banker with connections to Koch Industries and the Cato Institute. (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/relationship.asp?personId=662219) (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute)
-There is no oversight or transparency to their process.
-The way the site is run could easily push the results in the direction that the secret funders want it to go.


Arno Political Consultants Controversies (from wiki).

-In 2004, APC hired JSM who hired YPM who is accused of tricking people into registering to vote as a Republican.[2]
-In 2004, APC is accused of forging signatures on a petition to legalize slot machines in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.[5]
-In 2005, APC has come under fire for allegedly fraudulent ballot petitioning strategies, particularly pertaining to a Massachusetts anti-gay marriage proposal as put forth by the Massachusetts Family Institute.[6][7]
-In 2007, APC hired JSM, Inc. who hired independent contractors who gave snacks and food to homeless people in exchange for signing petitions and registering to vote.[8]
-In 2009, proponents of a payday loan veto referendum sued APC in Franklin County for breach of contract and negligence. 13,000 signatures were thrown out because the Form 15's had not been appropriately filled out. They were seeking $438,000. [9] Both parties reached an undisclosed settlement agreement on July 29th, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Political_Consultants

If these two don't get a huge settlement, then the system is surely broken.

I paid a hefty fine once for playing music in my car and refusing to turn it down when a cop told me to do so. I thought I was within my rights, so I took him to court and lost.

>> ^honkeytonk73:

A veteran cop friend effectively told me once:
If a police officer asks you anything, and if you aren't legally obligated to answer. Then don't answer. Cops understand this. Their job is to 'trick' you into revealing more information than is legally required and potentially incriminate yourself. A cop can and will use anything you say against you. Their word > your word in a court of law. Even if their word is inaccurate or misconstrued based upon something you said or did.
If you are courteous, respectful, understand your rights, and are doing nothing illegal , there is no need to fear. But, if you do this and are drunk, aggressive/violent or have anything considered illegal in your vehicle. Then you better not drop the soap when you get in the slammer.
Take it this way. If you did nothing wrong and didn't break the law and they arrest you. The cops know their asses will be handed to them and you'll have a big settlement on your hands.
Most cops are the good-guys, including my friend and cousin (who is a cop). But there are some bad seeds who likely got into the job for the power factor. Those are the assholes. I was pulled over by two so far over the years.
-The first one lied and said I was speeding. I used evidence, and reverse questioning on him and indirectly got him reveal his reason for pulling me over was bullshit (I was in a sports car and he wanted a ticket to meet a quota). After a few times back and forth. He turned and walked away.
-The second one pulled me over to just be an asshole. I wasn't speeding. He was yelling, red faced. Apparently had a bad day and was taking it out on me. I looked at him calmly as he lost his shit. When he was done I said 'Is there anything else I can help you with sir?'. He also turned around and walked away.

A veteran cop friend effectively told me once:

If a police officer asks you anything, and if you aren't legally obligated to answer. Then don't answer. Cops understand this. Their job is to 'trick' you into revealing more information than is legally required and potentially incriminate yourself. A cop can and will use anything you say against you. Their word > your word in a court of law. Even if their word is inaccurate or misconstrued based upon something you said or did.

If you are courteous, respectful, understand your rights, and are *doing nothing illegal*, there is no need to fear. But, if you do this and are drunk, aggressive/violent or have anything considered illegal in your vehicle. Then you better not drop the soap when you get in the slammer.

Take it this way. If you did nothing wrong and didn't break the law and they arrest you. The cops know their asses will be handed to them and you'll have a big settlement on your hands.

Most cops are the good-guys, including my friend and cousin (who is a cop). But there are some bad seeds who likely got into the job for the power factor. Those are the assholes. I was pulled over by two so far over the years.

-The first one lied and said I was speeding. I used evidence, and reverse questioning on him and indirectly got him reveal his reason for pulling me over was bullshit (I was in a sports car and he wanted a ticket to meet a quota). After a few times back and forth. He turned and walked away.

-The second one pulled me over to just be an asshole. I wasn't speeding. He was yelling, red faced. Apparently had a bad day and was taking it out on me. I looked at him calmly as he lost his shit. When he was done I said 'Is there anything else I can help you with sir?'. He also turned around and walked away.

I completely disagree with his definition of what terrorists are. Look at what Israel are doing to the Palestinians:

They've built enormous fences around hundreds of thousands of them, often separating them or isolating the people there from other villages. Arrests, delays and degradation at these checkpoints is commonplace, and this is often just so they can go to work, or visit friends. During special events such as Jewish holidays, the West Bank can be under military closure for more than a week.
http://mideastposts.com/2011/05/02/humiliation-and-degradation-easter-at-qalandiya/

The Israeli's then illegally settle or continue to expand on what is often privately owned Palestinian land.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/world/middleeast/21land.html?hp&ex=1164171600&en=2e03da87b76e6581&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Then they burn their olive trees, desecrate their mosque's, beat their children and kill adult civilians.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/204101.html

What can the Palestinians do to fight back? Well pretty much nothing due to the fact Israel receives billions of dollars in military supplies and funding each year from the US Government. The UN criticizes Israel's actions and International law states that expansion of many of the settlements is illegal, however the Palestinians are literally powerless.

Many Palestinians over the years, including women, have decided to blow themselves up in public, often killing many people, children included - these people therefore are labelled terrorists. So I have to ask, which of the actions I've described that the Israeli's/US are involved in against the Palestinians would be considered as moving them more towards a type 1 civilization?

Shady

-They refuse to disclose most of their funding.
-The funding that has been disclosed comes mostly from Arno Consulting, a far right organization that has been involved in 5 different voter fraud cases.
-Chairman Peter Ackerman is an investment banker with connections to Koch Industries and the Cato Institute. (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/relationship.asp?personId=662219) (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute)
-There is no oversight or transparency to their process.
-The way the site is run could easily push the results in the direction that the secret funders want it to go.


Arno Political Consultants Controversies (from wiki).

-In 2004, APC hired JSM who hired YPM who is accused of tricking people into registering to vote as a Republican.[2]
-In 2004, APC is accused of forging signatures on a petition to legalize slot machines in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.[5]
-In 2005, APC has come under fire for allegedly fraudulent ballot petitioning strategies, particularly pertaining to a Massachusetts anti-gay marriage proposal as put forth by the Massachusetts Family Institute.[6][7]
-In 2007, APC hired JSM, Inc. who hired independent contractors who gave snacks and food to homeless people in exchange for signing petitions and registering to vote.[8]
-In 2009, proponents of a payday loan veto referendum sued APC in Franklin County for breach of contract and negligence. 13,000 signatures were thrown out because the Form 15's had not been appropriately filled out. They were seeking $438,000. [9] Both parties reached an undisclosed settlement agreement on July 29th, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Political_Consultants

Recent example of what happens when private companies are allowed to discriminate:

Countrywide Agrees To $335 Million Settlement Over Discriminatory Subprime Loans

In the largest residential fair lending settlement reached in the Justice Department’s history, Bank of America has agreed to provide a $335 million fund to compensate victims of what one top DOJ official called “discrimination with a smile.” DOJ alleged that Countrywide, before it was owned by Bank of America, engaged in a “widespread pattern or practice of discrimination against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers” in their mortgage lending practices from 2004 through 2008.

The complaint, filed in the Central District of California on Wednesday, alleges that African-American and Hispanic borrowers “were more than twice as likely to be placed in subprime loans than non-Hispanic White wholesale borrowers who had similar credit qualifications.” Subprime loans carry higher interest rates.

Attorney General Eric Holder stressed at a press conference that the over 200,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers named in the suit were qualified for the loans.

The Mayflower and the people aboard her were a deeply religious sect of people that did indeed flee to the colonies to practice their religion. I fully understand that.

What you, and most cherry-picking christians fail to acknowledge is that the Mayflower crew was not the first nor the second or even the third permanent settlement in the new world. Jamestown, roughly 20 years prior was established without pretense of religion by wealthy Europeans hoping to find gold. The were ill-equipped and not manual laborers so to speak and that's why the first Jamestown settlement was in dire straights. A second crew arrived and began growing tobacco, which, at the time, the sale of tobacco seeds was outlawed outside of Spain. John Rolfe acquired some and thus established the first functional, economically viable colony at Jamestown a full six years before the Mayflower even sailed from England.

Economy, money and enterprise is what established America, not some freedom from religious persecution as, again, Americans have been force fed for years.

You're right, the first wave of settlers weren't strongly committed Christians, although one of the first things they did upon arriving was join the Rev. Robert Hunt in a communion service. However everything else is the complete opposite of what you said. Indeed, John Rolfe was the first to establish the colony, but what you've left out is that he was a deeply committed Christian! He is the one who converted Pocahontas to Christianity and took her as a bride. He had a Christian purpose for Jamestown such as to "advance the Honor of God, and to propagate his Gospel." He also said:

"no small hope by piety, clemency, courtesy and civil demeanor to convert and bring to the knowledge and true worship of Jesus Christ 1000s of poor wretched and misbelieving people: on whose faces a good Christian cannot look, without sorrow, pity and commiseration; seeing they bear the Image of our heavenly Creator, and we and they come from one and the same mold. . ."

So yes, Christianity was there at the outset, and it continued to be the prevailing influence in shaping this country.

I am not discounting what the pilgrims did at Plymouth. They did amazing things, especially with the Indians. I just want to clear that Plymouth was not what founded the colonies. They were not the first and were one of many.

If you won't listen to me, listen to the library of congress:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html


>> ^Hive13

@shinyblurry:

The Mayflower and the people aboard her were a deeply religious sect of people that did indeed flee to the colonies to practice their religion. I fully understand that.

What you, and most cherry-picking christians fail to acknowledge is that the Mayflower crew was not the first nor the second or even the third permanent settlement in the new world. Jamestown, roughly 20 years prior was established without pretense of religion by wealthy Europeans hoping to find gold. The were ill-equipped and not manual laborers so to speak and that's why the first Jamestown settlement was in dire straights. A second crew arrived and began growing tobacco, which, at the time, the sale of tobacco seeds was outlawed outside of Spain. John Rolfe acquired some and thus established the first functional, economically viable colony at Jamestown a full six years before the Mayflower even sailed from England.

Economy, money and enterprise is what established America, not some freedom from religious persecution as, again, Americans have been force fed for years.

I am not discounting what the pilgrims did at Plymouth. They did amazing things, especially with the Indians. I just want to clear that Plymouth was not what founded the colonies. They were not the first and were one of many.

>> ^hpqp:

Am I the only one whose first reaction when seeing the cannonball hole was "FAKE!!" ?

Tbh I had no idea a cannonball could do that kind of damage. I thought thay travelled a lot slower than 1000ft/s. Something with that kind of mass travelling at close to the speed of sound. I think I'd make sure there was a mountain or something between me and the nearest settlement when firing that thing.

And its not that surprising it missed those trash cans. A spherical projectile with no rifling? Yah, that shits gonna go anywhere it fucking pleases.

In a semi-related note my mum was missed by less than a metre by a bullet from a nearby shooting range when she was a teenager. I almost didn't exist due to similar accident as this

@hpqp: you may be right... and i may be way off base

i guess in my mind 'child abuse' is systematic, and this could have been just a one-off

as i said, i routinely got worse than this... but that was going on forty years ago

we all see things differently through an often-distorted lens of our own memories and experiences... and to me, something just doesn't ring true here - of course you can disagree... your opinion is just as valid as mine

let me give you an example of where i'm coming from though: my folks were very much a couple of 'spare the rod, blabla' parents - when i was naughty (which was often), i'd be physically punished

just before my 16th birthday, my parents filed for divorce - on separate occassions each of my parents brought me with them to their respective lawyer's office, where i was asked to give a statement regarding the other parent's abuse of me -- i asked each of them 'what does it matter?' and their responses were that it would help that parent's bargaining position and eventual financial settlement - each parent offered me incentives to speak out on solely their behalf

i refused, and petitioned the court for my own emancipation at age 16, which was granted

sooo... for me, it's not whether or not that what happened to hillary adams is 'child abuse' (this can be so subjective, especially when it's a single instance captured on video)

rather, i'm suspicious of the motivation and manner of her coming forward now - she's obviously a canny individual (the hidden video camera is our first indication of that), and add to that the facts i mentioned in my first post

it just strikes a chord with me, remembering how dirty i felt while my parents tried to involve me in their revenging themselves on each other

Wales, Alaska

Wales is a town in the Nome Census Area, Alaska, United States. At the 2000 census the population was 152. It is the westernmost town (or settlement of any sort) on the American mainland.

>> ^grinter:

>> ^stellar:
There are so many ways that could have gone terribly wrong.

Not to worry; I'm sure he'd get workman's comp and a nice settlement from the supermarket.


Consider I was not hearing any english, I think workman's comp is right out.