Anti Jew Propaganda
See other Anti Jew Propaganda Articles
Title: Tucker Investigates: What is destroying rural America?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 4, 2019
Author: Tucker Carlson
Post Date: 2019-12-04 13:22:21 by Anthem
Keywords: None
Views: 65717
Comments: 184
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-4) not displayed.
.
.
.
#5. To: Willie Green (#4)
(Edited)
Nope Ok, that explains a little. Thanks. I'm doing what I can for my progeny. Not sure what or if. I have this feeling for my country, but I'm not sure if it is any different than family, in both cases there's some dumbasses that I'd like to choke. Mitt Romney & Bain Capital were no different. Yep, same moral arrogance. I'm not sure about Trump. We'll see. My understanding is that it's a nationalist (Trump, Netanyahoo) vs. globalist. The next 6 months will reveal a lot. And yeah, there's no bringing the past back in terms or economic functions, but there may be a decent uprising (again) of the common man. Tulsi Gabbard is the only person on stage that I see with a glimmer of understanding.
Sanders and Warren, with their wealth taxes, also understand.
Tulsi is a mass murderer. She supports killing American children. She wants to end oil production. She doesn't want us to fight back against terrorists. She is a piece of shit.
At 5:00 minutes in you hear Tucker say that Singer has a lower tax rate than your local fireman. Singer is Jewish. So is Bernie. Do you honestly think for nanosecond that Bernie will tax Singer anymore than he is being taxed right now? Warren the simpleton merely wants to confiscate the wealth of every white American, and take away our right to defend ourselves. No, the only people Bernie and Lieawatha want to tax are those who have worked hard to put together some wealth relative to their labor.
You're a covetous little bastard. You are a thief at heart. You support abortionists like Bloomburg. That is why he is your favorite. You are with the human garbage on this one weirdo.
Vic is s thief at heart. He is very covetous.
Vic said that he wanted to raise our taxes here so we can have a global welfare system. The guy is a communist. Little Vic is a dick commie.
Vic will not escape the judgment that will befall him when the globalist finally succeed in uniting the world (against God). Global welfare, global governance, global this, global that. God didn't divide the peoples of the world (through language) just for fun. When everyone had a common language they rose up as one against God. Now, world leaders like the Pope are openly calling for global welfare et al. When they succeed, and they will, God will answer once again...and it will hurt. Mass starvation, disease, death...and that's only the beginning of sorrows. I am deeply concerned for souls like Vic.
Yeah, social upheaval is a given, especially with rising expectations in the overpopulated 'developing' Third World... Everybody (can't blame them) wants developed Western World standard or living, but it's an unsustainable goal... too much stress on the planet's natural resources, even totalitarian states like China & Indonesia won't be able to suppress the peasants..... But the same will be true in Africa & South America.... The Syrian conflict is just a mild precursor to global unrest....
[grunt] [scratch] [grunt][grunt][grunt] [scratch]
Warren might have been worth consideration, but she is just pathetically weak. Sanders is a corrupt joke. He's in it for the money. If he actually got into office he flail around worse than Yeltsin.
[grunt][grunt][grunt] [scratch] On Tulsi Gabbard the Hindu Abortion should remain legal and accessible. (Jan 2019) I consider myself pro-choice. (Sep 2012) Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services. (Feb 2014) Funding abortion avoids discrimination against poor women. (Jan 2015) Ban fracking. (Jul 2019) 2017: Short-sighted to withdraw from Paris Climate Accord. (Apr 2019) OFF Fossil Fuels: retrofit homes & fund new technology. (Apr 2019) Mixed score on "350 Action's 2020 Climate Test". (Mar 2019) Address climate change; US must lead worldwide effort. (Mar 2019) Silent on Green New Deal; supports push for renewables. (Mar 2019) No more fossil fuels for electricity by 2050. (Jan 2019) Tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass and wave energy. (Nov 2012) Supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions. (Sep 2012) Voted YES on banning offshore oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico. (Jul 2016) Constitutional right to terminate pregnancy for health. (May 2015) Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women. (Aug 2012)
Noted that another "catholic" considers voting for murderers. Are you luke warm?
Well, Pokemecuntas did at least pretend that she was going after the leeches on Wall Street. They didn't like it, you can tell by those "poll" numbers.
Yep, she's a politician running for office on the Democrat slate from an overwhelmingly Democrat part of the country. Like it or not, abortion is the Establishment's policy and it was put in place by Republicans. It will be there until the population declines precipitously. Most young women support it because they don't want as many children as modern medicine allows to survive. Although I understand the concerns of the pro-abort crowd, I continue to oppose abortion on a moral basis, as it is a crude and vicious form of birth control that corrodes the emotional well being of the people. When I watch her I see a good hearted woman who is also intelligent and seeks the truth of matters. She may not always be right (re: agree with me), but she is not deliberately corrupt. That alone is worth support. Finally, her adoption of the mono-theistic (and Christian-like) branch of the Hindu religion is far more acceptable than the anti-Christian Jewish swamp we live with now.
Be very, very careful when dealing out the language of judgment and damnation.
I also hate that Catholics are liars like you just did. Catholics hold the majority in the Supreme Court they can end it today. But you dumb Catholics are like Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown. Lukewarm is what you are. An excuse maker for satan's democrats.
A good hearted woman doesn't support murdering children. That is a strange comment you made.
Vic, the judgment I refer to will affect us all. (I'm not referring to the final judgment that will come to those who reject God...that will come later). In fact, my family knows that we will certainly perish in the immediate judgments that signal the beginning of the Great Tribulation. The Trib judgments will begin when a New World Order/One World Government is solidified...it's on its way.
Kindly specify my error.
Put in place by Republicans. Sorry for calling you a liar but that isn't really true.
Yes, it's true.
You are with the human garbage on this one weirdo. (1)
(2)
(3)
Summary: 'I disagree with Person X, therefore he's a bastard, a piece of garbage and a Communist.' - A K A Stone
"Waa! Waa! Waa! Why can't we get any young supporters to uphold our beliefs anymore?" - Old Republicans. Gee, I wonder.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Opinion of the Court 7-2; 5D, 2R Blackmun (R) delivered the Opinion of the court joined by 6 more. Dissenting justices: 1D, 1R White (D) filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist joined. The Court contained 6 nominees by Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. It contained 3 nominees by Democrat presidents FDR, JFK, and LBJ. Justice Powell was a Democrat nominated by Republican Nixon. Justice Brennan was a Democrat nominated by Republican Eisenhower. The Court contained 5 Democrat justices and 4 Republican justices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell,_Jr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan,_Jr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart
So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges? Well then, given that the Supreme Court has been continuously controlled by Republican nominees since Nixon, please tell us the date after which the Republican nominees were nominally Republican. I believe that occurred under Reagan. O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Roberts - these are Republican nominees who are nominally Republican. And they've provided the bulwark to prevent the Republican majority Court from overturning Roe.
LOL! If the facts are inconvenient, just make something up...
No, I advocated for no such conclusion. I only reposted my years old recitation of the party of the justices and the presidents who nominated them. I find the entire argument absurd. Lo these many years, I have never found the abortion clause of the Constitution. I do not find it to be a constitutional matter at all. Whether a judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or other, he or she should decide based on United States law, not some personal perception of God's law. Finding something morally repugnant or acceptable does nothing to determine it to be either constitutional or unconstitutional. The first law citing murder was in 1790 and only applied to places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Murder elsewhere was not a Federal matter. Even if abortion were considered infanticide, it would not have been a crime against the United States. The argument over Roe proceeds from the false choice of Roe, or a reversal of Roe prohibiting all abortion. I believe it should be a matter of state jurisdiction. Roe should be overturned for lack of jurisdiction, and the matter returned to the States. Whether a judge is Dem or GOP should not determine how he rules. Jonathan Turley just proved that it is possible for a Democrat attorney to interpret the law independent of the general political leanings of his party. At the time of Roe, it was entirely possible for a conservative Southern Democrat to be much more conservative than what was then a moderate Northeastern moderate Republican. A party indicator from nearly 50 years ago provides no indicator of that justice's legal leanings. Even a current party indicator does not identify how one would interpret the Constitution. The party indicator of the nominating official provides less than nothing.
Your summary is inaccurate. It is more like this. Person X holds an evil act as a good act. So person X is a piece of shit or a communist in your case. In your case because you espouse communist ideology in some manners. You can disagree and think people that support murdering children are admirable and not pieces of shit. But according to Stones rules if you admire a piece of shit you are a piece of shit.
Yes he did. He is still a bad person though.
By their political party. Still the Catholics could end abortion if they wanted to. They must not want to. Which makes sense you being a supporter of an abortion candidate Bloomdork.
Should states be allowed to make it legal to murder adults or just innocent never hurt anyone babies?
Where should the power lie? Should the Supreme Court have the power to make it legal to murder adults or anyone's babies? Should the Supreme Court have such power in the absence of any decision by the Federal political branch (the Legislature) in the form of a law? There was no Federal law at issue in Roe. No Federal law prevented a State from banning abortion. Roe relied on constitutional interpretation to strike down a Texas State law. In doing so, it made that interpretation applicable to all the States, striking down all conflicting State law. Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.
No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison. But you didn't answer the question. You seem to be ok with allowing states to determine if you can murder a child. So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults? Why ok for babies but not adults?
True.
Marbury was decided by the Founders. The Founders also manned Congress, the state legislatures and the White House. They did not move to strike down the Marbury decision. Instead, they accepted it, thereby ratifying it. The Founders, by their decision in Marbury and their ratification of Marbury by their non-reaction to it, demonstrated that Supreme Court review WAS the "original intent" of the Constitution. The Founders gave us the Constitution, and they gave us Washington's presidential precedents, and they gave us Marbury v. Madison - the Marbury Supremes were Founding Fathers too, and the President Jefferson and Marybury Congress were Founders too. Marbury is part of the "original intent" of the Constitution - it is part of the legacy of the Founding Fathers.
...had a moral compass. Now it's not even PC to articulate what the Washington Monument represented...
The subject of abortion is rapidly becoming a moot point in the context of the next level of moral challenge rendered by our self-worshiping technocracy... www.google.com/search?&q=Designer+Babies+in+ukraine Got CRISPR?
Comments (46 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Anthem (#5)
Tulsi Gabbard is the only person on stage that I see with a glimmer of understanding.
#7. To: Anthem (#5)
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
(Edited)
Sanders and Warren, with their wealth taxes, also understand.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
Sanders and Warren, with their wealth taxes, also understand.
#10. To: watchman (#8)
#11. To: watchman (#8)
#12. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#11)
Vic said that he wanted to raise our taxes here so we can have a global welfare system.
#13. To: Anthem (#5)
but there may be a decent uprising (again) of the common man.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#7)
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
#16. To: Anthem (#14)
grunt] [scratch]
#17. To: Anthem (#15)
Warren might have been worth consideration
#18. To: watchman (#8)
No, the only people Bernie and Lieawatha want to tax are those who have worked hard to put together some wealth relative to their labor.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#16)
Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women. (Aug 2012)
#20. To: watchman (#12)
Vic will not escape the judgment that will befall him
#21. To: Anthem (#19)
#22. To: Anthem (#19)
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
Be very, very careful when dealing out the language of judgment and damnation.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#21)
I also hate that Catholics are liars like you just did.
#25. To: Anthem (#24)
#26. To: A K A Stone (#25)
#27. To: A K A Stone (#9)
You're a covetous little bastard. You are a thief at heart. You support abortionists like Bloomburg. That is why he is your favorite.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#10)
Vic is s thief at heart. He is very covetous.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#11)
Vic said that he wanted to raise our taxes here so we can have a global welfare system. The guy is a communist. Little Vic is a dick commie.
#30. To: All (#29)
(Edited)
#31. To: All (#30)
#32. To: A K A Stone, Anthem, Vicomte13 (#25)
Put in place by Republicans. Sorry for calling you a liar but that isn't really true.
Burger (R)
Marshall (D)
Powell (D)
Douglas (D) filed a concurring opinion.
Brennan (D) filed a concurring opinion.
Stewart (R) filed a concurring opinion.
Rehnquist (R) filed a dissenting opinion.
(R) Eisenhower
(R) Nixon
(D) LBJ
(D) Nixon
(D) FDR
(D) Eisenhower
(R) Eisenhower
#33. To: nolu chan (#32)
#34. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#33)
So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?
SEC. 3. And be it [further] enacted, That if any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons on being thereof convicted shall suffer death.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
Summary: 'I disagree with Person X, therefore he's a bastard, a piece of garbage and a Communist.' - A K A Stone
#37. To: nolu chan (#35)
Jonathan Turley just proved that it is possible for a Democrat attorney to interpret the law independent of the general political leanings of his party.
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
So, we're going to count judges
#39. To: nolu chan (#35)
I believe it should be a matter of state jurisdiction.
#40. To: A K A Stone (#39)
Should states be allowed to make it legal to murder adults or just innocent never hurt anyone babies?
#41. To: nolu chan (#40)
Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#38)
Still the Catholics could end abortion if they wanted to. They must not want to.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#41)
No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.
#44. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#43)
(Edited)
The Founders also...
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
--President George Washington, in his Farewell Address
#45. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#42)
(Edited)
Still the Catholics could end abortion if they wanted to.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]