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: 61976
Comments: 184
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 43.
#1. To: All (#0)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Singer_(businessman)
Lack of employment opportunities... Jorge Arbusto's fault... He's the one who downsized & outsourced our industrial infrastructury that is now produced more "efficiently" in Third World shitholes... Trump is 20 years too late, we should've elected Ross Perot when we had the chance... But I don't give a shit anymore.... I'm probably gonna croak sometime within the next 3~4 years anyway... Fuck all them idiots that did this... They fuckin' ruined this whole goddam planet for everybody... Too many goddam people, too much goddam garbage & trash... plastics, pesticides, fertilizer runnoff, flushed pharmaceuticals... Gonna all disrupt the global foodchain, drug-resistant diseases running rampant worldwide.... There's no avoiding it... I just hope I croak from old age before it hits
I take it that you're not a family man.(?) BTW, did you watch the video?
Nope I see no reason to focus on Paul Singer, even though he may be the worst of his ilk... But that's how they did it during Arbusto's reign.... Mitt Romney & Bain Capital were no different... Fuck 'em all... And Fuck Tump too.... he can't bring any of that stuff back no matter what he does... He's just a fucking conartist & grifter who's taking advantage of poor gullible fools who think there's still hope.....
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.
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.
[grunt] [scratch] [grunt][grunt][grunt] [scratch]
[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)
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.
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.
Kindly specify my error.
Put in place by Republicans. Sorry for calling you a liar but that isn't really true.
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.
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.
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?
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.
#44. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#43)
(Edited)
...had a moral compass. Now it's not even PC to articulate what the Washington Monument represented...
While what you state is absolutely correct, it may also be worth observing that the Constitution and Washington created a Supreme Court that was packed with 100% Federalists. Never since those early days has the court been packed so one-sidedly. Comparing the Federal government as founded, to the Federal government of today, reveals that something has gone askew.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Anthem (#1)
#3. To: Willie Green (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: Anthem (#3)
I take it that you're not a family man.(?)
BTW, did you watch the video?
Yeah... AFTER I posted my reply...
#5. To: Willie Green (#4)
(Edited)
#7. To: Anthem (#5)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#7)
#16. To: Anthem (#14)
grunt] [scratch]
#19. To: A K A Stone (#16)
Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women. (Aug 2012)
#21. To: Anthem (#19)
#24. To: A K A Stone (#21)
I also hate that Catholics are liars like you just did.
#25. To: Anthem (#24)
#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)
#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.
#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.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#41)
No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.
Replies to Comment # 43. 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
#57. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#43)
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.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 43.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]