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: 62025
Comments: 184
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-25) not displayed.
.
.
.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#25)
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?
Human Nature? "I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY" What did Jefferson have in mind and how did that work in the context of the Tyranny of the Majority that was subsequently observed by De Tocqueville?
Only if they're on private property. /sarc. BTW - Jeffrey Epstein's island was private. How'd that work out?
Trump and Netanyahoo's playmates are Tribal, Organized Criminal, Oligarchs. They are not operating under the constraint of a lawful republic - constituted to have TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS as its specified purpose. The original article “Bratva” (“Bros,” a slang term for “mob”) is abridged and re-structured for the Western readers not familiar with the intricate details of Russian politics and the history of organized crime. I have also inserted links to my research showing the longterm ties between the Russian organized crime bosses and Trump and his immediate environment...
We could go back to the eugenics movement and find lots of Republicans. Eugenics, birth control (population control), and abortion are tightly linked. I am going to start with Prescott Bush, who was Finance Chairman of the Birth Control League. Peggy Goldwater (Barry's wife) helped fund Planned Parenthood. The California legislature had near parity between R's and D's, yet passed an abortion legalization bill in 1967. Reagan was told that they would override his veto (requiring 2/3). He signed the bill. George "Rubbers" Bush introduced Family Planning Services Act in 1970. George's main interest in Congress was population control. He supported Planned Parenthood, and he advocated family planning as a way to protect a woman's health & to combat poverty. In those days, family-planning advocates spoke openly of contraception, and legal abortion was the goal of many, including Bush. "He was most definitely pro-choice--then," said former Rep. James Scheuer (D-NY). "He was very supportive until he became Reagan's VP. Then he had to adopt Reagan's backward position. After that, when George would see me in the House, he'd say, 'Jim, don't break my cover.' And I never did--until now. George couldn't have continued supporting family planning and still made the national ticket." Republican National Committee co-chair Mary Dent Crisp, a former Goldwater supporter and the highest-ranking woman in the party, believed that abortion was a woman's individual right. These are just a few of the mucky mucks that set the stage for Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton which struck down Texas and Georgia abortion prohibition laws in 1973. They were authored by Republican SC Justice Harry Blackmun and joined by 3 other Republican Justices to form a 7-2 majority.
Powell was a Republican corporate lawyer (tobacco), and anti-communist, anti-socialist. He falls within the population control crowd of Rockefeller Republicans.
Technology set the stage for a hedonistic attempt to alter the consequences of behavior rendered by 1.2 billion years of sexual reproduction. Human culture is still figuring out how to balance those technological "benefits" against the moral cost of them. The apex predators perched atop post-modern culture are not the first to figure out that "Sex Sells". Romans Chapter 1. RTFM.
Thanks for the link. Putin came up through the system. He appears to be doing good things for his country now. Trump did business wherever he could. I am more interested in what they are doing now than in some hysterical hit piece.
My impression of Putin is that his ideological affinity with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn appears to be legitimate and is consistent with his support of/by the Russian Orthodox Christian Church. Putin also appears to be a pragmatist who understands the historical relationships between the Organized Criminals who ran the Soviet Gulag system - and their present-day successors. Ie: Cut off one cockroach head and 6 grow back in its place. IMHO, the dots connecting Trump (in the role of Useful Idiot) to Simeon Mogilevich's Odessa Mafia are much more self-evident than those connecting Putin to Mogilevich... but YMMV. "COMMERCE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE IS DESPOTISM"
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? Yours is an inapplicable question and I will walk you through why that is so. 10th Amendment ALL power resides in either: Unless you strike down the Constitution, those are your three choices for who has the power to decide whether abortion is constitutional or unconstitutional, lawful or unlawful. Either the Federal government or the States must be empowered to decide whether to prohibit abortion, or it is left to the people to decide. You must pick one, and only one. If you choose the Federal government, then you choose to If you choose the States, then you choose to If you choose the People, then you choose to Nothing is murder, or any crime at all, until there is a law stating that it is murder or a crime. It is an absolute fact that abortion, at this time, is not murder. Whoever is empowered is empowered to decide abortion is a crime by passing a law so stating. Should they not pass such a law, then abortion is not a crime within that jurisdiction. Whoever is empowered is empowered to pass a law making interference with lawful abortion a crime, or to regulate abortion in the manner of its choosing. As you seem to support Federal jurisdiction, where the power now resides, States cannot decide whether to make abortion a crime. Why ok for babies but not adults? The inapplicability of your question is shown by the fact that States have no power to declare abortion lawful or unlawful. The Federal government has declared that it is empowered to decide the matter and it has decided it by declaring to all 50 States that abortion is not unlawful, much less murder, and that it is a constitutional right. Everything is legal unless there is a law stating it is illegal. Whoever is empowered makes something legal by doing nothing. They make something lawful by not passing a law making it unlawful. As a matter of law, you are simply wrong about Marbury. However, assume arguendo that you are correct. You appear perfectly happy to support an activist Supreme Court deciding the legality of abortion, just as long as the majority agrees with you in exercising jurisdiction you alternately appear to deny exists. Marbury actually resolved whether the Federal courts could strike down a Federal law as repugnant to the Constitution. In Roe, there was no Federal law involved. Had there been an inconsistent Federal law, the Federal law would have prevailed pursuant to Article 6.
The birth control pill is, in effect, abortion. Most folks just don't understand how it works -- how it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. And the subject of abortion will be moot in the context of...
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.
www.google.com/search?&q=designer+babies+in+ukraine Abortion has always been moot in the context of strongly desired pregnancies. Aspiring baby mamas can always find a way to get knocked up the old fashioned way, and subsequently invoke a lady's prerogative to change her mind.
Will it still be abortion/murder if the zygote is vaporized after a scan detects an undesirable trait in its genome?
Abortion is not murder. It is not any crime. Aborting a zygote will not be murder. Nothing is a crime unless a law says it is. Do you have a law in mind that says vaporizing a zygote is murder? Cite the statute.
Abortion is also clearly a violation of the 9th amendment.
Noun: crime krIm Noun: zygote zIgowt You and your buddy like to dehumanize people you want to beat, imprison, or kill, yet that organism is a human being by definition, and completely innocent. Killing a human being is homicide, which may rise to murder if there is premeditation and demonstrated intent, and there is no self-defense or in defense of anothers' life or great bodily harm. The fact that there is no law at this time that punishes this particular homicide doesn't mean it isn't a crime. Our founding documents cover the sanctity of life, starting with George Mason: Is made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government. Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Noun: crime krIm Noun: zygote zIgowt Abortion cannot be a criminal act while it is a constitutional right. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973) You may disagree with Roe, but it is the law. Any law inconsistent with Roe is unconstitutional, null and void. No State may criminalize abortion. Try using a real law dictionary. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed "Crime” and "misdemeanor”, properly speaking, are synonymous terms; though in common usage "crime” is made to denote such offenses as are of a more serious nature. In general, violation of an ordinance is not a crime. A crime may be defined to be any act done in violation of those duties which an individual owes to the community, and for the breach of which the law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. A crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, either, or a combination, of the following punishments: (1) death; (2) imprisonment; (3) fine; (4) removal from office; or (5) disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit. While many crimes have their origin at common law, most have been created by statute; and, in many states, such have been codified. In addition, there are both state and federal crimes (as to the latter, see Title 18, U.S.C.A.). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yeah, it does. One cannot be charged with a crime that does not exist. I can say you are guilty of mopery, but you cannot be charged and convicted. Geroge Mason's Declaration of Rights and Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence are no part of United States law. Thomas Jefferson wrote All men are created equal while being tended to by his slave Jupiter. When Jefferson went to France, he was accompanied by his slave Sally Hemings, who was the half-sister of his wife. TJ father about six kids withy Sally and started a whole branch of the Jefferson family tree. A load of jefferson DNA was discovered in that tree.
Abortion is a constitution right. See Roe v. Wade, where you defend the jurisdiction of the court.
It isn't in the constitution. The supreme court gave itself powers not given to it by the framers. That is indisputable truth. Abortion is also indisputable murder I
You are welcome to live in your alternate reality. It is indisputable truth that people interfering with others entering or leaving abortion clinics are charged with a crime, while people receiving or performing abortions are not. The only way to overturn Roe is by constitutional amendment or by another action of the Supreme Court itself. A blog entry declaring Roe null and void does not get it. You appear to actively support the Court usurping power to impose their opinion upon the fifty states and the federal legislature. Your only disagreement is with the opinion they issued. Just imagine the Framers' surprise when they learn that they created a constitutional right to gay marriage.
Comments (67 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
#46. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#33)
Well then, given that the Supreme Court has been continuously controlled by...
#47. To: A K A Stone (#41)
(Edited)
Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?
#48. To: Anthem (#5)
(Edited)
My understanding is that it's a nationalist (Trump, Netanyahoo) vs. globalist.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#25)
Put in place by Republicans. Sorry for calling you a liar but that isn't really true.
#50. To: A K A Stone, watchman, vicomte13 (#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.
1. What is the velocity of money?
2. How does derivative a$$paper, denominated in Quadrillion, reflect the actual state of the global economy VS the concept of "supply and demand"?
3. To what degree are Organized Criminals profiting from control over the Military Industrial Complex and the economy?
4. What alternatives are there to the Military Industrial / Organized Criminal Complex's selfish manipulation of the velocity of money?
Maybe it's time for a HUMANE Industrial Complex.
If the system is going to run on the velocity of bullshyte anyhow, then the humane thing to do is to have it benefit all of our species - instead of just the apex predators perched atop the pyramid.
#51. To: nolu chan (#32)
#52. To: Anthem (#49)
mucky mucks that set the stage for Roe v Wade
#53. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#48)
#54. To: Anthem (#53)
(Edited)
Putin came up through the system. He appears to be doing good things for his country now.
--Thomas Jefferson
#55. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#41)
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.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?
No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
#56. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#55)
It is an absolute fact that abortion, at this time, is not murder.
#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.
#58. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#56)
And the subject of abortion will be moot in the context of...
#59. To: nolu chan (#58)
(Edited)
Abortion has always been moot in the context of strongly desired pregnancies.
#60. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#59)
Will it still be abortion/murder if the zygote is vaporized after a scan detects an undesirable trait in its genome?
#61. To: nolu chan (#55)
#62. To: nolu chan (#60)
Abortion is not murder. It is not any crime. Aborting a zygote will not be murder.
1. (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act
2. An evil act not necessarily punishable by law
A zygote is a diploid cell resulting from the union of a haploid spermatozoon and ovum (including the organism that develops from that cell). A Declaration of Rights
Which Jefferson drew from when he authored the DoI. Moreover, these phrases were drawn on by abolitionists in the decades following to condemn slavery. They are equally applicable to abortion.
#63. To: Anthem (#62)
Abortion is not murder. It is not any crime. Aborting a zygote will not be murder.
1. (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act
2. An evil act not necessarily punishable by law
A zygote is a diploid cell resulting from the union of a haploid spermatozoon and ovum (including the organism that develops from that cell). This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
Crime. A positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the State or United States.
Quasi crimes. This term embraces all offenses not crimes or misdemeanors, but that are in the nature of crimes. A class of offenses against the public which have not been declared crimes, but wrongs against the general or local public which it is proper should be repressed or punished by forfeitures and penalties. This would embrace all qui tarn actions and forfeitures imposed for the neglect or violation of a public duty. A quasi crime would not embrace an indictable offense, whatever might be its grade, but simply forfeitures for a wrong done to the public, whether voluntary or involuntary, where a penalty is given, whether recoverable by criminal or civil process. Also, offenses for which some person other than the actual perpetrator is responsible, the perpetrator being presumed to act by command of the responsible party. Sometimes, injuries which have been unintentionally caused. D.W.I. (driving while intoxicated) offenses are sometimes classified as quasi crimes.
The fact that there is no law at this time that punishes this particular homicide doesn't mean it isn't a crime.
Our founding documents cover the sanctity of life, starting with George Mason
#64. To: A K A Stone (#61)
Abortion is also clearly a violation of the 9th amendment.
#65. To: nolu chan (#64)
#66. To: A K A Stone (#65)
It isn't in the constitution. The supreme court gave itself powers not given to it by the framers. That is indisputable truth. Abortion is also indisputable murder I
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]