Can anyone date Paul Harvey's monolog with this video?? Shared it with my kids and some others and would like to reference when he said it....thanjs
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
PortaJohn
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
-
- Tags
Can anyone date Paul Harvey's monolog with this video?? Shared it with my kids and some others and would like to reference when he said it....thanjs
I believe this is correct:
"In 1965, American radio host Paul Harvey gave an immense warning to the American people about the fate of the nation fifty years ago."
Obviously the original Paul Harvey audio was used with more current event video images.
I thought these cases were rescinded
“Never Mistake My Quiet for Inaction” – Sidney Powell Speaks Out After SCOTUS Meetings Friday on Election Fraud — Expects Orders and Opinions Next Week
Spread the word The US Supreme Court was set to consider President Trump’s voter fraud cases in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan on Friday. These three cases are on the Supreme Court docket for Friday. Join The MAGA Patriots Telegram Channel Here: https://t.me/themagapatriots As a reminder...www.themagapatriots.com
THis is a good read. Please, do not take my word for it.
Last edited:
Yes....let see blow the place up in order to conduct our battle.....Trumps golfing.
He is going to tell half the uni Party they should be making America Great.
They are going to do for themselves and say "What are you going to do about it?"
They invented a dead cop and turned the country against people that love the country.
FL AG Moody: 'No Reason' for Biden to Terminate Operation Targeting Sex Offenders in Country Illegally
On Saturday's broadcast of the Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends," Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) stated that there is "no reason" for | Clips
www.breitbart.com
fuckers
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Supreme Court tosses Pennsylvania election challenges in blow to Trump supporters - Washington Examiner
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out several of the remaining election challenges raised after former President Donald Trump's loss to President Biden.One of the cases, filed in Pennsylvania and disputing the state's greater allowances for mail-in ballots amid the pandemic, were rejected by the...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Its all part of the plan...right?
We have to fall to the point where every legal means has been tried and found corrupted.
Than what?
All these picks that were supposed to be such great Americans...........I dont even want "Great Americans" I just want people that believe in justice.
We have to fall to the point where every legal means has been tried and found corrupted.
Than what?
All these picks that were supposed to be such great Americans...........I dont even want "Great Americans" I just want people that believe in justice.
it is pretty sickening
we cannot challenge election changes or fraud before the election because we have no standing when there is no harm (yet)
and we cannot challenge election fraud after the election because the point is moot and we already lost.
wtf?
No, this is what happens when people who don't understand anything about the law convince themselves that the point of the law is to support a favored candidate, or the one who appointed the judges in question. It is the same stupidity about the constitution that allowed people to think that Trump would have been justified in declaring martial law, or in thinking that Mike Pence had the ability to decide who won the election. It is the reasoning of people who reason from a conclusion rather than toward one. Believing in justice is believing in the law, not in the outcomes. I don't doubt that the justices on both sides of this decision reasoned that way, which is much more than can be said for the idiots who thought this was going to swing the election.
"One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us," he continued.
FL AG Moody: 'No Reason' for Biden to Terminate Operation Targeting Sex Offenders in Country Illegally
On Saturday's broadcast of the Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends," Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) stated that there is "no reason" for | Clipswww.breitbart.com
He terminated the operation because the investigation would lead back to him; the pedophile-in-chief.
Its about like saying we can't put a murder up for trail because before the person was killed they ain't dead, and after they are killed it doesn't matter anymore.
The problem is it automatically absolves election fraud from review by the Supreme Court in all cases/forever.
No, that isn't a very good analogy. It is more like not wanting to hear a murder case before there is proof of murder, and not hearing one after the alleged murderer is dead. There is absolutely no constitutional mandate for recalling an inaugurated president, the analogue of the dead murderer.
It does not preclude all election fraud review. These were just bad cases, as numerous conservative legal scholars argued at the time. People are confusing what they want with the law. They are confusing Trump with the US.
So the point you are making is that the perpetrator of election fraud is untouchable (dead murderer) because they were elected?
That very well may be the law. In fact, in todays America I would be surprised if it wasn't.
"One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us," he continued.
@Choid will be along shortly to explain it to him....
Please tell us in which jurisdiction a trial takes place AFTER there is proof of a crime?
ALL trials take place before there is proof. It is in them where evidence is tried to determine if proof exists.
And you lecture us on law?
L-O-fucking-L
Well, Thomas in his dissent states that there is no real evidence of fraud, but that his opinion is that lack of evidence of fraud is not enough to make people feel good about the election process. I don't believe that is the correct standard, but I am not going to accuse him of being traitorous, or even wrong. So I think you are assuming something that isn't in evidence. But yes, I think that the constitution certainly does not provide for removing one President for another post inauguration. I do think it provides for looking at election fraud, but the cases were brought were not good ones. That isn't a universal rejection of the concept.Than maybe you should explain the law to Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch........
My statement was that I thought all of them likely decided in good faith, but that it is the correct decision. So I don't need to explain to Thomas, with whom I agree more than any other on the SC, where he went wrong, there are six others up there who disagreed with him. There are also countless articles, many from conservatives, arguing the same. You seem to see law as "does it agree with me" which is silly.
I was using his example, not my own, so calm down. My addition to it was simply that we don't try dead suspects.
Cute, but my point is there is no constitutional mechanism for replacing a president after inauguration other than impeachment, and that does not give the kind of relief being sought. The inauguration is the bright line, similar to how we don't prosecute dead suspects, as their death is the bright line.
I think many of them have been greatly diminished, and others are in danger. I think that there has been a history in the government and in the courts of making some rights more favored than others, and in the government, though not necessarily in the courts, the trend is certainly negative in this respect.
I think its long past time for us to ask the government for what we as a people want, and stop apologizing about it.
The left has wrecked our legal process in every way to meet their goals, and we take the moral high ground. The attitude that we cannot use the system the same way they have against them can, has been, and will be, the cause of our utter destruction.
I bet the vast majority of last thoughts on the part of people who were waiting for the bullet while kneeling in front of a mass grave was that they wished they had fought harder, not that they felt good about taking the moral high ground.
This is an honest and good response. I don't think it is wrong at all, though that choice between manipulating the mechanism of government and adherence to principles is ultimately a personal one. It is distinct from what I would consider the dumb argument for all of this, which is what you often find from Pmclaine, basically saying if it benefits my position it must be in the constitution. Yours is more that if the tool of the constitution is to be used against us, then we sure as hell better use it against them too. I suspect that this position is the basis for our disagreement, and frankly for my disagreements with most of the people here. I am happy to have friends on both sides of this argument.
Let me put this out there, though, and I have said it before. One of the difficulties with your position, for me, is that it is fundamentally non-conservative. That is to say, there is nothing in progressivism that prohibits twisting the constitution in order to achieve "progress." That is perfectly keeping with their morality. With mine, which is conservative, there is a deep tension between upholding the constitution and using it for good, even when it may not allow for that. I believe that is the main dilemma here.
When we the people are no longer in control or even listened to we are no longer we the people but either we the terrorists insurgents or we the sheep.
too bad pence is afraid to show up at cpac. the boos would have been epic.
I think the core of our argument may revolve around what we see as the next step in all of this. It won't be more Cold War style maneuvering.
The system that is being erected now is a scaffold with nooses and trap doors. It's not some gentle pressure towards progress.
It's exactly the same situation we would have found ourselves in if the Russians had made a working missile defense system that was going to get 99.9999999999% of the incoming nukes....and we had nothing.
The combination of indoctrination in the media, schools, home, social media, advertising, etc etc and the possibility that our election system integrity is compromised...that is the "missile defense" system from my analogy.
And I'm not talking about the death of our way of life through slow attrition and the evolution of a social narrative...I'm talking about bullets in necks. Men. Women. Children.
Thats why I think its time to put the screws to the system and start pushing and pulling in ways that are definitely out of their playbook, because if we don't find some way to balance things again all that will be left is violence.
I would rather be a manipulative dick pulling every lever of power I can get my hands on than King of a burnt out mass grave for 200 million dead Americans.
Just wondering, but what did he do that deserved boos? He said the truth that our Constitution does not allow the sitting Vice President to choose the next President? Or was it something else?
Capitol cop Brian Sicknick may have suffered fatal stroke, family says
Officer Sicknick's mother, Gladys, 74, told DailyMail.com: 'He wasn't hit on the head no, that was pretty quickly debunked. We think he had a stroke but we don't know anything for sure.
