Tim Robbins hates the Troops »
Posted by: AnnieGUN 12 months ago305 Comments Report this Story
Tim Robbins is busying lying about our troops and essentially calling them mass-murderers�;¢â�;;¬�;¦
Read Full Story at kxmc.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 305
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.72 Replies
-
0%
Jaydee4012 months ago
Three very different sites, three very different numbers. Of note is the lowest being around 250.000, far more than used to counter Tim Robins claim which is around the middle according to the links you posted and what the author claimed. There have been many stories come out of Iraq but I think painting all troops with one brush is propaganda used to turn people against the war just as they did with Vietnam, it's wrong, both morally and factually. I say support the troops and charge and sentence the criminals.
Reply-
0%
jdhatl12 months ago
The phrase "Support The troops" needs to be expunged from the English language. Soldiers are today, as they always have been, poor people's kids who have been pre-sacrificed for the sake of convoluted rich-people power politics. Most of them do not actually die, but there is always a whole lot of trauma and difficulty adjusting back into civilian society. Since conservatives are so fixated on scaling back mental health care for non-rich Americans, the tens of thousands of returnees with PTSD and other problems resulting from Iraq will not be easy for American society to deal with, and you can expect more homeless vets, more destructive behavior, an enormous new need for mental and physical health care. A larger percentage of the troops were involved in actual combat because the contractors took over almost all non-military tasks, unlike previous wars. It is simply idiotic to train such a large part of our population in killing. Get ready for more Snipers
Reply-
0%
UncontrollableScaldingDiarrhea12 months ago
"Soldiers are today, as they always have been, poor people's kids who have been pre-sacrificed for the sake of convoluted rich-people power politics."
Do you have any stats for this or do you just blow out your a$$ as you go along?
Reply-
0%
Jaydee4012 months ago
Here is your proof.
I personally recommend the died of self inflicted wounds, 118. What would make 118 US troops do that?
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
white-pawn12 months ago
And that the real dregs of humanity are at the top of the chain of command, ordering our troops to torture and murder civilians.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
jdhatl12 months ago
No that's what your ideology does. Y'all are much better at it that we are. Only very recently has anything like "human rights" or "stopping genocide" or "restoring democracy" been used as an excuse for war, before poor people were just considered the "huddles masses" and it was easier to trick them into being soldiers. Now it takes sophisticated PR campaigns to get millions to believe outright lies. It worked on you.
Reply-
0%
UncontrollableScaldingDiarrhea12 months ago
Yeah, my ideology made Democrats in Congress cowards who let Bush lead them around by the nose. That's not my ideology, that's your ideology,
"We need to worry more about reelection than standing on our principles."
Now you're reaping the whirlwind for that beautiful philosophy. Enjoy.
Reply-
-
-
0%
white-pawn12 months ago
Those people were tricked. They thought that they had a choice. They were wrong. Both parties have been breached and compromised by special interests. Both are in the stewardship of those who would like to see the USA replaced by the NAU. If you really want a choice, vote for the only candidate not colluding with the CFR.
Reply -
0%
Jaydee4012 months ago
You don't really think either party cares about the voters after they get elected, they will not be needed for another four years.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
FSU92grad12 months ago
"Now it takes sophisticated PR campaigns to get millions to believe outright lies. It worked on you."
Yea..Kind of like you loser libs who listened and listened to the mainstream media and were brainwashed into believing that Bush himself planted demolition devices under the twin towers or that this war on terror is a "bumpersticker" and nothing else and of course the famous "this war was for oil" Al Gore liberal blathering that we have all come to love and admire...
So, before you talked out your a$$ and blame conservatives for being lied to and believing, check a glance in the mirror and you'll find the idiot whose had the wool pulled over his eyes by the liberal agenda...
Reply
-
-
0%
quackpot12 months ago
20 years ago, Army recruits roughly matched the population with respect to socioeconomic status. This has changed DRAMATICALLY toward lower incomes since the year 2000. Here is one reference
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
Reply-
0%
AnteUp12 months ago
Absolutely Quackpot!
Plus, recruiters are bending rules to meet their quotas.
Recruiters have been "coaching" possible recruits on how to hide: Drug convictions - Gang membership - White Supremicist membership - Criminal records. They have also assisted them to pass tests they did not have the education or intellect to handle on their own. Sadly,it's,"just get 'em signed up - and then they're on their own!
Notice how the marketing of a career in the military has
shifted from post-9/11 uber-nationalism to a "fulfilling
your dreams" approach. "Mom, I've found what I want to do."
"The Army will train me to be a computer specialist - a graphics software designer - a medical technician...."
The odds that the military will ever have to shell out $$
to train these folks? They either won't even make it home
or they will be so glad to get out that they won't mind leaving the promised education behind!
Reply-
-
0%
white-pawn12 months ago
But AnteUp and Quackpot do show a demonstrated knowledge of the people in charge of our soldiers.
And who is to say just because somebody comes from a financially disadvantaged family, that they wouldn't be "well trained, bright young Americans commited to accomplishing their mission". You assume because they are poor they are inferior.
It seems you and our military commanders have some common ground.
Reply -
-
-
0%
white-pawn12 months ago
I'd rather have them on welfare than committing murder for the sake of Dick Cheney's pocket lining.
Reply -
0%
AnteUp12 months ago
Repealthe ~
The military CAN provide real opportunity for an education
or a career - in PEACE TIME. War time recruiting is entirely
different.
The technology of war has changed immeasurably - but the
goal of war has not. One side doing all they can to
triumph over the opposing side. One of the other things
that has not changed one iota is the relevant terminology
of war time. Like "boots on the ground" and "cannon fodder"
- in war time, that is precisely how war planners regard
enlistees or what may be someone else's dearest treasure.
How does the commitment to SUPPORT OUR TROOPS get
twisted into SUPPORT THE WAR (no matter what)?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
FSU92grad12 months ago
Quacker,
First, I don't believe anything from this liberal rag you sourced from the Washington Post...
Second,
I don't have the article in front of me, but there are plenty of injured vets, missing legs, appendages, badly burned that go back to serve two to three more tours...Why is that, quacker ? Are they really that stupid? Or do they believe that terrorism is a threat to our existance and freedom and MUST be dealt with...Do you honestly thing they give a damn what you think or other liberals in here running off at the mouth ? Of course not.
Perhaps they believe in something far bigger than your peabrain liberal ideas, quacker...Something you couldn't possibly comprehend..
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad12 months ago
That's the problem with people like Quacker and the Democrap party..>They hate our troops and this country. They humiliate them and discredit them with their "only stupid people join the military" speech while many are dying for his stupidity and right to post such hateful stuff...
http://www.marine-corps-news.com/2005/08/injure...
Reply-
0%
quackpot12 months ago
You are apparently unable to distinguish between being critical of Mr. Bush's policies and being critical of the fine men and women who loyally serve out Nation. The former I criticize, the latter I don't.
Mr. Bush is the one who disrespects out troops by sending them to the fiasco called Iraq.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
FSU92grad12 months ago
Check again, Quack-pot...
I've listed a reference...Did you read it ? Probably not...
And I've read yours and many others in here's response to our troops, making it appear again that only the dumb, poor people from the South are the ones that join and sign up...People from the NE are too bright and rich to join the arm forces...No where in your posts or Jaydee's, quacker, do you imply Bush is the problem...no where. What does come across very clearly is your disdain and hatred for our troops and then you graciously back-step and start with the "Bush Bashing" again to cover your mistake...It's hilarious ! Make up your mind, quacker, are you for the troops or against them.
Your comments I think answer my question very clearly.
Wanna put your other foot in your bill ?
Reply-
0%
quackpot12 months ago
Quoting your post (the one to which I replied): "I don't have the article in front of me" ...So, no, I did not read the article that you did not have in front of you.
The anecdotal story that you posted in your second post has NOTHING to do with the question that was raised: the nationwide trend in recruiting.
Did you read what I said about the troops (and what I have said in post after post)? Is your reading so poor that you can not understand a paragraph with all of three dozen words in it?
STOP EQUATING BUSH'S FAILED POLICY WITH OUR LOYAL TROOPS, WHICH HAPPEN TO BE THE BEST IN THE WORLD.
Is that clear enough?
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad12 months ago
I will, quack, when you stop back-peddling and pretending you support our troops when your obvious goal in this post is to belittle our troops by your so-called, Washington Post stats...
I for one am not fooled...Bush failed policy ? Hmmm...Well, I guess the troops sure believe in Bush and his failed policy, so much that many (which I posted above that you didn't read)are willing to go back and serve two to 3 more tours...Or are they mindless robots that cannot think for themselves? (which is how you present your pathetic arguement)....Surely, our troops would be able to determine this war in Iraq is to line Bush's pockets and nothing more...Surely, they could figure that out...right ? If that would be the case, we would have a huge DECLINE in people wanting to serve or decline in people wanting to re-enlist ...
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad12 months ago
Brainwashing only happens on your side leftie, not the military's side..>They know what their fighting for..Too bad you cannot figure that out for yourself. You need the Washington post and CNN to help you make up your mind...
Tsk...Tsk...
Reply -
-
0%
FSU92grad12 months ago
amusing ? Try your profile name...
Now THAT's amusing...
And BTW, I said a HUGE decline...There is always attrition and losers like you who are brainwashed by the media...Check your stats on the Vietnam wars and other wars...I am sure you will see the same or similiar declines...You're always going to have clowns that join the military just to get a free ride...I mean, education and could care less about serving our country...Those people probably dropped out long ago...I choose to believe the glass is half full, you can choose the glass half empty which seems to be your M.O...But the ones that stay and join the military today truly believe what's at stake and it isn't oil as you and the rest of the liberal clowns in here believe...
And BTW, I'm not the fool...YOU ARE the one looking like the idiot...Anybody can read your posts and realize your little innuendos, everyone but YOU it seems...LMAO !!!
quackpot...You're such a funny duck !
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
AnteUp12 months ago
FSU - The Coulter crap you've been spewing is so yesterday!
And what is this assertion that anyone referenced the South
as the preferred area for young people with little education
and few prospects for the future? Also, no one said anything
about the populace of the Northeastern US being too bright
and rich to join up.
On the contrary, our urban ghettos all across the US contain
vast quantities of youths with little chance for a college
education or a rewarding career. Do you dispute that?
I mean really, how would you enhance a trip to Iraq ? -
with tours of duty that are extended again and again,
budget cuts to veterans services (in WAR time??),prison
sentences for the grunts who have done nothing more than
carry out the orders of their superiors? And all that
to worry about only if you manage to come home alive!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
amesburyroad12 months ago
Facts? Did anyone else have trouble decyphering those charts? Seems more like a "baffle 'em with your b*******" smokescreen coming out of the Pentagon.....
Need to do better than that.
We all know the children of the rich do not serve in the military.....not since WWII....the children of the rich will not defend or die for this country...
Reply-
0%
AnteUp12 months ago
Amesburyroad ~
I am not so convinced of your statement that the children of
the rich will not defend or die for this country.
I'm not a pacifist. I do feel that there have been times
and probably will be again, when we must become involved
in global conflicts.
I do think the people attracted to enlistment to fight
al-Qaeda in Afghanistan were, in many cases, inspired by
the idea that we were going to engage people who had
already attacked our nation. Iraq is a different story.
They tried to sell it as a matter of patriotism - but the
doubts about the truthfulness of the evidence were out there. Iraq was too much a case of "Spin the Globe" -
just pick a place where we will "fight them there, so we
don't have to fight them here".
If our leaders are not more circumspect on where (and why)
they commit our forces then what you have said may be true.
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
SLATE:
"Yeah the ole facts thing,,,, kinda makes those who just pull numbers and facts out of their ears look a bit silly."
Actually, SLATE, your source does NOT deny the claims made by others and the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median. All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
According to SLATE's source, the recruits over-represented families with incomes of $25,000-$50,000. Conspicuously absent from the data set is how many members are in that family. Assuming that the average household has 2.5 children (and a total of 4.5 members per family), the low end of that figure corresponds to the 2007 HHS Poverty Line, which defines the poverty line for a family of 4-5 to be between $20,650-24,130.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml
Accounting for the larger than average sizes of poor and minority families, the extrapolated poverty line could extend into the middle of this over-represented $25k-50k range.
Reply -
0%
white-pawn12 months ago
What makes your "facts" better than anyone elses "facts"? Being arrogant does not equate to believability anymore.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
Secondly, compare the annual income of the over-represented group the the median income for a family of 4.5 members. According to the DOJ, the median income is around $69,518 which is WELL ABOVE that of the over-represented $25k-50k group. So, yes it is fair to say that the military recruits a disproportionate number of youths from the poor and lower-middle class.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20070201/bci...
Thirdly, the first graph claims that 90% of new recruits have earned HIGH SCHOOL diplmoas, NOT University diplomas, which shows the military is not just targeting the poor and lower-middle class, but the teenagers of these families. Does the average diploma from a public high school endow teens with the requisite judgement and maturity for the military?
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
Fourthly, SLATE's source claims that the South produces 41% of all recruits. Since the South has some of the lowest median incomes in the country, it is further evidence that the poor and lower-middle income families are being targeted. However, SLATE's source deines that the South is over-represented since according to them the South generates 36% of the 18-24 yo population. This is puzzling since the more urban Northeast, Midwest, and the West have higher populations than the more rural South.
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est...
http://public.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Gro...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
In conclusion, SLATE's source makes conclusions on incomplete data and does little to refute the the findings of the nonpartisan National Priorities Project and the Pentagon Zip Code Data that suggests that poor to lower-middle income youths from rural areas, primarily the South, are over-represented and are targeted by military recruiters.
Reply -
0%
Justice4All12 months ago
I remember taking those military entrance tests when I was in high school. 95% of our class scored in the upper 97%.
The old saying, "figures don't lie, but......................
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
gamahuche12 months ago
Uncontroll... asked jdhatl:
>>>do you just blow out your a$$ as you go along?
Judging by your moniker you should be the best judge of that!
Did he blow you out of his ass?
Reply -
0%
BruiserTom12 months ago
jdhatl: "Soldiers are today, as they always have been, poor people's kids who have been pre-sacrificed for the sake of convoluted rich-people power politics."
Uncontroll... "Do you have any stats for this or do you just blow out your a$$ as you go along?"
This is what Republicans call supporting the troops, folks.
Reply -
0%
mark-stevens12 months ago
When there were 2000 fatalities in Iraq, three of those 2000 were kids from families within walking distance from my home. Statistically I'm sure the odds for that to happen would have to have been astronomical. I retired in a town of 11,000 with no industries. To the rude comment about A$$ blowing do you know of any "well to do" kids that joined the military... there is truth to "I ain't no fortunate son"
One of those kids is buried next to my father-in-law, a World War Two vet with Purple Heart
Reply
-
-
0%
crespi12 months ago
Please explain how poor boys were not the principle recruit in Viet Nam.
Using "mantra" to deflect your own "It's Clinton's fault" mantra is a classic Ann Coulter trick that is no longer working.
Also please tell Right-Wing Think Tank Central that we are all tired of the reverse-mantra bit.
Reply -
0%
injest12 months ago
Soldiers are today, as they always have been, poor people's kids who have been pre-sacrificed for the sake of convoluted rich-people power politics.
Based on what?
Most of them do not actually die, but there is always a whole lot of trauma and difficulty adjusting back into civilian society.
Based on what?
Since conservatives are so fixated on scaling back mental health care for non-rich Americans, the tens of thousands of returnees with PTSD and other problems resulting from Iraq will not be easy for American society to deal with, and you can expect more homeless vets, more destructive behavior, an enormous new need for mental and physical health care.
Based on what?
A larger percentage of the troops were involved in actual combat because the contractors took over almost all non-military tasks, unlike previous wars.
Such as?
Reply-
0%
injest12 months ago
It is simply idiotic to train such a large part of our population in killing. Get ready for more Snipers
We have fewer people in the military today than we did in 1941 BEFORE we joined ww2. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html BTW this link we give you the numbers 1940 to present.
1941 1,801,101
1945 12,123,455
2006 (June) 1,381,401
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/pop...
U.S. Population
July 1, 1940 132,122,446
July 1, 1999 272,690,813
Reply-
0%
Goppy12 months ago
You shure is right bout that jesty!
Course, you seems to be forgettin the main reason why numbers is shrinkin. The reason is because we Conservatives believes in the privitization ideeologie.
And GW is in the forefront of that sentiament.
Dont you remember Ronnie Reagan sayin - 'Goverment IS the problem"
So please - you caint leave out the fact that our Republicans now advocated PRIVATIZIN the military!!
See - in Iraq, you got 100,000 private contracters doing soldiers work.
So in the future, please try to tell the complete story bout the numbers of soldiers. Because as Christian Conservatives - we is PROUD of the fact that we is helpin to dismantle this ebil seculirist goverment!
Unless - true to your name - you are just jestin bout tellin the truth.
Reply -
0%
Goppy12 months ago
Oh, I meant to add, liek everything else bout our Privatization Ideeologie - it costs a lot more taxpayer money.
Cause private contracter soldiers liek from Black Water - they make 10 times whut a normal soldier makes.
That kinda upsets the moral of some soldiers. But not all.
But it dont upset the moral of the companies with them goverment contracts!! No siree!! Them companies is makin billions of dollors!!
In fact, some say this entire war is based on contracts.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
cowboygrandpa12 months ago
I absolutely agree. I remember the troops in Nam being accused of terrible atrocities. Rarely if ever were they proved. These people who would degrade our servicemen. Need to spend some time in the service and get an understanding of what it is like. For all you American troop haters out there. Put it where the sun won't shine and enjoy.
Reply
-
-
0%
obiefrommuskogee12 months ago
i see whoever wrote this POS article did have enough courage to put their byline. But obviously thinks they are some kind of mind reader to use a headline like that.
We need more humanitarians like Tim Robbins and less cowardly jingoists like this writer who thinks they can smear other folks and celebrities who KNOW this war is wrong. This is just more psychobush garbage by war cowards calling for more war.
Reply -
-
0%
injest12 months ago
One of the first of these over blotted Iraqi death count simple attributive ALL deaths in Iraq to the US military.
Old age, traffic accidents, illness, cancer, whatever, ALL deaths were because of US being in Iraq. Its Mikie Moore stupid but it works with his fans.
The next step is to just ratchet up the number, if 77K makes you yawn then they'll call it 100K, no reaction 200K, not yet how bout 300K? still nothing (you can feel hissy fit coming) 400K.
It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Iraq body count most likely the closest to the true numbers.
Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say. ~William W. Watt
There are two kinds of statistics, the kind you look up and the kind you make up. ~Rex Stout, Death of a Doxy
The average human has one breast and one testicle. ~Des McHale
98% of all statistics are made up. ~Author Unknown
Reply
-
-
0%
bruhaha12 months ago
There have been several reports out listing civilian dead as a result of the invasion and occupation as high or higher than the number quoted in the article. The number quoted in the article is based ONLY on media reports and is likely lower than the actual amount. Tim Robbins did not just "make up" that high number.
As for Brian DePalma, I haven't seen the movie or really anything about it. There is nothing wrong with showing another side of the story. America, in many ways, is way too detached from the realities and human costs of the war and occupation, be they to our own men and women in the military or to the civilians in Iraq.
Reply-
0%
bruhaha12 months ago
That being said, I agree with Jaydee above, regarding painting all the troops with a brush.
Reply -
-
0%
dunkirk12 months ago
Much less then 400,000. Seems if you bothered to do a little research you;d have found that Saddam was oppressing his politicial challengers quite a bit while RayGun was touting him as a our friend. But then again as it appears with quite a FEW of our enemies today, they were our friends before they became our enemies.
Reply-
0%
injest12 months ago
dunkirk
"But then again as it appears with quite a FEW of our enemies today, they were our friends before they became our enemies".
Boy meets world? I take it world history is not your strong suit ea?
Japan, WW1 they were our allies, 20 years later we were fighting them in WW2, today their our allies again. Same for Italy. We were fighting Germans in WW1 and WW2 today their our allies.
HINT: things change
Reply-
0%
dunkirk12 months ago
Injest,
ROFLMAO, seems Saddams behavior didnt change one iota between the time Raygun viewed him as a stalwart ally and when he invaded Kuwait. In fact MORE people died while RaYgUN was proclaiming he was our buddy then after. If you go back to Saddam gassing the Kurds it seems the Raygun Admin was trying to push it as an Iranian assault.
What did change was REPUBLICANS and the agenda they wanted to pursue. Saddam became the "bad" evil guy when he decided to remove American companies as the developers of Iraqi oil fields. Other then that his "behavior" was NO different. SOrry Sparky, things didnt change all that much excet he played the oil card that drove the REPUBLICANS crazy.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
injest12 months ago
Bruhaha, How many civilians died in the 4 years previous to our invasion?
Excellent question!
Lesley Stahl: "I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. & â;; and you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeline Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price â;; we think the price is worth it."
- Former U.N. Ambassador Madeline Albright, responding to reporter Lesley Stahl as to whether the over half a million Iraqi children killed by the UN sanctions against Iraq were "worth it." CBS May 11, 1996
In 2002 Saddam Hussein claims the deaths are in excess of one and a half million due to UN Sanctions.
however the sanctions caused the death of between 400 000 and 800 000 Iraqi children (Seatlle-Post Intelligencer August 7, 2003, archived
Actual factual number would be hard to find but it would be safe to say "a lot"
Reply
-
-
-
0%
wallyone12 months ago
anniegun .. tim may not be correct in his assertion the american troops killed 400 thousand iraqis, he and brian may not have gone to iraq but have you? i have heard and read estimates as high as 800 thousand, the 77 thousand in the article is clearly misleading IMHO..
i believe there have been atrocities committed and american soldiers have committed them however those to blame are in the white house and pentagon.. follow orders or go to jail in some cases is the only option.. this war has been illegal from the start and although tim and brians facts may be askew, in your opinion, i give them full marks for standing up and being counted.. we need more 'real americans' like tim, brian, rosie, charlie sheen, alex jones etc to come forward, instead we have those useless, acquiescing seat warmers in the congress and senate.. how frigging disgusting is that?
Reply -
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE12 months ago
So Robbins wants the redistribution of wealth, expansion of the army and elimination of civil rights??
Hmmmm..Sounds more like George Bush!!
Redistribute it by taking it away from the midddle class and giving it to oil companies and pharmaceutical companies.
He has expanded outr military all move the world..
And let's not talk about the Patriot act!!
Who is anti-democracy advocate now????
Nice rehash of a Joe McCarthy outdatede term.
Thank goodness that era died with his pathetic life!!
Reply-
-
-
0%
tanglang12 months ago
Where were you during the 90's with the clinton gun ban? You can argue that the patriot act might violate the constitution, but clintons gun ban was an obvious violation. That's how two gun stores near my house won a lawsuit against the ban in the Supreme court, and were able to keep selling "banned" weapons.
Robbins is right up there with sean penn when it comes to their views on politics. In ther past they have both been at rallies that communist party used for recruiting. Such as the one in DC where they spray painted the Capitol Bldg. steps and got away with it.
So yes, he is commie trash.
Reply-
0%
dunkirk12 months ago
Its always amazing how you suddenly switch to Clinton after getting beat up on your original post. Its also quite interesting how you equate banning the sale of assault rifles ( i.e. means they shoot more then one buillet at a time, need to take out the whole herd with one shot?) with the killing of 400K civilians. REPUBLICAN logic is pretty mysterious. Altho you might help yourself by stop banging your head into boards, its really showing.
Reply -
-
0%
tanglang12 months ago
Our fore fathers had to fight off their government to obtain freedom, they wrote the second amendment to make sure that we remained capable of doing the same if it ever came down to it. Therefore it is necessary for us to be able to own "assault weapons".
Dunny, the reason I brought up clintons ban is because cc was saying the "patriot act" violtaes the Constitution. Which has not been proven. However clintons weapons ban did violate th
-
-
-
-
-
-
