{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/20/2017 9:06:34 PM
28
6/20 Congress wants to fund terrorists
There was a new bill introduced to congress. It's pretty simple. It's states that it would be illegal for the United States to fund or sell weapons to terrorist organizations.
Simple. Right? Who would want that?
The bill has [u]13[/u] supporters in the House. . .
. . .so, out of 435 members of the House of Representatives, 13 want to not fund terrorists. 8 of which are Republicans. . .
Let that sink in.
422 members of Congress think that it is okay to fund terrorists. Killers. Murderers. Radicals. To give them the tools necessary to do evil.
What is wrong with this country?
English
#Offtopic
-
Muh one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.. Im sure the lack of support for this bill stems from how its implications on broader foreign policy and not a desire to arm terrorists. See for a long time its been standard to pay and arm others to fight as our proxy because doing it ourselves costs lives and money.
-
3 RepliesGiving money to Saudi Arabia funds terrorism. There is factual proof of the Saudi government giving money to terrorist organizations. We are helping the "moderate rebels" in Syria to overthrow Assad. "Moderate rebels." The rebels are terrorists. Al-Queda affiliates. Sunni radicals. But because Russia likes Assad in charge, the U.S. automatically has to side with killers. Or. You know. We could keep our nose out of other people's business.
-
2 RepliesSo......you're saying Democrats are more in favor of terrorism compared to Republicans?
-
I can tell what is going on just by your description of the bill. Nice.
-
Edited by ēłøH tïhŠ: 6/22/2017 4:30:45 PMAmericans. Feh... Edit: [spoiler]American Government. Feh...[/spoiler]
-
Nothing, they are funding the wall.
-
It's not the country, it's the establishment. There is vast corruption there and the few who stand up for what is right are not part of Washington's monopoly which takes whatever it can get to make profits.
-
3 RepliesEdited by Trestero: 6/21/2017 6:05:11 PMBecause the bill isn't actually as simple as you're claiming it is? That first sentence is only part of what the bill does. It also blankets any group or country the Director of National Intelligence deems to have affiliation or support(criteria/intended meaning of these not specified by the bill) for these groups. And it's not just funding or selling weapons, it's any kind of assistance, whether financial or logistical or in military training. So you have a bill that essentially auto-sanctions any individual, group or nation deemed guilty by it and the DNI has 90 days to thoroughly investigate everyone he can think of and decide if they get blacklisted per the bill's terms. During that period nobody knows what he'll decide for Country A, do they act diplomatic in the meantime? What if we start building relations with them and getting things in our country's favor and he comes out and says it's a no-go? We just leave them high, dry, disrespected and probably angry? People in Congress have plenty of reason to say no, at least in the current form of this bill. It's got sweeping measures which affect foreign policy, application left to the subjective decision of a single official in the current wording (if when referring to the DNI they mean his office, still odd to pass this decision off to them) and it's basically a more efficient way to sanction people when that's something with implications and consequences. International sanctions are not something you want to apply in the wrong environment no matter how accurate the guy's analysis may be. Foreign policy is more complicated than that.
-
You're just now realizing this? I can't complain. I'd like to encourage you to not be afraid of the truth, but the truth is, truth can be ought right scary.
-
1 ReplyI highly doubt the bill says.... Do you want to help fund terrorists: Yay □ Nay □ It's more complex than what you're saying, so I can't really draw any conclusions from your post.
-
Republicans want to not fund terrorism!? [spoiler]How Shocking![/spoiler]
-
4 RepliesI hate career politicians
-
1 ReplyConsidering that it's already illegal for anyone in the US to fund or assist terrorism, I doubt that the bill was as simple as "Don't fund terrorism." It sounds more to me like someone made an over-simplification of the bill in order to create shock value and make a story out of it.
-
2 RepliesITS NOT SIMPLIFIED REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
-
Edited by LiamCDM: 6/21/2017 3:53:45 AMGlad you also watch Secular Talk. #Kyle2028
-
Isn't the US the country that prides itself in "Not Negotiating with Terrorists"?
-
Can't fight your proxy war without impoverished rebels. VETO!
-
Edited by tjustie: 6/21/2017 1:50:00 AM[url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/608/text?r=1]Read the bill here[/url] Have they actually voted on it yet though? I'm not going to watch an 18 minute video of some YouTube pundit, but from what I could gather, the issue in question is that the bill only has 13 co-sponsors. That doesn't really mean anything though apparently, because according to [url=http://www.salon.com/2013/08/02/congress_favorite_time_wasting_scam_co_sponsoring_bills/]this (2013) article[/url]: [quote]In the last three Congresses, an average of 78 percent of all non-commemorative bills enacted into law had 10 or fewer co-sponsors, and just over 21 percent had no co-sponsors at all. [/quote] I don't really have a strong opinion on the bill itself though. On the face of it, it sounds like a great common-sense bill, but I'm sure an actual foreign policy buff could dispel that notion pretty quickly.
-
3 RepliesEdited by Hail Victory: 6/21/2017 12:08:32 AMThe US has always funded terrorism since December 23 1913, this is nothing new here. I've been saying this for a while on here now and nobody believed me. It's not exclusive to the Republican party either though, so don't try to act like the Democrats are any better. They both push the same agenda for the same (((people))).
-
Heres the easier option: united states should stop getting involved in all this shit. Just saw a news article that we are at war with syrial. Weird, since when obama was in office we literally gave syria billions of dollars to fight agaisnt terrorist...pathetic.
-
3 RepliesWhat is wrong with this country is people jumping to conclusions without reading the complete document they are talking about. Without the complete text of said document it is impossible to say whether the bill is good or not. And considering it has so little support, I'm going to go out on a limb and say there is some crazy stuff in it.
-
It is far more complicated than what you make it out to be.
-
I don't know much about the bill so idk if it's that simple. Knowing offtopic this is going to turn into a Republican vs Democratic very soon.
-
Anyone that knows a thing about what they eat, should know that american businesses already fund terrorist organizations ( just look at the banana) and gov has been soft on those laws for decades. It wouldnt suprise me that if they allow businesses to do it.. why not them too.
-
Edited by Sainyule: 6/20/2017 11:05:05 PMThe bill was introduced in January...the 23rd...a few days after inauguration. If I wasn't aware wasn't protests and Donald Trump becoming president all happening at that time? A lot of civil unrest. It probably just got pushed back and forgotten. I didn't know there was a vote on it that was 13 yes and 422 no. Jfc this sounds like a radical conservative post. A YouTube video and a childish rant.
-
How are these people in Congress? What is wrong with our country? The government is so corrupt...
