cancel2 2022
Canceled
so according to tom.....all those who are not "brave" enough to speak out on it are condoning it.....according to tom those who live in a drug filled neighborhood, but cannot do anything to stop the drugs, are condoning the drugs....
why can't you see the difference between being able to do something and condoning...
tell me....what could the US have done that it didn't do that rises to the level of condoning the behavior? do you even have a clue what condoning means? if you have a gun to your head and are asked for your wallet, and you give your wallet, are you condoning that behavior because you could have fought back and taken the gun away, possibly, and denounced such behavior.....give a break.....the US never condoned this behavior, to state such is a total and complete fantasy
Yet the Bush admin had no problem going after BAE for alleged baksheesh payments to the Saudi government, even though they were doing exactly the same thing themselves. I frankly don't give a shit for your narrow legalistic interpretation of the word condone, the old saying that money talks and bullshit walks has never been more true. The US has never had any problem applying laws outside it's boundaries, when it suited it to so do. The Helms-Burton act is just one that immediately springs to mind.
Helms–Burton Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png
Last edited: