1 posted on
12/31/2011 4:49:53 PM PST by
george76
To: george76
It’s in our national interest to give $40 million to people who want to kill us? Who figured that out?
2 posted on
12/31/2011 4:57:28 PM PST by
abclily
To: george76
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
We don’t have $40 million to give to those terrorist sponsoring creeps.
And if we did have an xtra $40 million, divide it up and give it to every American 85 and older. They probably could use it, and if not, give it to them anyway. ; )
3 posted on
12/31/2011 4:59:11 PM PST by
CainConservative
( Newt/Rubio 2012 with Cain, Bolton, Santorum, Perry, Watts, Duncan, & Bachmann in Newt's Cabinet)
To: george76
“We don’t think it’s in U.S. national interest to keep this money frozen.What money?
The money that our great great great grand children are going to make some day?
5 posted on
12/31/2011 5:00:28 PM PST by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, question everyone else)
To: george76
Why not just send the dynamite and guns directly to them?
6 posted on
12/31/2011 5:00:52 PM PST by
Huskrrrr
To: george76
Not one human being in need will see so much as a saltine cracker from this money.
Once again some dirt bag palestinian leader will use this money to buy rockets to kill Israelis with and the rest for booze and hookers.
7 posted on
12/31/2011 5:06:18 PM PST by
Kakaze
(Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing....except not doing it sooner!)
To: george76
8 posted on
12/31/2011 5:17:12 PM PST by
ptsal
(E)
To: george76
9 posted on
12/31/2011 5:19:01 PM PST by
evad
(STOP SPENDING, STOP SPENDING, STOP SPENDING. It's the SPENDING Stupid)
To: george76
with regards to those in the US government who were instrumental in taking the $40 million from the US tax payers, I wonder how much they will get out of it?
To: george76
I’m confused ... did we write the check to hamas or hezbollah? ;-(
12 posted on
12/31/2011 5:42:32 PM PST by
Tunehead54
(Nothing funny here ;-)
To: george76
Why arwe we giving millions to terrorists???
15 posted on
01/01/2012 4:11:54 AM PST by
Joe Boucher
((FUBO) You'd be mad as hell to if you were married to that wookie bitch little fag that he is)
To: george76
"The assistance that the U.S. is for humanitarian and economic purposes and not for security assistance." This is a very poorly worded sentence in the article, but is factually correct. Security assistance would be for protection or defense. The funds are definitely for the opposite; as in offense. Humanitarian purposes: think food and shelter for children, err future improvised explosive humans (IEH's), aka terrorists.
17 posted on
01/01/2012 9:16:45 AM PST by
ConservativeInPA
(Maxine, I'll see you there. I'm not changing my ways.)
To: george76
This disgrace has been going on for years - both parties play this game with our money. It will be written that we bankrupted ourselves while needlessly paying tribute to our enemies.
19 posted on
01/01/2012 12:50:42 PM PST by
americanophile
("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
To: george76
This disgrace has been going on for years - both parties play this game with our money. It will be written that we bankrupted ourselves while needlessly paying tribute to our enemies.
20 posted on
01/01/2012 12:50:42 PM PST by
americanophile
("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson