Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) suggested on the House floor that because the phrase "humanitarian aid for women and children in Afghanistan" is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such aid is unconstitutional.
She’s not right at all though, so it doesn’t apply here.
Some libertarians were right that it was a bad idea to invade and destroy the country, but not sending aid after fucking everything up for 20 years is just irresponsible and cruel.
Is Walther your dog? I love golden retrievers. I was unknowingly concern trolling. That aid was part of a $816 billion military spending bill. My complaint was more about the rage posting. Getting people to hate on Republicans without looking at the bigger picture. How is the aid distributed? How do we know women get it when the Taliban is in control? What are we getting in return? None of that is answered in the article.
Nah, Walther is my mom’s dog that I’m lucky enough to dogsit once a week and he’s a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel not a golden retriever lol
As for the article not mentioning all that, it’s probably because that’s not what it’s about. It’s outside the scope of an article about the Republicans’ new tool of claiming that anything that wasn’t specifically mentioned in the 1700s isn’t politically valid.
She’s not right at all though, so it doesn’t apply here.
Some libertarians were right that it was a bad idea to invade and destroy the country, but not sending aid after fucking everything up for 20 years is just irresponsible and cruel.
Is Walther your dog? I love golden retrievers. I was unknowingly concern trolling. That aid was part of a $816 billion military spending bill. My complaint was more about the rage posting. Getting people to hate on Republicans without looking at the bigger picture. How is the aid distributed? How do we know women get it when the Taliban is in control? What are we getting in return? None of that is answered in the article.
Nah, Walther is my mom’s dog that I’m lucky enough to dogsit once a week and he’s a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel not a golden retriever lol
As for the article not mentioning all that, it’s probably because that’s not what it’s about. It’s outside the scope of an article about the Republicans’ new tool of claiming that anything that wasn’t specifically mentioned in the 1700s isn’t politically valid.