>

Considering it was parts 35 and 36 months ago, you may be on to something.
Is anyone surprised by this? They also vote against veterans while crowing about their support of them. >

I remember post 9/11 they tried to sneak through getting rid of the combat pay. Bush admin were some slimy fuckers. >

When it takes Jon Stewart to shame them. Congress should just admit they need them for canon fodder; the business of war takes precedent over military lives. >

They admitted student loan debt is great for getting military recruits because you get free college on the GI bill. If you survive deployment. >

more incentive for them to not let you survive deployment >

Where do you think they get the material for MREs? >

Louie Gohmert (TX) voted against anti- human trafficking and anti- child abuse bills this year alone. His district is on the state border. >

In his defense, the governor of Texas is a known accomplice to interstate human trafficking - do you expect his party's Congresspeople to cut off his supply? >

Are we just Supposed to let him lose all his hard earned donation from seedy pacs? That’s cancel culture for you! /s >

It's his god given right to have his back blown out by the cartel for some stacks >

GOP 2024 - Tops is hypocrisy
My suggestion for the Republican's next campaign slogan >

They already chose "Radical liberals are un-American" while wishing they could use stronger wording. >

I thought they already picked "We Are Domestic Terrorists"? >

Did any of them denounce that banner? >

They tried to claim it was a joke that liberals didn’t get cause we’re snowflakes >

Some of the biggest child sex abusers are in churches, they are usually groomers too. Though unlike regular groomers they just wait until the child's parents approve of making their kid a child bride to their abusive groomer. >

When I click the link, it says "... pt 39"
Do we think this says something about the Republican party?