It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by calnorak
it comes down to basically this: If it was a crime and you injured the party, then you would be guilty.
If you voted and had no idea sad person would commit a crime, how could you be responsible? The premise is insanely ridiculous.
Originally posted by calnorak
it comes down to basically this: If it was a crime and you injured the party, then you would be guilty.
If you voted and had no idea sad person would commit a crime, how could you be responsible? The premise is insanely ridiculous.
it comes down to basically this: If it was a crime and you injured the party, then you would be guilty. If you voted and had no idea sad person would commit a crime, how could you be responsible? The premise is insanely ridiculous.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Originally posted by DaTroof
Originally posted by calnorak
it comes down to basically this: If it was a crime and you injured the party, then you would be guilty.
If you voted and had no idea sad person would commit a crime, how could you be responsible? The premise is insanely ridiculous.
Therein lies the problem. We KNOW we're voting in the Commander-In-Chief.
American voters are no different than those who vote for any other oppressive regime.
Originally posted by calnorak
it comes down to basically this: If it was a crime and you injured the party, then you would be guilty.
If you voted and had no idea sad person would commit a crime, how could you be responsible? The premise is insanely ridiculous.
Originally posted by listerofsmeg
i rarely hear during the elections about how much the candidate plans on commiting war crimes.
of course its not the voters fault, the voter wasn't aware of future events.