Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Hillary Clinton said Monday evening that she's receptive to the idea of a constitutional amendment that would in effect overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. In response to a question from a Facebook user, Clinton said, "I would consider supporting an amendment among these lines that would prevent the abuse of our political system by excessive amounts of money if there is no other way to deal with the Citizen's United decision," she said. Amending the Constitution is an almost impossibly uphill battle, but the idea has secured support from almost all the Democrats in the Senate, which will vote on the measure later this year.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Ia lot of people don;t consider an amendment, even if they are against CU, because thy think it impossible.

Unilateral disarmament, btw, is also impossible.

'Later, at a separate Q&A session hosted by Twitter at its offices, Clinton elaborated on her view of Russia's involvement in Ukraine.

"There is no doubt in my mind," she said, that pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine "are very heavily influenced, if not directed by Moscow." She added that Russian intelligence officers and special operators "played a big role in the insurgency," and said the militants may be outright controlled by Putin.

Meanwhile, back at Facebook, asked what her first action would be if she became president, Clinton responded with an answer that seemed designed to appeal to the vocal populist wing of the Democratic party.

"Answering hypothetically … the next president should work to grow the economy, increase upward mobility, and decrease inequality," she said.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-22 12:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.huffingtonpost.com

"I bet Hillary Clinton absolutely loves the Citizens United decision because she knows it's going to help her -- it makes her stronger and a more viable candidate," Bossie said. "And yeah, the irony of Hillary benefiting from Citizens United is not lost on me. Frankly, I'm entertained by it."

#2 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 12:34 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Answering hypothetically … the next president should work to grow the economy, increase upward mobility, and decrease inequality," she said.

Translation: more deadbeats, leeches, and redistribution of working peoples assets.

#3 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-07-22 04:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

From Larry's link:

Z"Consider that the Ready for Hillary super PAC has already raised millions of dollars from tens of thousands of donors and plans to transfer its unparalleled resources to a future Clinton campaign machine. "

"millions from tens of thousands of donors"

That's not fat cat billionaires buying an election Larry, that's tens of thousands of working class folks contributing to a candidate of their choosing.
That article is ridiculous, Mitt Romney was the CU candidate, anyone the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson showers money on are the CU candidates and that isn't Hillary Clinton. She may not be as ideologically pure as you wish but she isn't a ------.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-22 07:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

You clowns are ridiculous when it comes to CU.

This decision made unconstitutional (and rightly so) certain provisions of a law that had been on the books for all of 8 years at the time the opinion was rendered. You people act as if it undid 250 years of precedent.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 07:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Danni,

Don't act like you are against money in politics. You have no problem with big, 'fat cats' as long as they donate to Democrats and progressive causes.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 07:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

That article is ridiculous, Mitt Romney was the CU candidate, anyone the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson showers money on are the CU candidates and that isn't Hillary Clinton. She may not be as ideologically pure as you wish but she isn't a ------.

Posted by danni at 2014-07-22 07:54 AM | Reply

Hillary Clinton has always been a Republican Danni she was Goldwater gal for Pete sake. She's pro war she's pro Wall street she's pro PNAC. I'm just sorry that You can't see it Danni.

#7 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 08:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

This decision made unconstitutional (and rightly so) certain provisions of a law that had been on the books for all of 8 years at the time the opinion was rendered. You people act as if it undid 250 years of precedent.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 07:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Horse Apples. It declared money is speech. It's NOT speech but property that is exchanged for other property.

#8 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 08:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

#6 I've said it before. Democrats are only pissed about CU because it neutralized the vast amounts of money being poured in by unions. Striking down CU just tips the scales back in favor of Democrats. Campaign finance reform CANNOT be "onesy-twosy". Take ALL the big money out by limiting campaign donations to "mano-a-mano" donations - from the constituent to the politician. No corporations, no unions, no educational institutions, no bundlers, no PACs, no non-profits, no churches. Just me to thee, with appropriate annual caps on total donation by an individual.

Tell me I'm wrong.

#9 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-22 08:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Blah blah blah. She is speaking out against CU is the same as Obama promising to review all trade agreements. It is a baloney.

She is entrenched in the cash machine and will do nothing to change it.

#10 | Posted by 726 at 2014-07-22 08:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Larry,

Citizens United was a group that produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton.

McCain-Feingold stipulated that it couldn't be produced within 60 days of an election. Seriously, how retarded is that?

McCain-Feingold didn't prevent them from producing the film at all (which is blatantly unconstitutional), just when they could release it, which is tatamount to the same thing.

Are you going to suggest that the 1st Amendment allows for the government to make it illegal to produce a political film if it doesn't like the group that's producing it?

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 08:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tell me I'm wrong.

#9 | POSTED BY MUSTANG GT

You're wrong. ;-)

You are speaking to a different issue. Direct campaign donations are one thing.

Political/social advocacy is altogether different. CU is about the latter.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 08:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Are you going to suggest that the 1st Amendment allows for the government to make it illegal to produce a political film if it doesn't like the group that's producing it?

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 08:19 AM | Reply

Since the first amendment is supposed to protect speech by the INDIVIDUAL and not a corporation then the 1st doesn't apply to a group. The members of said group already have individual free speech rights.

#13 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 08:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Blah blah blah. She is speaking out against CU is the same as Obama promising to review all trade agreements. It is a baloney.

She is entrenched in the cash machine and will do nothing to change it.

#10 | Posted by 726 at 2014-07-22 08:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

And Obama promising to close Gitmo too.

#14 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 08:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

#12 I don't think so. It all speaks to the amount of money and influence in politics. All the entities I identified above have tainted politics and silenced the average American's voice. Joe Public has become the smart, quiet kid in the back of the classroom who raises his hand and gets ignored because the teachers are spending all their time trying to get the dimwitted bully who shouts all the time to just sit down and shut up. We cannot fix our political problems until our politicians start listening to us.

#15 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-22 08:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

So, if I need $2000 to produce a short, political film, as long as it is completely self-funded, that is OK. But, if I only have $1000 and do a little fund-raising NOW the government can make my film illegal?

That's absurd and it's completely contrary to the first Amendment.

Since the first amendment is supposed to protect speech by the INDIVIDUAL and not a corporation then the 1st doesn't apply to a group.

Square that with the text itself:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see any qualifiers in there, such as "or abridging the freedom of speech, unless said speech requires any kind of money in order to be conveyed, or, unless a group of people are speaking as one, or, a group of people that Danni and Obama don't like.

No qualifiers at all. Congress can't abridge the freedom of speech. Period. And, the founders were MOST concerned with political speech because they feared exactly what McCain-Feingold created - the federal government, squashing free speech as an exercise in raw power.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 08:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't see any qualifiers in there, such as "or abridging the freedom of speech, unless said speech requires any kind of money in order to be conveyed, or, unless a group of people are speaking as one, or, a group of people that Danni and Obama don't like.

No qualifiers at all. Congress can't abridge the freedom of speech. Period. And, the founders were MOST concerned with political speech because they feared exactly what McCain-Feingold created - the federal government, squashing free speech as an exercise in raw power.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 08:41 AM | Reply

Since the first 9 Amendments to the Constitution pertain to the INDIVIDUAL actual living breathing person and not a company or corporation I find the CU ruling --------.

#17 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 08:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Since the first 9 Amendments to the Constitution pertain to the INDIVIDUAL

Actually, the first 9 Amendments pertain to the GOVERNMENT. They lay out what the government can't do. These are 'negative liberties' according to Obama (see 2001 interview for context).

Among other things, the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech. They can't do it, no matter how much they may desire to do so.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 08:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, the first 9 Amendments pertain to the GOVERNMENT. They lay out what the government can't do. These are 'negative liberties' according to Obama (see 2001 interview for context).

Among other things, the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech. They can't do it, no matter how much they may desire to do so.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 08:54 AM | Reply

No Sir they pertain to the rights of the PEOPLE not to what the GOVERNMENT can't do. That's why they call the first 10 Amendments The BILL OF RIGHTS.

#19 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 08:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

The first 9 pertain to the rights of the individual. The 10th pertains to the rights of the collective as in the States.

#20 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 09:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

The first 9 pertain to the rights of the individual. The 10th pertains to the rights of the collective as in the States.

#20 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

Actually, the first nine pertain to government.

I just re-read them.

No Sir they pertain to the rights of the PEOPLE not to what the GOVERNMENT can't do.

Congress shall make no law...

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No soldier shall be quartered (a government action) without the consent of the owner.

The 4th prevents government from violating the right of people to be secure.

Etc

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 09:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, the first nine pertain to government.

I just re-read them.

No Sir they pertain to the rights of the PEOPLE not to what the GOVERNMENT can't do.

Congress shall make no law...

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No soldier shall be quartered (a government action) without the consent of the owner.

The 4th prevents government from violating the right of people to be secure.

Etc

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 09:10 AM | Reply

You're wrong JeffJ. if they were about the government they would call the first 10 amendments the bill of the government forbiddens and not the Bill of Rights.

#22 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

They are called the bill of rights.

Said rights are guaranteed by prohibiting government from infringing upon them.

The 1st Amendment never mentions 'person' or 'people'. It applies wholly to government and what it can NOT do.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

#22 Your logic in that statement is so flawed I don't even know where to start. The founders have a lot of writings surrounding the constitution and it's development. Almost all of those discuss limiting the federal governement. The term "Bill of Rights" refers things the government can't do to protect our liberties.

#24 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-22 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Said rights are guaranteed by prohibiting government from infringing upon them.

The 1st Amendment never mentions 'person' or 'people'. It applies wholly to government and what it can NOT do.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 09:36 AM | Reply

Yet the Government has infringed upon the rights of the people all the time. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Can't libel someone nor slander them. Take the second amendment. That's infringed upon as well. Can't own a firearm by a convicted felon and you can't own a firearm if you have a mental illness nor can you now not own a firearm if involved with a domestic violence conviction even if it is a misdemeanor. There's a whole host of times where peoples Bill of Rights are infringed upon by the government. Kelo comes to mind.

#25 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 09:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I would consider supporting an amendment among these lines that would prevent the abuse of our political system by excessive amounts of money if there is no other way to deal with the Citizen's United decision," she said in response to a question on the measure.

Amending the Constitution is an almost impossibly uphill battle, but the idea has secured support from almost all the Democrats in the Senate, which will vote on the measure later this year.

So in other words, nothing.... she stands for absolutely nothing, she might consider supporting, but isn't sure.

What is the point of this thread?

IOW: Corky maybe ready for Hillary, but I don't think Hillary is ready.

#26 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-22 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh and let's not forget how the courts have allowed the government to infringe upon our 4th Amendment rights. Michigan V Sitz comes to mind. If that ain't an abomination I don't know what is.

#27 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

You clowns are ridiculous when it comes to CU.

This decision made unconstitutional (and rightly so) certain provisions of a law that had been on the books for all of 8 years at the time the opinion was rendered. You people act as if it undid 250 years of precedent.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 07:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Whether you think CU changed anything or not, it brought to light that we need Constitutional ammendments making it clear that corproations are not people and that money isn't speech.

#28 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-22 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

- So in other words, nothing.

lol, a rwing translator. Let me help.

In other words, she will be appointing SC justices that will overturn CU and even though most most people think it is impossible these days to pass a Constitutional Amendment, she thinks this is important enough to give serious consideration to that route.

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-22 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You're wrong JeffJ. if they were about the government they would call the first 10 amendments the bill of the government forbiddens and not the Bill of Rights."

it involves both. The bill of rights are meaningless unless they draw lines the govt can't cross.

you 2 are arguing semantics.

I'm not against reversing CU, but don't stretch that into some huge reversal of the rights of corporations to buy your congressman. They still can and will.

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hillary Clinton is going to raise more money from the largest and wealthiest corporations in this country. Do you think any of those folks are going to give that much support to someone who they believe will turn around and tell them to STFU? That they can't buy influence in elections?

Seriously....if CU is the big deal you all believe it is, and you believe Hillary that she will do what Corky hopes (appoint SC justices that will reverse CU) then Hillary wouldn't be able to raise money from any wealthy sources. Rather, those sources will be giving in vast sums to a GOP candidate.

But Hillary will raise a ton of money from Wall Street, Insurance, Big Pharma, Agribusiness, etc....

why is that?

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Seriously....if CU is the big deal you all believe it is, and you believe Hillary that she will do what Corky hopes (appoint SC justices that will reverse CU) then Hillary wouldn't be able to raise money from any wealthy sources. Rather, those sources will be giving in vast sums to a GOP candidate.

But Hillary will raise a ton of money from Wall Street, Insurance, Big Pharma, Agribusiness, etc....

why is that?

Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 11:18 AM | Reply

Oh puhlease. Hillary is a Right Winged shill. I got hood winked with Obama. Not gonna happen with Hillary.

#32 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

it brought to light that we need Constitutional ammendments making it clear that corproations are not people

Agreed.

and that money isn't speech.
#28 | POSTED BY SULLY

This one is trickier. It takes money to publish a book. It takes money to produce a film. Hell, it even takes money to print and distribute fliers.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

-why is that?

The Dem candidate,whomever it is, will do the same as Obama did; raise many times more donations in small amounts from a vastly larger number of people than will the GOP candidate.

But unilateral disarmament by Dems in the age of CU is suicide, util he law is changed.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-22 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

This one is trickier. It takes money to publish a book. It takes money to produce a film. Hell, it even takes money to print and distribute fliers.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 11:24 AM | Reply

Money is not speech. It is merely a vehicle by which value is exchanged for another vehicle of value. Books fliers videos are just pieces of property. They themselves are not speech.

#35 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

#34

I agree that the dem candidate will raise more money in smaller amounts but that doesn't have anything to do with why those large donors will still give in the millions and millions. They expect reciprocity. The folks giving $50 don't.

Voter #1 gives $50. Voter #2 gives $1 million. Who does Hillary have to listen to more closely? We already agree that what the $50 voter and the $1 million voter have different agendas.

Nobody expects the dems to disarm themselves.

Isn't that red herring getting heavy to keep tossing out?

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

#35

Larry, you understand that none of that exists without money, right?

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It takes money to publish a book. It takes money to produce a film. Hell, it even takes money to print and distribute fliers."

exactly. speech costs money.

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Larry, you understand that none of that exists without money, right?

Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 11:58 AM | Reply

Correct but to equate money to speech is ridiculous. It doesn't cost a dime to open one's mouth and express one's thoughts and feelings.

#39 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It doesn't cost a dime to open one's mouth and express one's thoughts and feelings."

and that speech isn't being limited, is it?

but when you plug in a microphone, hook up to a communication tower or a satellite, or print copies of it..........it's pretty hard to separate impactful speech from the money it takes to accomplish.

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

but when you plug in a microphone, hook up to a communication tower or a satellite, or print copies of it..........it's pretty hard to separate impactful speech from the money it takes to accomplish.

Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 12:13 PM | Reply

Is that why there's no fairness Doctrine today?? If you are going to equate those to speech that is.

#41 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Is that why there's no fairness Doctrine today??"

I don't know for sure but I suspect so.

But let's not pretend....most folks don't care about the money or how much speech that can be bought. they just hide behind that as all they really care about is what's being said and if they agree with it.

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

This one is trickier. It takes money to publish a book. It takes money to produce a film. Hell, it even takes money to print and distribute fliers.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Money given to politicians is not speech. In the case of corporations they are expected a return on the investment. However it needs to be worded, we need an ammendment that makes it clear that this is not speech.

#43 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-22 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In the case of corporations they are expected a return on the investment."

sure, because we assume it's going to be a ton of money. IOW, a corporation donating $50 to someone's campaign doesn't bother anyone.

It's the amount that is slanting the playing field.

"However it needs to be worded, we need an ammendment that makes it clear that this is not speech."

why? asserting it's not speech accomplishes what? it's still going to buy speech.

#44 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

why? asserting it's not speech accomplishes what? it's still going to buy speech.

#44 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-22 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because we can't pass any legislation that limits the corporate influence on our politicians as long as what amounts to millions of dollars in bribes are considered speech.

#45 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-22 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Money given to politicians is not speech

Nor is regarded as such. Direct campaign contributions are very highly regulated. Just ask Dinesh D'Souza.

In the case of corporations they are expected a return on the investment. However it needs to be worded, we need an ammendment that makes it clear that this is not speech.

#43 | POSTED BY SULLY

You are (I think) conflating lobbying with advocacy.

Ed Klein just wrote a hit piece on Hillary Clinton. I am sure that the GOP is loving it, but so is any Dem who's seriously considering throwing their hat into the primary.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-22 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Voter #1 gives $50. Voter #2 gives $1 million. Who does Hillary have to listen to more closely?

#36 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2014-07-22 11:57 AM | FLAG:

$50 couldn't buy you table scraps at a Clinton fundraiser.

At one point during her last run she was averaging a $3000 per person donation.

#47 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-22 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is a big difference between arguing money doesn't equal speech because you don't like some of the ways it works out in practice and the reality that it does equal speech.

If speech isn't money then nothing stops the government from simply passing a law outlawing boycotts since the purpose of a boycott is to send a message by withholding your money via commerce.

Any time money can be used to send a message it is the equivalent of speech.

#48 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-07-22 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

What did Hillary do to fight it while a Senator?

Nothing?

#49 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-22 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Too little, too late.

#50 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-07-22 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Messing with or changing the Constitution is very risky business.

Politicians and candidates can say anything they want because most of the time it is, or will become a lie. When the time comes they do what benefits them financially and politically with their favorite insiders and not what benefits Americans.

Obama told us in 2009 Wall street needs punished for their greed and banker compensation needs a big haircut, yet he did nothing to correct either situation.

Hillary Clinton represents the definitive example of a "lying self serving politician".

#51 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-22 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Hillary Clinton represents the definitive example of a "lying self serving politician".

Posted by Robson at 2014-07-22 05:02 PM | Reply

Oh yesssssssssss in orders of magnitude

#52 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-22 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

""I would consider supporting"

"I did not have sex with that woman".

Typical weasel words from the Clintons.

#53 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-22 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Political posturing.

End the corporate person.

Any lesser measure is football.

#54 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-23 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

"That's not fat cat billionaires buying an election Larry..."

No, it's the common people, like Buddhist nuns, Chinatown dishwashers and thousands of untraceable gift cards curiously bought in bulk.

#55 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-07-24 02:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

First off, her name is 'Rodham-Clinton'. Secondly, she knows damn well there will never be an Amendment along the lines she pretends to support. Thirdly, nobody has any doubt whatsoever that she is taking this position after triangulating what would be the most popular position to espouse to the Democratic base. In short, she is full of pre-calculated, pol generated, lobbyist approved --------.

#56 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-24 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

'Rodham-Clinton'

First off, it's not hyphenated, Moder-8.

Secondly, she was asked about an amendment and answered cautiously as everyone knows that is unlikely.

Thirdly, she has been for campaign finance reform since before your voice changed.... oh wait... sorry to bring that up.

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-24 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort