Ted Cruz and the First Amendment


Sen. Ted Cruz gave a speech to a group of wingnut pastors called Watchmen on the Wall recently and offered up his usual mix of hyperbole and dishonesty. He told them that Democrats are going to try to “repeal the First Amendment” by introducing a bill to overturn Citizens United.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) drew audible gasps Thursday when he told gathering of Christian conservatives that Democrats intended to amend the Constitution to limit free speech.

“When you think it can’t get any worse, it does,” Cruz warned at the Watchmen on the Wall gathering of pastors sponsored by the Family Research Council.

“This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment,” Cruz said, to the audible shock of the crowd.

The Tea Party-backed senator said Senate Democrats intend to vote this year on Senate Joint Resolution 19, which would effectively undo the unpopular U.S. Supreme Court decisions on campaign financing in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases.

“I am telling you, I am not making this up,” Cruz said. “Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech, because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done.”

It’s just one giant lie. A constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s rulings on campaign finance restrictions would not “repeal the first amendment,” nor does it have anything even remotely to do with censoring criticism of politicians. These people lie as easily as naturally as they breathe.

Comments

  1. eric says

    In case anyone’s interested, here’s the current text of SJR19. Not like it has a chance in hell of becoming an amendment, but even if it did, nope, it doesn’t repeal the first amendment.

  2. says

    Watchmen on the Walls is not just ” a group of wingnut pastors”, they are a certified hate group co-founded by archbigot Scott Lively and his Latvian counterpart, Alexey Ledyaev. It has been quite active in promoting anti-gay bigotry in Russia, Uganda and elsewhere.

  3. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    So… if a politician asked for a spot on this blog, could the Congress use its seeming unlimited discretionary power to bullshit a money equivalent, and possibly prosecute the politician and Ed for breaking campaign finance limits for the free promo on this blog? That seems like a reasonable interpretation of the text at the above link.

  4. Friendly says

    @eric #2: There’s nothing clickable and no URL in your comment; can you please try to post the link again?

  5. Friendly says

    @eric #2: NVM, found it. The color settings on my monitor need some help, apparently.

  6. eric says

    @4: Maybe, but section 3 would seem to indicate that such limits would be unconstitutional.

    Now you can argue minituae of interpretation, but I don’t think a constitutional amendment is the place to be utterly and comprehensive over what is allowed and what isn’t. Whatever list (of allowed and disallowed actions) you tried to create, someone would just come up with something not on the list. It seems reasonable to me to write an amendment that says Congress and the States can limit campaign finances so long as they don’t inhibit freedom of the press, and leave it that broad. The lower courts can then decide about specific infractions. For example, whether some Murdoch-owned station ordered to cover The Donald’s campaign in glowing terms 24/7 counts as “the press” or “a sham press, really a campaign contribution.”

  7. says

    But where in the Constitution is a corporation defined as a “person”? Where does the Constitution dictate that freeze peach requires anonymity? With respect to the first question, isn’t the corporation-as-person entirely the product of legislation? Wouldn’t Congress, therefore, have the power to un-define corps-as-people? Sure, Mr. Money-Trucks (bags are way too small) still has his personal right against self-incrimination, but that old corporation would be stuck with its memos, policy papers, and contracts. And as long as the Koch brothers donate to campaigns through legal channels, there’s nothing to incriminate them. Further, surely there right to privacy, and freeze peach in the form of dollars, does not outweigh the simple truth that voters ought to know who their politicians are beholden to.

    I dunno, maybe I’m just dreaming.

  8. mauriletremblay says

    Ted Cruz is right. SJR19 doesn’t repeal the entire First Amendment, of course. It leaves in place the Free Exercise Clause, for example. But it does repeal the part of the First Amendment that otherwise prohibits Congress from infringing the right of the people to say stuff about politicians. Specifically, SJR19 authorizes Congress to limit what people can spend on saying stuff about politicians. That’s a significant burden on the right to free speech. (In case it’s not obvious that limiting what people can spend on exercising a given right is, in fact, an infringement on that right, suppose that Congress passed a law saying that a criminal defendant shall not be allowed to spend more than $5,000 on an attorney, or that a woman shall not be allowed to spend more than $200 on an abortion. Obviously unconstitutional, right?)

    Indeed, if SJR19 did not seek to limit the scope of (i.e., repeal an element of) the First Amendment, it would not need to be proposed as an amendment to the Constitution. It could instead just be an ordinary bill.

  9. says

    “In case it’s not obvious that limiting what people can spend on exercising a given right is, in fact, an infringement on that right, suppose that Congress passed a law saying that a criminal defendant shall not be allowed to spend more than $5,000 on an attorney, or that a woman shall not be allowed to spend more than $200 on an abortion. Obviously unconstitutional, right?)’

    Get back to me when Monsanto is accused of murder or the Kochsucker Broz grow vaginas.

  10. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    It seems reasonable to me to write an amendment that says Congress and the States can limit campaign finances so long as they don’t inhibit freedom of the press, and leave it that broad.

    I have no clue what that means. A conventional free press is owned by rich people. Rich people own the printing presses. They pay the journalists and editors. It is a business. These same people would also want to run political editorials, and even political ads, in their newspaper. How can you limit the free press without limiting the free press? IMHO, it’s inconsistent. You cannot have A without losing B. They stand in almost direct contradiction.

    IMHO, election reform is a much better approach than campaign finance reform.

  11. mauriletremblay says

    I’d favor an amendment saying that Congress can limit campaign financing however it wants. That would overturn McCutcheon, but not Citizens United (which was not about campaign financing).

    I don’t see a way to overturn Citizens United without doing great harm to the concept of free speech. If a corporation can make a movie about gladiators, but not about Hillary Clinton, that is not a content-neutral restriction. Allowing Congress to restrict speech based on its content — especially based on its political content — should be unthinkable.

  12. bmiller says

    I’m not sure how overturning Citizens United would be all that effective. The wealthy and connected interests have ALWAYS been buying politicians through one mechanism or another, and limiting one form of contributions merely means that too clever people who should be inventing devices that solve the world’s problems but instead earn good incomes as political hacks and shills will find a way around it.

    To me, a better approach might be utter transparency. Full divulgence. And I don;t care if your are skeered that the liberals are going to be mad at you for contributing to a hateful Dominionist’s campaign…free speech does not mean no consequences speech.

    Clarity better than trying to impose artificial limits. Because those limits will and have been like the tax codes, easily gameable.

  13. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @bmiler
    I am also in favor of full transparency. Last I checked there’s not a constitution amendment against revealing finances when running for public office. Ok, maybe the fourth, but I would be very ok with an amendment to this effect.

    Not sure I agree with the rest of that.

  14. mauriletremblay says

    Full transparency is one option. The exact opposite, if it were practical to enforce, might work even better. If all contributions and expenditures were required to be secret and anonymous, politicians would have no idea whom to return any favors to. Giving a politician money in order to get something in return is pointless if the politician has no way of knowing that it was you.

  15. says

    “I don’t see a way to overturn Citizens United without doing great harm to the concept of free speech. ”

    Too fucking bad. We somehow managed to muddle through for the 234 years or so that the obscenity that is the Citizens Unite v FEC was not decided.

    “I have no clue what that means.”

    The last three words are superfluous, liberpublican douchebag.

    “I’m not sure how overturning Citizens United would be all that effective. The wealthy and connected interests have ALWAYS been buying politicians through one mechanism or another,”

    They have, they do now, and they will continue to do so–that does not mean that we should say, “Fuck it,. give up, we lost.”

    “and limiting one form of contributions merely means that too clever people who should be inventing devices that solve the world’s problems but instead earn good incomes as political hacks and shills will find a way around it.”

    Those “clever people” aren’t that clever or they wouldn’t have to suck off the movers and shakers; if they were that smart, they’d BE the movers and shakers. As is they are toadies and sycophants–well paid to be sure, but still toadies and sycophants.

    “Full transparency is one option. The exact opposite, if it were practical to enforce, might work even better.”

    I think you need to go back and read the labmeat thread. The scumbags that do the work for the moneybags and the douchebags who carry water for them in the elections are always going to cheat–it’s in their fucking DNA.

  16. says

    Can I have a show of hands for the two people who don’t think that Ted Cruz is a lying demagogue and megalomaniac who’d sell his own KKKrazzeepants daddy’s body to a pet food company–while he was still breathing–if he thought it would advantage him in his ambitions?

  17. says

    In case it’s not obvious that limiting what people can spend on exercising a given right is, in fact, an infringement on that right, suppose that Congress passed a law saying that a criminal defendant shall not be allowed to spend more than $5,000 on an attorney, or that a woman shall not be allowed to spend more than $200 on an abortion. Obviously unconstitutional, right?

    Actually, it’s not obvious. Congress has at times rationed food, which is effectively limiting what people can spend exercising the right to eat. As long as the right in question isn’t completely inhibited, it’s not clear to me that spending limits are any more unconstitutional than any other type of regulation.

    That said, it’s clear that buying advertisements and whatnot are protected speech, so it’s probably impossible to stop money flowing, and if you try to plug every leak you’ll eventually violate free speech. I agree that there are better ways.

    If all contributions and expenditures were required to be secret and anonymous, politicians would have no idea whom to return any favors to. Giving a politician money in order to get something in return is pointless if the politician has no way of knowing that it was you.

    I know you’re not the one who came up with this idea, but it’s so ridiculously naive it’s not even funny.

  18. mauriletremblay says

    Congress has at times rationed food, which is effectively limiting what people can spend exercising the right to eat.

    Food is not expressly protected by the Constitution. As far as I know, federal regulations or even bans on certain foods are subject only to rational basis review. Even if I’m incorrect about that, however, wartime rations would probably pass strict scrutiny if they needed to.

    Wartime rations therefore do not contradict the idea that limiting what people can spend exercising a constitutional right is an infringement on that right.

  19. Ichthyic says

    This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment,”

    you know, campaign promises are one thing, but this blatant lying shit? This doesn’t look good for ANYONE.

    why in the holy fuck is this even happening?

    I can’t imagine how this is good for Ted’s Career; these are OBVIOUS lies that can be caught out by an 8 year old.

    makes me think someone else is pulling his strings.

    part of the GoP strategy to marginalize teabaggers?

  20. Ichthyic says

    But it does repeal the part of the First Amendment that otherwise prohibits Congress from infringing the right of the people to say stuff about politicians. Specifically, SJR19 authorizes Congress to limit what people can spend on saying stuff about politicians.

    those two sentences… they aren’t the same thing.

    surely even someone as muddle-minded as you can see that?

    wow.

    I guess it really is like Franken said… Lies and the lying liars who tell them.

    you folks are scum. literally anti-human scum.

  21. Ichthyic says

    I don’t see a way to overturn Citizens United without doing great harm to the concept of free speech.

    bullshit.

    that’s the equivalent of saying you think great harm was being done to free speech BEFORE that case was ruled on.

    bull.

    shit.

  22. says

    Food is not expressly protected by the Constitution.

    Neither is abortion. It’s an implied right. The right to life, of which food is a necessary part, is I’m pretty sure understood to be a protected right, and that any law that kept people from buying food necessary to keep themselves alive would be quickly struck down.

    As far as I know, federal regulations or even bans on certain foods are subject only to rational basis review.

    So? The standard of judicial review is a choice.

    Wartime rations therefore do not contradict the idea that limiting what people can spend exercising a constitutional right is an infringement on that right.

    Do you know of any precedence that holds that having a recognized right implies that infinite money can be thrown at “exercising” that right? And if so, why is it not contradicted by wartime rationing? These are not rhetorical questions; I’m genuinely curious if there is any legal basis here.

  23. says

    Area Man, Ichthyic and others:

    Sadly, you are all wrong.

    MaurileTremblay is a LAWYER and as we all know from those fine folks like Orly Taitz, Larry Klayman and other legal beagles of the MurKKKan ReiKKKwing, they CANNOT be wrong and you have NO CHANCE of prevailing against their legal acumen.

    Sorry, that’s just a simple fact.

    I’m going for some popcorn and Junior Mints; anybody want a soda?

  24. eric says

    @12:

    These same people would also want to run political editorials, and even political ads, in their newspaper. How can you limit the free press without limiting the free press?

    The way you do it is have the courts look at suspicious actions on a case-by-case basis, and decide, based on the facts of the case, whether some press or news service is covering a political event or advertising a candidate/cause. The courts do similar things all the time; the difference between self-defense, manslaughter, and murder is largely a matter of intent, not result. The third prong of the lemon test is another example. What you seem to be implying is that this sort of legal decision would be impossible to make. I say that’s wrong – it’s not only possible, it’s done on a day to day basis. Deciding whether some media mogul had a “press” purpose or a “support” purpose would be no harder (albeit no easier) than deciding whether some local legislature had a religious or secular purpose for some law, or deciding whether some person intended to kill another or did it accidentally.

  25. says

    @26:

    But, but, bu….It would make it toooooooooooooooooo hard to be kingmaker and nobody would want to do it anymore. Yeah, like the laws ever stopped the fuckers before. The difference is, once the Citizens United piece of the puzzle is in place they can from, “one man, one vote” to “one RICH man, as many votes as he can buy.”.

  26. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    As long as the right in question isn’t completely inhibited, it’s not clear to me that spending limits are any more unconstitutional than any other type of regulation.

    Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

    I think that’s pretty clear, but of course you are right that later jurisprudence may have weakened it substantially. For a similar case study, see the fourth amendment, and the ninth.

    @eric

    The way you do it is have the courts look at suspicious actions on a case-by-case basis, and decide, based on the facts of the case, whether some press or news service is covering a political event or advertising a candidate/cause. The courts do similar things all the time; the difference between self-defense, manslaughter, and murder is largely a matter of intent, not result.

    The difference between murder and manslaughter deals greatly with intent, sure. What’s the difference in intent between a newspaper owner who decides to only publish positive pieces on a candidate and bury the negative pieces, and one who runs campaign ads? The government is now going to get into the business of deciding what is an ad and what is a legitimate story in a newspaper? Yea, right. Or is the government is now going to get in the business of ensuring equal access in newspaper, online media, and all media? (Unrelated: Didn’t they try to do this for a while with radio, under the reasoning that radio waves are a limited resource rationed by the government?)

    Like obscenity, I don’t see any plausible clear, proper guidance that could be given to jurists. Manslaughter is easy – do you think the guy intended to kill the other guy, or was it an accident. This is not easy. I don’t know what standard you want yet. Give me a standard, and I’ll see if I can poke holes it in. I bet I can. As for “intent to promote a candidate”, I think that’s a failure – see my example above in this post.

  27. eric says

    Democommie:

    Yeah, like the laws ever stopped the fuckers before.

    I’m under no illusions that the amendment would stop large donations altogether. But it might reign them in somewhat, both in terms of number and amount. When the 55mph national speed limit was put into effect, people still sped…but the average speed went down, as did the annual death toll from accidents. I’d expect the same thing here; a statistical reduction in the number of now-illegally-sized donations.

    Enlightened Liberal:

    The government is now going to get into the business of deciding what is an ad and what is a legitimate story in a newspaper? Yea, right.

    The government already regulates advertising, and as part of that, they have to decide what counts as advertising. You are again arguing that they couldn’t possibly do something they already do on a daily basis.

    Or is the government is now going to get in the business of ensuring equal access in newspaper, online media, and all media?

    Some state governments already do this too. IIRC there was a big kerfuffle when Schwartzenegger ran for Governer over what movies of his could be shown, and how often, because CA has a law about ensuring equal media coverage of candidates.

    You keep being skeptical that we can do what we already do. :)

  28. says

    @29:

    Eric; that wasn’t meant as a criticism of your thinking, just that when we had campaign finance laws that supposedly kept the wealthy from buying the government they wanted they still managed to fuck the pooch on a regular basis.I WANT laws that constrain them from doing it with penalties that are both punitive and enforceable.

  29. says

    “Manslaughter is easy – do you think the guy intended to kill the other guy, or was it an accident.”

    Sure it is, that’s why so many people try to cop a plea and get it bargained down from 1st or 2nd degree murder to manslaughter and then have the prosecutor say, “Yeah, fuck it, he’ll go away for at least several years. If it was obvious they wouldn’t have to.

    “Or is the government is now going to get in the business of ensuring equal access in newspaper, online media, and all media? (Unrelated: Didn’t they try to do this for a while with radio, under the reasoning that radio waves are a limited resource rationed by the government?)

    Do you get up early some days, just so you can think of such monumentally stupid shit to say as that?

    Ever hear of the fucking Fairness Doctrine, moron?

  30. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @eric
    So, I educated myself a little. This seems to have a good recap.
    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/get_out/article_b620c261-63e7-5af0-bee6-94b20350d619.html?mode=jqm

    Second, the equal time rule was not based on money. The equal time also only applies only to radio and other public broadcasting. They explicitly do not decide based on what is advertisement and not (except those 4 exceptions described in the above link). I can see how this is workable. They identified a very specific publishing medium of which there are a very few number of providers. Thus enforcement is workable.

    On the flip side, let me ask again. Under the proposed US constitutional amendment, could congress pass a law so Ed Brayton would run afoul if he runs stories on candidates on his blog and receives contributions to keep his blog going? It seems under the proposed amendment that this could easily happen. It’s not much of a stretch for it to start applying to any facebook page even. I’m sure they could argue money transfer and funding in several ways. IMHO, the proposed amendment as written is a horrible idea.

  31. says

    “Under the proposed US constitutional amendment, could congress pass a law so Ed Brayton would run afoul if he runs stories on candidates on his blog and receives contributions to keep his blog going?”

    Another stupid fucking comment. Do you even understand how the U.S. Constitution works? Slaves used to be 3/5ths of a person. It used to be CONSTITUTIONAL for them to be hunted down in any state in which they might reside (after escaping from the place where they were held in bondage) and forcibly returned to their OWNER. Do you get that?

    It used to be CONSTITUTIONAL to prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession or use of alcohol in the U.S.

    You’re a fucking idiot.

  32. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @democommie
    I fail to see how that answers my question. I fail to see the intent of your apparent analogy. Could you be more clear please?

  33. says

    @34:

    “I fail to see how that answers my question.”

    That’s a pretty common occurrence with you.

    “I fail to see the intent of your apparent analogy.”

    Too bad. You say stupid shit and you’re treated like an imbecile and that somehow surprises you?

    “Could you be more clear please?”

    Can I be more clear than “You’re a fucking idiot.”?

  34. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    >Can I be more clear than “You’re a fucking idiot.”?
    Yes. You could actually argue against the point made instead of ad homming.

  35. says

    Oh, dear, another libertardlican who wants to use latin phrases without understanding their meaning.

    An ad hominem, shit for brains, is when I say:

    “Your premise is wrong, because you’re a fucking idiot.”

    Not when I say:

    “Your premise is wrong AND you’re a fucking idiot.”.

    Read for comprehension, dickhead.

  36. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To avoid ad hom, you generally need to make an argument, a full argument. Even if I go so low as your new standard, you still don’t meet it. You didn’t even say that I was wrong in your earlier post #35. You just called me an idiot. If that is not ad hom, then nothing is. Maybe you should leave discussions of logical fallacies to us grown ups willing to have conversations in an adult way.

  37. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Also, could you not refer to me as a libertarian please? I despise libertarian policies. I’m actually a socialist. I appreciate free markets when they work, but they often do not, and free markets do nothing to help lessen wealth inequalities and poverty, etc. etc., which morally demands and requires government intervention to fix.

  38. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    In fact, you didn’t even say I was wrong in post 33 either. I think you are the one who needs to “read for comprehension”.

    Also, if it’s not too much trouble oh your highness, why am I wrong? Specifically: If Ed Brayton publishes blog posts on candidates (without equal time access), and if Ed Brayton receives donations to continue running his blog, and with the new proposed amendment passing, could the Congress pass a law which would make Ed Brayton’s actions illegal and prosecutable? Would this be prevented? And what legal principles and arguments would prevent this? From where I stand, that is a likely outcome of passing that amendment, and I do think that all facebook posts is just a baby step from that.

  39. says

    “Also, could you not refer to me as a libertarian please?”

    Fine, “fucking asshole” works just as well.

    You’re a socialist? Bullfuckingshit.

    This:

    “In the wake of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant disaster, many liberal critics of such plants are contending that the incident points up the need to come to grips with some of the technological problems posed by nuclear technology. And toward this end, many have already called for improved designs, stiffer regulations and more stringent inspections of nuclear plants. However, the events at Three Mile Island again demonstrate that nuclear power plants involve far more than technological problems for scientists and government bureaucrats to solve. Indeed, if there is any lesson to be learned from the recent accident, it is that capitalism has again proven incapable of reconciling the safety and welfare of workers with the profit motive.” (source: http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/nuc_catas79.html)

    is on nuclear powered electricity generation, your one and only solution to the problem of the world’s energy demand. But then maybe you’re not that sort of “socialist”.

    No, you seem to be the sort of socialist who thinks that gummint should be for sale to the guys with the deepest pockets and that nuclear energy company OWNERS deserve the trust and huge profits that they couldn’t earn without GUMMINT help.

    So, you’re a lying piece-of-shit sort of socialist, okay, got it.

    You’re also way too fucking stupid to argue with about pretty much anything.

  40. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Actually, because I think the private sector currently is unable to build nuclear due to various factors, including unreasonable public sentiment against nuclear, I think that the government should use its tax money to provide public services, and build and operate nuclear plants itself (and/or contract out via a fair bidding process – whatever).

    I am however a limited government socialist. I believe that having limitations on government police power, aka having protected civil rights, is required. That doesn’t make me a libertarian. That just makes me someone who does not want to give the unrestricted power to the congress to censor any political speech as it deems “for the good of society”, which is exactly what the proposed amendment would do.

  41. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PS: How many people died in three mile Island? None. How many people die from a single day’s operation of a coal power plant from the airborne particulates? More than zero. Can solar and wind power our economy with our current standard of living with currently available technology? No. Can nuclear power our economy with our current standard of living with currently available technology? Yes.

  42. says

    Fukushima, asshole, FUKUSHIMA.

    When you can find a big enough patch to paper over that disaster, get back to me. Until then, shut the fuck up.

  43. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    How many people died from Fukushima from radiation poisoning? Again, about zero. How many people die every day from the normal operations of a coal plant? More than zero.

  44. says

    So you’re good with a large swath of land not being livable for the next century or more? Geez, I would think a socialist like you would be totes pissed that the people who OWN the fucking nukes are the ones who aren’t getting hurt by this.

    As for how many people have died from nuclear power accidents, who the fuck really cares whether they died from black lung, leukemia or depression from losing their homes and being uprooted.

    You, you stupid motherfucker said that the evacuation killed more people than would have died had they stayed in their homes–and yet those who left still can’t live in their former homes and many of them never will.

    You are a complete fucking douchebag.

  45. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    So you’re good with a large swath of land not being livable for the next century or more?

    We went over this in the last thread.

    1- There are far safer nuclear designs where this will not happen. We’re talking about 40+ year reactors that were about to be decommissioned.

    2- Compared to the consequences of global warming, the amount of “lost land” to Fukushima is amazingly less than the consequences of not doing nuclear.

    3- From what sources I’ve been able to find, the vast majority of the area around Fukushima is safe to live in now. 10 times background rates is still quite within the safe zone. In an earlier thread, I posted a link to real-time monitors, and IIRC it was all less than 20 mSv / year, which is quite safe. Or it was about that. I’d have to look again to be sure.

    As for how many people have died from nuclear power accidents, who the fuck really cares whether they died from black lung, leukemia or depression from losing their homes and being uprooted.

    Of course I care how they died, and how many died. That information is required for proper risk analysis. Joule for joule, nuclear is amazingly safer and cleaner than coal, gas, and other fossil fuels.

  46. says

    As usual, you fucking scumbag piece-of -shit, you put assertions–unsourced, unprovable assertions in your comment as if they amount to facts.

    Fuck you, you indignorant, asshole.

Leave a Reply