vroom: The problem I have with this is whether or not this was “approved” by his superiors. And we still haven’t said anything about if this happened while he was in the reserves or active duty. What about the protests? Was he was doing that on the military’s dime? I don’t know. Maybe somebody does, that’s why I asked.
Uh… let me also say this to clarify a little of my ramblings before; in my mind, this is a question of loyalty. The answer, as you put it, may never be known, but what would be his motivation for meeting the NVA while commisioned as an officer in the reserves? That is why I was asking anybody who knows more about this incident. I mean, we have this meeting, and then he becomes a left-wing protester who leads the protests, and gives damaging testimony to congress. He essentially made himself a tool of the enemy, right? Is this a guy who is out for the good of his country, or his own political gain? Maybe it’s a waste of time to argue about this, but maybe somebody knows more. What was the timeframe here?
Loth,
Well, I certainly don’t know the answers to those issues. However, there needn’t be anything untoward going on there.
Besides, if you dislike the fact he protested the war, it doesn’t take a meeting to make that decision. You can even dislike the fact he went so far as to meet with them.
However, if a citizen is faced with what they feel is an unjust war, why should they not be able to protest it? I know this area gets dicey to some people because they would put patriotism above all else, no matter what.
I’m not going to raise the tired old cliche that is overused in this forum, but when people blindly follow the government you can get seriously inappropriate and oppressive behavior out of that government – whether or not it is directed at its own citizens.
There needs to be a balance between support of the government and support of the ideals that the government is purportedly upholding. If the government is at odds with the ideals of the country then I don’t think it is unpatriotic to work within the law to correct that.
So, without any evidence to the contrary, I’d see Kerry doing what so many people praise Bush for. Seeing an issue, making a decision based on principle and standing by that decision. You don’t have to agree with his decision to appreciate that he did so.
Maybe nobody else can see it that way, but just try removing the political lens once in a while… he’s just a man who took a stand.
I have always been thinking, that Usa was the home of freedom (speech etc.), but some people, like you, give me a second thought!
I think y’all missed my point. There is a major difference between being a citizen and being an officer in the military. I have no problem with Kerry the citizen saying whatever the hell he wants, but goddammit, Kerry the officer needs to do his fucking job, and not run his bitch little mouth and undermine what his co-workers are doing, and possibly paying for with their lives. Like I said before, this is a question of loyalty and duty. Don’t take action to make my war even more dangerous when I paying you to fight it. That’s why I was asking if it was Kerry the citizen who met the NVA, and organized the protests. Make sense?
Elkhntr1- Was my post nasty, snide, condesending, demeaning and more? F’n A right it was. Where could I have possibly gotten the inspiration for such a thing? From your posts, actually. Your contributions to the Sign Up Sheet for Iraq, with the 9-09-04 3:23 money shot, provided me with a wealth of ideas. Thanks, bro! I have to say, though, the last sentence of my post was my very own. It was bait, and boy, did you bite!
If you want some advice on how to deal with it, read your 9-10-04 11:46 post- it will serve you well.
A lot of your post come across as quite reasonable arguments. I don’t know why others of yours are just personal attacks. It’s your choice I guess.
Elkhntr1- and now, on to the argument.
My head, intellectually superior or not, is not in the sand or up my ass. I never said that Americans didn’t commit atrocities- “Atrocities, yes…” doesn’t exclude any side.
My point is that atrocites committed by Americans were a (sadly) normal consequence of war. Whether or not they occured in any greater or lesser frequency than other war who can say. Read Paul Fussell on WWII or Naill Ferguson on WWI to get an interesting persective.
NVA and Vietcong atrocities, on the other hand, were a matter of standard Commie practice, one that started with Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and continued up and past the wily Uncle Ho. He admitted to killing 50,000 farmers extra, as they didn’t own enough land after all to warrant execution. But then again, to big time Reds, that’s just a rounding error, one their apologists living off of the fat of capitalism understood.
Go back at the history of the long twilight struggle that was the Cold War, of which the Vietnam police action was a part, and look up propaganda. Interestingly enough, the Soviets ran all kinds of front organizations to undermine US efforts to contain Communism, and they certainly spared no effort in portraying the US as an imperial invader of the benign People’s Republic. Funny, though, that they had no qualms about invading Laos and Cambodia to suit their ends.
My point it that is was a matter of kind and not mere degree, and a young John Kerry didn’t see it that way and still doesn’t. There was no moral equivalence in the struggle between us and them period.
You can of course bring up all of America’s failing and abuses and blah, blah, blah, and you would have a point. It might interest you to know that good ole Uncle Joe out did us there as well. Ask the Chechens, among others. Add to that the Gulag, the tens of millions deliberately starved to death in the forced collectivization of agriculture and the general shittiness of everyday Commie life. No comparison. Vietnamese communism was pretty much a small scale version.
That’s why we piss and moan about the actions of a young man more than thirty years ago. He has based his run at the most powerful office in the world on his long ago conduct. Not too bright by the way, as less than two million dollars in ads has effectively undermined it.
By the way- “lefty bashing,” of course. See above.
“Bush lie believing”- where did you get that from? The only thing Republicans are good for is preventing the Something for Nothings from doing something worse and they ain’t exactly done a great job there.
I’ve stated my case- the floor is yours.
By the way, if you are interested, read A Rumor of War by Phil Caputo if you haven’t already. Great, great book on Vietnam from a very personal perspective.
I’m sorry, but this is just stupid.
Politics should not go in this direction.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
I’m sorry, but this is just stupid.
Politics should not go in this direction.
[/quote]
Hey! Thanks for playin’! Appreciate the bump.
Dig a little deeper, and people will find that this isn’t stupid at all. It’s affects many of our veterans, and I don’t think that their opinion is stupid.
ELK - “You receive the death sentence for going AWOL in time of war, I don’t know how much more serious it gets then that!”
Is this about the same as draft dodging? Then what you’re saying is you voted for clinton knowing he should actually be on death row?
First off, books are great, they also aren’t always true. Some people (gasp) actually write books to sell them and make money. Horror sells and while i’m not saying one way or another but it is possible that these authors were just riding the wave of emotions to line thier pockets with gold. I use my Uncle as an example simply because he has no reason to lie to me, we are close and have been since I was a baby. I take his word over a book written by someone who I have never met anyday and most sane people would. You don’t know me or my uncle so you don’t have to believe him, i’m just stating why I do.
Vroom, on to the fact that kerry met with these clowns. If they were negotiating over prisoner exchanges or peace there would be command structures involved. Someone higher up would have to approve of this meeting. Kerry is a scumbag, anyone that marries into money like he has is a scumbag, anyone that get botox put in thier face to look prettier is a creep, The guy has so many things about him that I find personally repulsive, I just have the feeling that this guy is a prick to the core, in anything he does ALL for himself and that is not what we need at the position of president. The president should be the steward of the american people, looking out for our interests. How is a man who has only ever looked out for himself going to jump into taking care of america.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
Dateline D.C.
Answer this question, Mr. Kerry (Oct. 17)
Democrats who support Kerry become hysterical when questions are asked about “secret” meetings, claiming that, since their hero told the Fulbright Committee, 11 months later, about his meetings, and waited until a July 1971 press conference to demand that the U.S. withdraw from Vietnam and pay reparations (the Dragon Lady’s own terms), there was no secret.
Well, it was only in March 2004, that the Kerry campaign admitted he had met with Binh, and no one is asking about Le Duc Tho. We do know that on his return to the United States, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on talk shows and at rallies, Kerry carried the communist message with him, consistently making the point that America was the only unreasonable party at the peace talks. For him, we were fighting an immoral war and should accept the position of the enemy, the North Vietnamese.
What Kerry did in 1970 and 1971 was to collaborate with enemy combatants, giving them aid and comfort. Today, Kerry maintains that no one must ever confuse the Vietnam War with “the warriors” who fought it.
[quote]hvywt78 wrote:
In no way did Kerry ever commit treason.[/quote]
Perhaps the charge of treason is debatable, but he is, by his own admission, a war criminal. “I committed atrocities…”
Schrauper-
I agree with you completely on the failure of communism and the millions that have suffered under its blanket. So, I am not here to debate who was or wasn’t worse. As I have stated before, I feel we all make our decisions through the lens that we see things and I guess it would be utopia if we all agreed and there would be no wars. But, as we all know it doesn’t go down that way!
As far as Vietnam goes, I feel it was a politically run war that ultimately failed miserably. What a waste of life on all sides involved! As far as the debate on Kerry and his actions, I feel the the “swift boat veterans for truth” are totally partisan, republican, hatchet men, who either have no problem lying or are so blinded by partisan hatred they don’t realize they are twisting the truth.
Although, I can understand the anger by some veterans and POW’s over Kerry’s protesting of the war, I still feel his actions were due to the fact that he did not want the waste of human life to continue. As far as the lies are concerned, I am referring to the swift veterans and their accounts of Kerry’s service in Nam, not his actions protesting the war.
I can tell you without hesitation or fear of contradiction that I don’t have any faith in George W. Bush as a man, or as our President. I don’t know if he knowingly lied and truthfully I don’t really think he did, maybe he does believe he is on a mission from God? But, I do feel either knowingly or whether he was manipulated by people around him he presented falsehoods to the American people for an agenda he wanted before 9/11 ever happened!
I am not a professional government analyst, but from my own God given ability to analyze things, search out information, and make my own decisions, and my own background in Naval Intelligence during the first Gulf war, I will never believe that Iraq was an imminent threat deserving of a preemptive war based on that criteria! The reasons have changed from imminent threat to spreading freedom and one or two others thrown in between, but in the end from my perspective it had to with the Neocons and their ideology of spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun and the desire to control oil and maybe a little bit of settling the score for Dubya’s dad. I disagree with those reasons vehemently! I think it is funny how the architects of this agenda have relatively little if any military background or experience and what is happening in Iraq today makes that glaringly apparent!
As far as what happened thirty years ago (back to Vietnam) I have no respect for a man who then used family, or political influence to avoid a war, but then thirty years later recklessly started one. If he had just avoided the war, I could understand his failing to meet the task due to fear, but to then later send men to combat when it could have been avoided when he actively avoided it, is shameless in my opinion.
In reference to my past comments, you are absolutely right that at times I have been small, nasty, attacking, but I feel that this method of communication has been reserved for people that usually deal the same type of cards. Along time ago before I ever posted on the forum, I would read the forum. Namely, the political threads and it was obvious that many with non war or democratic ideas would be downright ridiculed and slandered! This is also apparent in T.V. personalities like Hannity, O’reilly, Limbaugh, and others, who some on the forum model themselves after. It became apparent to me that the only way to express your point with these types is at times to get as mean, nasty, and spiteful, as they are. I would much rather have an intelligent exchange of ideas and opinions, but with many on the right, they have in my opinion a very black and white my way or the highway mentality and that will never sit right with me!
I am the type of person who will stand by my principles whether it is a political forum thread or a back alley brawl, if I feel it is a just cause, sometimes to the point of my detriment. A recent example. Last weekend my father and I go to the local shooting range to zero my rifle in for the upcoming hunting season and two NRA Bush robots start jamming their “if you vote for Kerry, you will lose your guns” crap down our throat. Luckily, with the prevalence of firearms in the area the disagreement was quelled with minor bloodshed (just kidding). It seems you cannot escape these taliban like extremists.
Again, you were right. You baited me and I bit hook, line, and sinker, and I knew I was being baited, but I could not resist! You hit a nerve.
As far as the book A Rumor of War, I did read the book many years ago, also, didn’t they make it into a movie in the seventy’s? Also, correct me if I am wrong, but in the movie and book wasn’t it about a Marine Lt. and didn’t he ultimately go down because they kidnapped and killed a Vietnamese civilian kid they thought was a VC?
Anyway, thank you for the kinder response you had and hopefully we can agree to disagree civilly!
F’n A, Elkhntr1, I knew you had it in you. Great post.
About Vietnam in general, I agree.
About the Swifties, I don’t. I think they had a grudge from way back in the day.
About Kerry’s protest motives- I don’t know. It can be very dangerous politically, though, to base one’s campaign on the behavior of one’s youth. I sure as hell wouldn’t, but then again there is less of a chance of me running for office in the first place.
Solid points on Iraq. I think it was a dicey call either way.
Caputo was a lieutenant in the Marines and deployed in 1965 when the war was first ramping up. Yes, he was up for court martial for the murder of two South Vietnamese youths. His men killed them on what turned out to be false information. He got re-assigned on a plea, if my memory serves correctly.
A little asides. Some pointy head once noted that intellectuals see the world in shades of gray. The problem with that, he said, was that they can’t tell the difference between noon and midnight. As economists say, it’s all about tradeoffs.
Another book recommendation- War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning by Christopher Hedges. I think it will give you some good insight into the lead up to our latest war, or any conflict for that matter.
Being passionate about your beliefs is no vice, but it does make it hard to keep things on perspective at times- I know from personal experience. Hopefully these forums can be kept to an exchange of ideas and opinions, some banter and light ball-busting. Hopefully.
On the legal issue from the original post, here is a legal analysis from UCLA Constitutional Law professor Eugene Volokh:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_10_14.shtml#1098295109
[Eugene Volokh, October 20, 2004 at 1:58pm] Possible Trackbacks
Kerry and 14th Amendment, section 3:
Is John Kerry disqualified from being President by section 3 of the 14th Amendment? Several readers ? starting with Pierce Wetter, with whom I’ve corresponded on the subject, and who has just blogged about it, referring partly to our correspondence ? have e-mailed me to ask this question, and I noticed more chatter about it on the Web. And the question turns out to be more interesting than it at first seems (though I think the answer ends up being pretty clear).
Here’s what section 3 says:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Kerry, the argument goes, gave “aid or comfort” to the North Vietnamese by opposing the war, and by apparently meeting with a North Vietnamese peace delegation in Paris in 1971. One or both of these things (probably the former much more than the latter) may have emboldened our enemies and sapped our soldiers’ morale, thus giving the enemy aid or comfort. Kerry had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution when an officer of the United States (military officers, including lieutenants, definitely count). The Presidency is an “office” (see, e.g., art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.) Therefore, the argument concludes, Kerry is disqualified.
- The bottom line: I think this argument is unsound, because section 3 can’t possibly apply to all people whose actions end up helping the enemy. During the Civil War itself, for instance, which prompted section 3, many government officials spoke out in favor of the North’s agreeing to peace on terms that are favorable to the South. That too would have aided the South ? quite possibly much more than Kerry’s statements, if the speaker was a prominent Northern politician. But I’m fairly certain that section 3 wasn’t understood as disqualifying them; “aid or comfort” must have been understood to mean actions intended to help the enemy that actually gave it aid, and not simply actions that had the effect of helping the enemy but that were motivated solely by a sincere desire to help the United States save lives or prevent the United States from acting immorally, rather than by a desire to help the enemy win.
That is certainly the way that modern treason law operates: As I explained here, quoting the Supreme Court, “[A] citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy ? making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength ? but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.” And this is true even if the actor knew his actions would help the enemy: The test is purpose, not knowledge of likely (or even certain) effects.
Now some might argue that Kerry’s actions might have been more reprehensible than the actions of the Northern politician I describe above. Perhaps they were too intemperate, or perhaps his statements were inaccurate, or whatever else. (I haven’t followed the exact factual allegations closely enough to make a definitive judgment, but for these purposes I don’t need to.)
But for the purposes of the Treason Clause, and I suspect of section 3, the test isn’t simply whether the actions help the enemy, or help the enemy through improper means, or help the enemy through improper means with the knowledge that they will help the enemy. If Kerry’s purpose was not to help the North Vietnamese, but to help the United States or to help maintain U.S. compliance with its own laws and policies related to military conduct, then he’s not covered. And I have no reason to think that Kerry’s purpose was indeed anything other than to help the United States, whether or not his actions in pursuit of that purpose may have been misguided or excessive.
So that’s my bottom line, and I want to stress it up front: Section 3 should not be read as disqualifying Kerry. That’s the only sensible way of interpreting the provision, and I think the only way of interpreting it that’s faithful to its likely original meaning.
But it turns out that under a purely textual analysis, the matter is a lot more complex. The section 3 argument against Kerry is, for the reasons, I gave above, a loser, but it’s far from the harebrained theory that it might at first appear to be. And analyzing the text closely provides a fascinating example of the troubles we run into when analyzing constitutional provisions that were, after all, written many decades ago, by drafters who had experience with different situations than we do now.
- Omission of “adhering to their Enemies”: Let’s start with the textual objection to the point I made above: First, “aid or comfort” literally means any aid or comfort, intentional or not. But good textualism doesn’t just look at the literal English meaning of an isolated phrase; it also looks to the legal meaning of the phrase, and to other provisions of the Constitution. And the closest provision to this one in the Constitution is the Treason Clause itself, which defines treason to cover “only . . . levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” I don’t think the “and” / “or” difference is that relevant here. But note that section 3 does not include the “adhering to their Enemies” language.
And the Supreme Court’s treason precedents that stress that treason includes only intentional aid rely on the “adhering to their Enemies” language as the source of the intent requirement. (See, for instance, the Court decision I quote three paragraphs above.) In the Court’s mostly 20th-century understanding, “aid and comfort” means help to the enemy, and “adhering to their Enemies” qualifies this to require intent to help the enemy.
So if one reads the text of section 3 literally, perhaps “aid or comfort” would mean all actions that help the enemy, even if the actor doesn’t “adher[e] to [the] Enem[y]” by intending to help the enemy. I suspect this is not how the section was understood by those who ratified; I suspect they understood it as tracking the Treason Clause. But literally, it might indeed cover Kerry’s actions.
- Speech as aid or comfort: It’s also pretty clear that speech can be treated by the law as providing aid or comfort. Decisions by Congress shortly before section 3 was enacted, under a loyalty oath regime that as I understand it section 3 was meant to clearly validate, took the view that publishing a pro-rebellion newspaper or letters qualified as aid or comfort, see Christy and Wimpy, Rowell’s Digest of Contested Election Cases 725 (1901); Smith v. Brown, id. at 220; Switzler v. Anderson, id. at 219-20. (I have not had the time to check the original reports, in volume 2 of the Bartlett compilation, which Rowell’s purports to condense.)
Modern treason law takes the same view: For instance, spreading Axis propaganda was found to be treason (see here). The main barrier to applying the section to antiwar speech lies in the intent requirement; but antiwar speech whose purpose was to help rebels would, I think, be disqualifying under section 3. (Whether the First Amendment would be a barrier to that is a difficult question that turns both on the scope of First Amendment rights for speech whose purpose is to aid the enemy, and on complex questions related to repeals by implication; I will set them aside here.)
- Application beyond the Civil War: But wait, you may ask: Obviously this provision was just meant to deal with rebels during the Civil War. Isn’t it a dead letter?
I don’t think so. The provision was enacted because of the Civil War, but its language is broad enough to cover other wars. The drafters could have chosen more focused language, but they didn’t. As the Court held in Perry v. United States (1935), when dealing with section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which confirmed the federal government’s obligations to pay the federal debt, “While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation.” Likewise with the language here; it clearly applies at least to all domestic rebellions.
- Helping foreign enemies: Does section 3 even apply to people who help foreign enemies, rather than domestic ones? The answer to this might seem to obviously be yes, but note that the language is “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” The first half specifically doesn’t cover people who fight in a foreign war against the U.S. (unlike the Treason Clause, which covers all enemies).
One can argue that the second half should be read as referring back to the first half, and thus covering only people who gave aid or comfort to enemies who were themselves engaging in insurrection or rebellion. And if that’s so, then none of this could possibly apply to Kerry. (I set aside claims that he was present at some meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which there was talk of assassination. Even if he was present, a matter that is disputed, I think mere talk of assassination isn’t enough to qualify as insurrection or rebellion, and mere presence at mere talk is likewise not enough to qualify as aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion.)
I think that on balance the provision should be read as covering aid and comfort to all enemies who are fighting the U.S., whether they’re fighting it overseas or whether they’re rebelling against it here. “Enemies” is broad enough to cover both, and it’s hard to see why the provision would have been understood, when enacted, as treating those who help enemy foreign armies better than those who help enemy domestic armies. Yet this isn’t obvious: There’s a powerful textual argument for treating the second clause (“enemies”) as being linked to the first (enemies “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”).
-
Congressional removal of disability: I don’t think Congress has “remove[d] such disability by a vote of two-thirds of each House.” The 1872 Amnesty Act, ch. 193, 17 Stat. 142, provided that:
all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth [amendment] . . . are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth [1859-61] and thirty-seventh [1861-63] Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and navel service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.
An 1898 Act, ch. 389, 30 Stat. 432, provided that:
the disability imposed by section three of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . heretofore incurred is hereby removed.
The second Act clearly applies only to disqualifications for pre-1898 conduct (“heretofore incurred”). The first doesn’t limit itself so explicitly, but it stands to reason that “disabilities . . . are hereby removed” likewise refers to disabilities that had already been incurred, rather than disabilities for future misconduct, the nature of which Congress wouldn’t have even known.
-
Automatic disqualification? Is disqualification automatic, or does it require some statute to implement it (e.g., a statute that says that everyone who did this-and-such during this-and-such war is hereby stripped of office)? In re Griffin, 11 F. Cas. 7 (C.C. Va. 1869), a lower court case, suggests that disqualification happens only if there’s a statute providing for such disqualification. But this is only a lower court case (written by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, riding circuit, but not endorsed by the Supreme Court). And it’s in any event not clear that its logic would apply to federal Senators and Representatives, as to whose qualifications Congress traditionally acts not through legislation but through direct examination of a candidate’s qualifications (see below), or to the President, whose qualifications Congress likewise probably has the power to directly test when counting the electoral votes (see below).
-
Who decides? Who decides whether whether the provision applies ? would it be a court, Congress, or someone else? I would assume that it would be Congress, which is the body that is supposed to count the electoral votes; presumably this includes the power to reject votes that are cast for ineligible candidates (whatever the cause of the eligibility). But who knows?
-
The Presidency as different: Finally, one could argue that the Presidency is outside the scope of section 3’s purpose. Section 3 was justified by the fear that voters in one state or district might elect candidates who are disloyal to the country as a whole. But when the electorate is national, as it is for the President and the Vice-President, we needn’t worry about that: The judgment as to whether the person can be trusted to be loyal to the United States can be safely left in the national electorate’s hands. I think this is a good policy argument; but a textualist would quickly reject it, because the text of section 3 covers all “office[s] . . . under the United States,” which includes the Presidency, and our guess as to the purpose of section 3 cannot modify that.
I’ve gone on at such length partly because of a compulsive and likely unhealthy professional desire to be relatively complete, and partly because exploring these mostly forgotten constitutional provisions reminds us how complex the supposedly simple act of reading a sentence and applying it to the facts can be. I stress again that, for the reasons I gave in item 1, section 3 doesn’t and shouldn’t bar Kerry’s candidacy. But the issue is considerably more complex than one might at first think.
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Hey! Thanks for playin’! Appreciate the bump.
Dig a little deeper, and people will find that this isn’t stupid at all. It’s affects many of our veterans, and I don’t think that their opinion is stupid.[/quote]
What I am saying is that we should not indict somebody just because we support the other party.
Using this to keep him out of office is fair game, just like they use the unsubstantiated claims about Bush’s military record. I just don’t think it is good to go there just for political reasons.
Not to mention that this would backfire, making conservatives look childish and vindictive, and we don’t want to look like liberals.
Hahahaha. It’s far too late…
Another great article…
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-buzzcut.php?range=10%2F24%2F2004%20-%2010%2F30%2F2004