OPINION
Published on August 2, 2010 By Big Fat Daddy In Misc

We are treated to images of demonstrations and protests and the news folks pump it up and make it look like a huge "movement" is underway.  With careful camera angles and editing, they lead us to believe there are "tens of thousands" when the real numbers are less than tens of hundreds.  The news does this because they want a certain opinion to prevail and they are in the business of forming that opinion for us.  So the idea is spread that tens of thousands of voters are against a certain candidate or a certain law or whatever it may be.  The truth may be quite the opposite, but you don't see as many protesters on the other side because the newsies don't want you to.  They make it seem that gozillians of voters in Arizona are up in arms over the new law.  The truth is that a huge majority of ARIZONA citizens support the law.  This is a state matter after all.  But when California buses in hundreds of protesters to show their support for the Arizona protesters who don't like the new law, it gets all the coverage...it's news.  Even if they are not legal immigrants, themselves. (Many are not and say so proudly!)  And again, the cameras and editing treat you to a show of mighty proportions...even when it ain't all that big.  
When Nixon was running for president, he used the phrase "silent majority" to describe the millions of people who did not agree with the anti-war sentiment, the "stop-the-draft" screamers, the anti-government crowd.  Instead they stayed home on demonstration day and didn't burn their draft cards or bras or US flags or participate in any of the many sit-ins, love-ins, smoke-ins, and be-ins.  They were people who were solid citizens with a sense of loyalty to the country and its laws.  They just didn't go in for all that public stuff.  Told you all that so I could tell you this:
I think most Americans are good people.  Most don't break the laws...not the big ones, anyway...We joke here about being able to spot the Texas driver because he is the fourth one through the red light.  But as much as it pains me to say this, I lived in Texas in the early seventies and most of the folks there were pretty nice people.  California is NOT all fruits and nuts, and if you have never been there you would be amazed at what a wonderful place it is.  I lived for a while in Missouri...well...let's move on to some other places.  My point is that often a small representation of people will create a lasting impression that will define a group for a long time.  But the ones we notice are always the loud ones.  In any group.  As much as we talk about the French...Americans tourists are seen as insensitive, boorish, drunk, loud, and rude.  Not all American tourists are even a little like that, but who gets noticed?  Right...Bubba.
I think that the current ruling party in America has bought the stereotype.  They are counting on the electorate to be ignorant, short-memoried, selfish, and easily distracted.  And I blame their good pals in the media for that.  Come on, think about it.  In every flood/tornado/fire/name-it, who gets interviewed on camera?  You can't tell me that nowhere in all of those disasters can you find one articulate person with all their teeth.  They are playing with razorblades.  In convincing the populace that everything is wrong in America, they have also created the impression in the Dems that we are all too dumb to make rational decisions about anything, let alone how to vote.  
We have to win this election and put in place people who will do what is needed to turn this slide into socialism around.  I cannot afford higher taxes on anything.  Many of us are currently like Thoreau's "...men living lives of quiet desperation..."  We do not want to see what is happening to our country go on.  We cannot sustain the massive weight of  all the welfare and wasted spending.  Where are the men of character and courage?  Where are the politicians who are patriots, who will sit in office to serve the people and the nation and especially "defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."?  
Okay, a bit of an uncharacteristic rant from BFD.  But I felt a need to get it off my chest.  Is there a point to it?  Maybe...quit squeakin' and start carrying your share of the load...remember that if something is illegal, it is ILLEGAL.  
I am including here one of my favorite songs.  I encourage you to read the whole song...I know you learned it it grade school, most of you, but ususally only the first verse.  Read it all.  Thanks.
O beautiful for spacious skies,For amber waves of grain,For purple mountain majestiesAbove the fruited plain!
America! America!God shed His grace on thee,And crown thy good with brotherhoodFrom sea to shining sea! O beautiful for pilgrim feetWhose stern impassion'd stressA thoroughfare for freedom beatAcross the wilderness.
America! America!God mend thine ev'ry flaw,Confirm thy soul in self-control,Thy liberty in law.
O beautiful for heroes prov'dIn liberating strife,Who more than self their country loved,And mercy more than life.
America! America!May God thy gold refineTill all success be nobleness,And ev'ry gain divine.
O beautiful for patriot dreamThat sees beyond the yearsThine alabaster cities gleamUndimmed by human tears.
America! America!God shed His grace on thee,And crown thy good with brotherhoodFrom sea to shining sea.  --Katherine Lee Bates


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 03, 2010

I cannot afford higher taxes on anything. Many of us are currently like Thoreau's "...men living lives of quiet desperation..."

Now you have me going off on a tangent!  I am pleased to see such a quote in your blog.  I hated those "artsy-fartsy" classes when I was in school.  I was a math major so what did I need with literature?  After school, when I was talking to some of my people about something (I do not recall the topic), I invoked Thoreau's statement about being in jail (on Walden Pond).  I got blank stares from everyone.  They had no idea who he was or what I was talking about.  It was at that time, that I realized the value of those "artsy-fartsy" classes and have not regretted them since.

As for your article, I have 2 observations.

1. I think the monopoly of the MSM is broken.  People now expect to see their agenda, and they expect it to be liberal.  The latest scandal, Journolist, just validated the beliefs of most people - the silent majority.  So when they see those demonstrations, they figure they are staged.  There are many alternative venues for news and they are rapidly outpacing the mainstream venues as people are looking for news, not propaganda.

2.  It has puzzled me why Obama could stay relatively popular when clearly few people like what he is doing.  But the realization slowly dawned on me.  Reverse racism.  Unlike Bush, where it was legal,popular and even a sport to demonize him, most people do not want to be called racist.  So they will say they like the guy, but silently hate his policies.  No one sees who you pull the lever for in the voting booth, nor is there a reporter there to document what you did.  I would say that Obama is about as popular as Bush was 2 years ago.  In reality.  This November you will see exit polls that basically split the vote, and reality polls that show an historic defeat for democrats.

on Aug 03, 2010

Doc:  on point one, I hope you are right.  There are still a huge number of Americans who get their news with dinner from one of the (formerly) big three.  As enlightened as I like to think we are becoming, some habits are hard to break and that is what the lefties are counting on.

On point two, I could not agree more...the whole thing being fueled by the press and administration that throws out that accusation at the least resistance to his policies.  I sure hope you are right about the voting results.

on Aug 04, 2010

Inside your rambling, incoherent wall of text, I'm sensing from you a great anxiety about the future, as if you have trouble accepting that Americans VOTED for the Democrats to take over government in 2008 because the American people were intelligent enough to realize that decades of reckless and irresponsible American capitalism was leading us to disaster.  Which it was, and still is.  In fact we'll be suffering the repercussions of our bad domestic and foreign policies for years to come.  Only you've been convinced by your nutty right-wing websites and Fox News that somehow liberals are to blame.  Yea, you know, the same liberals that have only been in power now for less than two years...

Times have changed, and while you refuse to accept it, America and the rest of the world are becoming more liberal. (*gasp*)  You may deride this trend as "socialism", but you have no idea what you're talking about.  Go open a history book and learn what real socialism was about back when it was first conceived in the 1800's -- back when workers labored for one piece of bread a day to feed their families.  The socialism of the past was about SURVIVAL of the working class.  When you drop the label of socialism on things like healthcare reform and/or universal healthcare, you are playing politics and distorting history.  What you call "socialism" of today is merely SOCIAL PROGRESS.  It is the future of modern society, and thankfully, the conservatives will be unable to break its momentum, as conservatives were unable to break the momentum of the civil rights movement, or the anti-war movement of the Vietnam years, or the tide of liberalism and nationalism in the 1800's that swept away the conservative "old order" of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Americans made their choice in 2008 and if they think liberals are really leading us to destruction, they'll make a different choice this year.  But it's pretty clear where the future is taking us at this point.  If you're so against it, well build yourself a time machine and send yourself back to the Reagan years   The rest of us in the present will continue on our path of PROGRESS.

on Aug 05, 2010

Yea, you know, the same liberals that have only been in power now for less than two years...

Liar - 4 years.

America and the rest of the world are becoming more liberal. (*gasp*)

Liar - Germany, France and England elected more conservative governments.

What you call "socialism" of today is merely SOCIAL PROGRESS.

Liar - nationalization of industry IS the DEFINITION of Socialism.

as conservatives were unable to break the momentum of the civil rights movement,

Liar - conservatives passed it.  Liberals filibustered it.  just ask Al Gore.

they'll make a different choice this year.

Finally got one right.

The rest of us in the present will continue on our path of PROGRESS.

10% unemployment, 1.5 trillion dollar deficit.  Housing unaffordable to a majority of americans.  Gulf Oil Spill.  Graft Corruption and malfeasance.  Citizens dying at the hands of foreign nationals. Nationalization and destruction of 40% of the economy.

Great progress. What is next?  Nuking the populace to keep them in line?  Welcome to the Social Workers paradise!  No food, no shelter, No protection - BUT all suffer that way.

on Aug 05, 2010

For being so quick to point out liberal "lies", you conservatives frequently having trouble staying on top of facts...

Dr Guy
Liar - 4 years.

Wrong.  So Obama's magically been president for four years now?  The Democrats may have taken over Congress in 2006 but there is more than one branch of government.  It's so ironic how quickly conservatives make themselves forget the disastrous eight years of the Bush administration.

Dr Guy
Liar - Germany, France and England elected more conservative governments.

What happens in just three countries is not indicative of a global trend.  Plus, these countries were on the liberal, socially progressive path for half a century, and it served them very well -- high standards of living, high economic growth, happy people, equitable societies, etc. etc.  Their latest change of governments do not in and of themselves represent a paradigm shift -- and especially compared to Americans, Europeans are overwhelmingly liberal.  They are way ahead of us in the fight for abortion rights, same-sex couple rights, etc.  If you think they are moving closer to ridiculous and discriminatory "American values" then you are sadly mistaken.

Dr Guy
Liar - nationalization of industry IS the DEFINITION of Socialism.

Our education system, road system, and postal service are all nationalized.  Does that make them socialist, and by extension does that make our country a socialist one?  Because if so, we've been a socialist nation since before the Reagan era.

Dr Guy
Liar - conservatives passed it.  Liberals filibustered it.  just ask Al Gore.

Wrong.  Congratulations, you just failed U.S. History 101 and made a fool of yourself.  Have you not heard of "CONSERVATIVE Southern Democrats"?  Why do you think the South went Republican after the civil rights movement?  They were hella pissed.  Trying to credit conservatives for the civil rights movement is like crediting Hitler for the triumph of democracy over authoritarianism.

Dr Guy
Finally got one right.

Aw, you seem so confident about the Republicans' ability to win back Congress.  Well, Obama's only been in power for two years, and that's hardly enough time for the majority of voters to form opinions as strongly as yours.  What's more likely to happen is a 50/50 split down the electorate, potentially slightly empowering the Republicans but leaving the Democrats in charge.  And thank heavens, because Obama needs more time to fix this country that Bush screwed up so badly.

Dr Guy
10% unemployment, 1.5 trillion dollar deficit.  Housing unaffordable to a majority of americans.  Gulf Oil Spill.  Graft Corruption and malfeasance.  Citizens dying at the hands of foreign nationals. Nationalization and destruction of 40% of the economy

You can thank Bush for much of this.  If you think Obama has personally wrought this destruction on us in less than two years in presidency, then you sir are seriously deluded.

 

And pro tip: Don't call people liars when you don't know what you're talking about.

on Aug 05, 2010

the same liberals that have only been in power now for less than two years

Wrong. So Obama's magically been president for four years now?

That is why you are a liar.  You said 2 different things.  You did not say OBAMA at first.  You lied.

America and the rest of the world are becoming more liberal. (*gasp*)

What happens in just three countries is not indicative of a global trend.

Lie #2.  They are part of the rest of the world as such they are part of the global trend.  Liar.

Our education system, road system, and postal service are all nationalized. Does that make them socialist, and by extension does that make our country a socialist one? Because if so, we've been a socialist nation since before the Reagan era.

That does make them socialist, but that does not make the country socialist (you have a perception problem).  Making the country socialist is to eliminate all non-government industry and replace them with government industry.  That is happening.  The cases you site were always part of the government, thus not MAKING the country socialist.  Lie #3

Wrong. Congratulations, you just failed U.S. History 101 and made a fool of yourself. Have you not heard of "CONSERVATIVE Southern Democrats"?

Liar.  Democrats filibustered and republicans passed.  What you want to call the fools in the democrat party is your problem, but conservative is not a name I would call them.  Congratulations.  You have just proved yourself a fool as well as a liar.

Aw, you seem so confident about the Republicans' ability to win back Congress.

I am confident they will win the house, doubt they will win the senate and I am not celebrating.  We will be dying of hundreds of cuts instead of thousands.  But as they say, it is still dying.

You can thank Bush for much of this.

Yes, until the end of time.  Sorry, none of this was happening during Bush.  Bush left with a $450 billion deficit and $400b left in tarp which Obama ran up to a 1.5t deficit and spent all that tarp and more.  Bush left and unemployment was below 7%.  it has not been there since Obama passed the porkulus bill.  I am sure everything is Bush's fault because obama does nothing, right.  partially right.  he does nothing good or effective.

Quit playing the fool, and quit lying.  And take some responsibility for you own actions!  Obama never will, but no one says you have to be as stupid or bad as obama.

on Aug 05, 2010

And pro tip: Don't call people liars when you don't know what you're talking about.

pro Tip?  you are an ignorant fool.  So which pro did you ask for that advice? Apparently you do not know how to read, or else you just lied again since I showed you I do know what I am talking about, and you clearly are clueless.

I exposed your lies.  You lie, you are a liar.  I am not a politician, so I do not have to use euphemisms.

 

on Aug 05, 2010

LOL man you have lost it.  Instead of finding facts to counter my arguments you just call me a liar over and over again, as if that will make your silly assertions come true.  None of what you said above makes any lick of sense at all.  (I have a "perception problem"?  Lol do you do standup?)  For your own sake, educate yourself in some real history man -- if you are denying basic civil rights history then you have no business spouting your conservative nonsense on the internet.

My god conservatives these days are so clouded by their preconceived views of the world, you guys can't even see straight anymore.  Good luck getting through the future man, cause you're gonna be one unhappy camper.

Oh, and one other thing: You shouldn't make so many personal and character attacks (also known as trolling).  It's not good for your blood pressure.

on Aug 06, 2010

Hey guys!  I am having some real issues with posting comments right now, not sure if it is my dinosaur or JU.  I will try to post this through Forums and if it works, I will try to put up a couple of responses.  Thanks for being patient with me.  Appreciate the lively debate!

on Aug 06, 2010

Well, that seemed to work okay.  

First, schools and roads are not socialized or nationalized or anything-ized.  They are federally regulated but are managed at the state level.  You knew that, Doc, you were just caught up in the heat of battle.  Granted the feds have been pretty heavy-handed of late, coercing states with the threat of withholding funds if the states don't comply.  The biggest example was in the mid-seventies when states who declined to go along with the national 55 mph speed limit would lose federal road money.

HJ:  I had a lengthy response last night but after several failed attempts to post it, I went to bed.  Doc has addressed most of the points I wanted to make and you have already rejected them, so I won't beat that dead horse.  But I do want to say that using the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement as examples of liberal successes is typical and laughable.  They were were both dismal failures.  The anti-war movement died with the end of the draft.  The wars didn't.  It was really an anti-draft-the-rich-kids movement.  Very few of the old guard anti-war folks kept up with the struggle.  "Civil rights" spawned a generation of affirmative action and political correctness which has done more harm to blacks in America than the war on poverty (which is saying a lot).  

Maggie Thatcher remarked that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.  We are fast approaching that point.  We are living the biggest pyramid scheme ever, and Barry O is the William Penn Patrick behind it all.  

I fully expect that my thoughts are wasted on you, Joe, you seem so steeped in the red mist that you think it is the other side that is blind.  But as Doc has illustrated, arguing with you is like wrestling with a pig; everyone gets dirty...but the pig likes it.  I look forward to you finding the courage to post your own articles instead of raiding others' for the kick.  Let's hear from you the second week in November, hmmm?

on Aug 06, 2010

LOL man you have lost it. Instead of finding facts to counter my arguments you just call me a liar over and over again,

That is because you are a liar.  I posted facts, you posted lies.  A simpleton can see that, but a moron would have problems.  Your choice on why you are having problems.  I have not lost it.  Simple test - prove me wrong!  You know, where you actually tell the truth and it contradicts me?  I know I have to explain it to you, but that is all you are going to get. 

None of what you said above makes any lick of sense at all.

Why?  Are you living in a fantasy world?  facts do not make sense to you?  How quaint.  I have heard that liberalism is a mental disease, but I never expected to see a liberal admit it.

if you are denying basic civil rights history then you have no business spouting your conservative nonsense on the internet.

I am not.  You are.  I know how Robert "Kleagle" Byrd was such a BIG conservative and republican!  Please explain how he and Al Gore are so big republicans!  Please, I would love to see that spin.

My god conservatives these days are so clouded by their preconceived views of the world, you guys can't even see straight anymore.

See straight - as in your fantasy world?  You are right.  We do not live in your fantasy world, but the real world where facts still stand out to expose lies.  Like yours. 

Oh, and one other thing: You shouldn't make so many personal and character attacks (also known as trolling). It's not good for your blood pressure.

I already told you once I am not a politician. I do not have to use euphemistic words to state facts.  I have not made any personal attacks.  you are a liar.  Plain and simple. Your rebuttal contains no truth, and indeed no facts.  instead of refuting what I say. YOU attack with your fantasy world.  I cannot help what you are.  I am not a shrink.  But I can say that the only troll here is you.  You trolled this blog with your first post.  You apparently do not understand what a troll is.  If I came onto your blog and posted what you did, I would be the troll.  But I did not, you did, and you just lied (or are totally ignorant) again.

So calling you a liar, ignorant and a fool is not being pejorative, but descriptive.  Words mean things and you are demonstrating the ones I used are not only true, but truly descriptive of yourself.

on Aug 06, 2010

First, schools and roads are not socialized or nationalized or anything-ized. They are federally regulated but are managed at the state level.

Granted, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt in his warped way.  Somethings are best done by the state (education is not one of them and is why Johnny can't read).  That is why we are not a pure capitalistic society and never have been.  Like a pure democracy, anything "pure" when it comes to humankind is virtually impossible.  That the government runs those institutions means they are socialized in a purely dictionary sense, but that is not something that has "become", but something that always was.

on Aug 06, 2010

BFD, I have been having some problems posting as well.  This is the reason why I usually temporarily save my posts. 

on Aug 06, 2010

I am using inept imploder (Internet Explorer)instead of Fire Fox. 

Let me interject some historical facts here:

Happy_Joe


LOL man you have lost it.  Instead of finding facts to counter my arguments you just call me a liar over and over again, as if that will make your silly assertions come true.  None of what you said above makes any lick of sense at all.  (I have a "perception problem"?  Lol do you do standup?)  For your own sake, educate yourself in some real history man -- if you are denying basic civil rights history then you have no business spouting your conservative nonsense on the internet.
My god conservatives these days are so clouded by their preconceived views of the world, you guys can't even see straight anymore.  Good luck getting through the future man, cause you're gonna be one unhappy camper.
Oh, and one other thing: You shouldn't make so many personal and character attacks (also known as trolling).  It's not good for your blood pressure.

Glad you're holding others to different standards than you hold yourself.

Let's look at the facts on this subject:

In 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes!

For the evidence of this please refer to these links:

http://www.congresslink.org/civil/cr21.html and http://www.congresslink.org/civil/cr1.html

"In enacting the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, Congress provided the Department of Justice with basic tools for protecting the right to vote -- and this Administration has not hesitated to use those tools."  This is from CR1 link and the administration being referred here is the JFK administration. 

JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when JFK was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee.

His lukewarm approach for the Act included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. The 1950s, does not have JFK being a civil rights activist, either.  The 1957 Act to benefits blacks was passed by with the aid of Republicans (hmmm why did they need the help of the Republicans when they had a majority?)  This was the water-down 1964 bill which JFK finally backed.

He only began to outline civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for it. The 1960 Presidential Campaign, JFK avoided the civil rights issue altogether because he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Even After JFK was elected, he failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.

By introducing  specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster, DUE TO THOSE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS, and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes JFK believed he did not have.

"In combating a filibuster by southern (democrats) senators, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen delivered a persuasive speech on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He hoped to convince as many as possible of his Republican colleagues that it was time to close debate and allow a vote on the bill, which Congress had been considering for a full year." From CR 21 link.

Everett Dirksen was a force for the Civil Rights act for during both of his tenures in the House and the Senate, "he had built a solid record in support of civil rights, having introduced a bill for a civil rights commission in the House in 1953 and worked for the 1960 civil rights bill in the Senate. To Dirksen, civil rights represented an important moral issue, even though he seldom received the political support of Chicago's black voters." CR 21 LINK

"In the spring of 1963, President John F. Kennedy submitted a draft civil rights bill to Congress. While the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed in acting on the measure, the House moved ahead, finally passing the bill in February 1964, less than three months after the assassination of the president. Even though the Senate eventually managed to bypass the conservative Judiciary Committee by placing the bill directly on the calendar for action, intransigent southern senators, primarily Democrats, were determined to filibuster. Under a provision designed to protect the rights of the minority, the Senate, unlike the House, allows a determined group of senators to block legislation by carrying on extended debate. In 1964, the Senate's cloture rule required the votes of sixty-seven senators to close off debate and bring a measure to a vote. The support of a substantial number of Republicans was essential in order to achieve such a "supermajority" on the civil rights bill."  From CR 21 Link

"Later that same day, the Senate voted, 71 to 29, to shut off debate, with 27 Republicans joining 44 Democrats in voting to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in history that the Senate had voted cloture on a civil rights bill. After the Senate passed the measure on June 19, the House accepted the Senate version and President Johnson signed it into law on July 2. Among other provisions, the act as passed contained sections relating to discrimination in education, in voting, and in public accommodations such as restaurants, theaters, hotels and motels; it also strengthened the Civil Rights Commission and established an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission." CR 21 Link

Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.

For further schooling of the Civil Rights please read this curriculum because it seesm that you are the one that needs the history lesson:  http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html

Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.

 

on Aug 06, 2010

I am using inept imploder (Internet Explorer)instead of Fire Fox.

Great one!

Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.

That is not surprising.  The democrats have done no good, and so they have to steal credit for anything of value.  What is surprising is that there are so many stupid people like Joe and MF that either lie consciously (Joe did) or are just too stupid to know the truth and believe the lies of others.

2 Pages1 2