| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"AWOL Coward GW Chimpzilla" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2004 01:25:49 PM |
| Object: |
What is a Liberal? |
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by
"Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his
policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with
the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members
demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they
mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas
without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people --
their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and
their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the
stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what
they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and
explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it
means in the presidential election of 1960.
In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in
Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take
the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the
state and the citizen. This is my political credo:
I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty
as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national
compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas.
It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people
that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a
party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and
heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and
judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and
freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains
and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and
creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the
aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all
mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which
are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of
large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others.
I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job
and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its
full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious
obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this
requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving
them.
Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our
responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with
political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that
liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal
society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a
strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to
great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can
repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our
national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our
government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will
move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in
our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and
Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.
Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended
from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant
minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel
minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our
sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier
to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and
new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the
czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the
new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross
section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's
history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of
opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.
Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that
spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all
Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.
Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the
American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who
struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for
their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools;
they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future,
brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their
children's time, suburb by suburb.
Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder
that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes
on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with
carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home.
For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and
every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We
cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are
militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than
goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo
of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where
that paving leads.
In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from
them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."
And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to
achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to
believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the
administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be
hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more
years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the
underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our
image abroad as a friend.
This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century
-- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New
York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be
associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and
Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad,
and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country
here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for
expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around
the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.
I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our
national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of
our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history
of the great Republic.
Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over
again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to
move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the
new frontiers of the 1960s.
John F. Kennedy
September 14, 1960
.
|
|
| User: "James Monroe" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
17 Aug 2004 12:58:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:56:12 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:rde2i05vrng990dcpvkhau4m7n4600hvp2@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:27:55 -0400, "Liberty1st"
<liberty1st_@email.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:6822i096ler18ve8sla1io2tjtuehs4dlv@4ax.com...
The republican definition is: Anyone who disagrees with me.
I don't see the pubs trying to censor people.
Then you're not looking.
Opposing points of view are NEVER allowed within earshot of AWOL bush.
To hear him "speak" in person, you've got to sign your Loyalty Oath.
Who was it that tried their best to have ShowTime not air the Reagan
movie? Who did their best to try to stop Moore's documentary?
Moore's documentary? ROFLOL. Let me help you with the definition of the word
documentary: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or
inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Moore's film is at best propaganda. He has a long history of taking quotes
out of context and pasting them together to paint a picture he wants you to
believe. The only people who still believe his film is true are Howard Dean
and his wacko followers.
You in the movie business?
Those that are disagree with you.
A film or book is not disqualified for the category of Documentary
simply because you disagree with its content.
"....becoming the first DOCUMENTARY ever to debut as Hollywood's top
weekend film."
"....won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival..."
And don't think you successfully changed the subject which is
Republican Censorship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberty1st" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
17 Aug 2004 04:41:44 PM |
|
|
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:keh4i0129t4an4n6icko0d4r62n52llvvh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:56:12 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:rde2i05vrng990dcpvkhau4m7n4600hvp2@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:27:55 -0400, "Liberty1st"
<liberty1st_@email.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:6822i096ler18ve8sla1io2tjtuehs4dlv@4ax.com...
The republican definition is: Anyone who disagrees with me.
I don't see the pubs trying to censor people.
Then you're not looking.
Opposing points of view are NEVER allowed within earshot of AWOL bush.
To hear him "speak" in person, you've got to sign your Loyalty Oath.
Who was it that tried their best to have ShowTime not air the Reagan
movie? Who did their best to try to stop Moore's documentary?
Moore's documentary? ROFLOL. Let me help you with the definition of the
word
documentary: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or
inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Moore's film is at best propaganda. He has a long history of taking
quotes
out of context and pasting them together to paint a picture he wants you
to
believe. The only people who still believe his film is true are Howard
Dean
and his wacko followers.
You in the movie business?
Those that are disagree with you.
A film or book is not disqualified for the category of Documentary
simply because you disagree with its content.
When the content has been shown to be lies...... it certainly is no longer
a documentary as it documents NOTHING.
And yes... I quit being a pilot to make movies.
"....becoming the first DOCUMENTARY ever to debut as Hollywood's top
weekend film."
"....won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival..."
And don't think you successfully changed the subject which is
Republican Censorship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Monroe" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
17 Aug 2004 08:50:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:41:44 -0400, "Liberty1st"
<liberty1st_@email.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:keh4i0129t4an4n6icko0d4r62n52llvvh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:56:12 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:rde2i05vrng990dcpvkhau4m7n4600hvp2@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:27:55 -0400, "Liberty1st"
<liberty1st_@email.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:6822i096ler18ve8sla1io2tjtuehs4dlv@4ax.com...
The republican definition is: Anyone who disagrees with me.
I don't see the pubs trying to censor people.
Then you're not looking.
Opposing points of view are NEVER allowed within earshot of AWOL bush.
To hear him "speak" in person, you've got to sign your Loyalty Oath.
Who was it that tried their best to have ShowTime not air the Reagan
movie? Who did their best to try to stop Moore's documentary?
Moore's documentary? ROFLOL. Let me help you with the definition of the
word
documentary: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or
inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Moore's film is at best propaganda. He has a long history of taking
quotes
out of context and pasting them together to paint a picture he wants you
to
believe. The only people who still believe his film is true are Howard
Dean
and his wacko followers.
You in the movie business?
Those that are disagree with you.
A film or book is not disqualified for the category of Documentary
simply because you disagree with its content.
When the content has been shown to be lies...... it certainly is no longer
a documentary as it documents NOTHING.
And yes... I quit being a pilot to make movies.
Pretty cool. What movies have you made?
Incidentally, have you actually SEEN F9/11?
"....becoming the first DOCUMENTARY ever to debut as Hollywood's top
weekend film."
"....won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival..."
And don't think you successfully changed the subject which is
Republican Censorship.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
18 Aug 2004 07:17:30 AM |
|
|
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:keh4i0129t4an4n6icko0d4r62n52llvvh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:56:12 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
Moore's documentary? ROFLOL. Let me help you with the definition of the
word
documentary: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or
inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Moore's film is at best propaganda. He has a long history of taking
quotes
out of context and pasting them together to paint a picture he wants you
to
believe. The only people who still believe his film is true are Howard
Dean
and his wacko followers.
You in the movie business?
No, I'm a Republican, not a left wing fanatic.
Those that are disagree with you.
Yup, all the left wingers in hollywood.
A film or book is not disqualified for the category of Documentary
simply because you disagree with its content.
The simple definition of the word means Moore's film is not a documentary.
"....becoming the first DOCUMENTARY ever to debut as Hollywood's top
weekend film."
"....won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival..."
And don't think you successfully changed the subject which is
Republican Censorship.
So how did the Republicans censor anything?
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Monroe" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
18 Aug 2004 11:43:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:17:30 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:keh4i0129t4an4n6icko0d4r62n52llvvh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:56:12 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
Moore's documentary? ROFLOL. Let me help you with the definition of the
word
documentary: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or
inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Moore's film is at best propaganda. He has a long history of taking
quotes
out of context and pasting them together to paint a picture he wants you
to
believe. The only people who still believe his film is true are Howard
Dean
and his wacko followers.
You in the movie business?
No, I'm a Republican, not a left wing fanatic.
Those that are disagree with you.
Yup, all the left wingers in hollywood.
A film or book is not disqualified for the category of Documentary
simply because you disagree with its content.
The simple definition of the word means Moore's film is not a documentary.
"....becoming the first DOCUMENTARY ever to debut as Hollywood's top
weekend film."
"....won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival..."
And don't think you successfully changed the subject which is
Republican Censorship.
So how did the Republicans censor anything?
They were stopped by real Americans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
18 Aug 2004 02:14:23 PM |
|
|
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:to17i0d5l7e4s30u96v52knllq9bmjkr2i@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:17:30 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:keh4i0129t4an4n6icko0d4r62n52llvvh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:56:12 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
So how did the Republicans censor anything?
They were stopped by real Americans.
ROFLOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A. Dulcimer" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
18 Aug 2004 08:15:02 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:17:30 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:keh4i0129t4an4n6icko0d4r62n52llvvh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:56:12 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
Moore's documentary? ROFLOL. Let me help you with the definition of the
word
documentary: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or
inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Moore's film is at best propaganda. He has a long history of taking
quotes
out of context and pasting them together to paint a picture he wants you
to
believe. The only people who still believe his film is true are Howard
Dean
and his wacko followers.
You in the movie business?
No, I'm a Republican, not a left wing fanatic.
You mean like Reagan, Schwarzenegger and Eastwood
Those that are disagree with you.
Yup, all the left wingers in hollywood.
Nonsense. We're everywhere.
A film or book is not disqualified for the category of Documentary
simply because you disagree with its content.
The simple definition of the word means Moore's film is not a documentary.
No. In fact quite the opposite is true. I suggest that you purchase a
dictionary so as to avoid embarrassing yourself like this.
"....becoming the first DOCUMENTARY ever to debut as Hollywood's top
weekend film."
"....won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival..."
And don't think you successfully changed the subject which is
Republican Censorship.
So how did the Republicans censor anything?
-----
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,
adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Emerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
18 Aug 2004 02:09:39 PM |
|
|
"A. Dulcimer" <ADulcimer@network23.net> wrote in message
news:fdl6i0l5s6vav3gvcipf498ejk9vdtpl1h@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:17:30 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, I'm a Republican, not a left wing fanatic.
You mean like Reagan, Schwarzenegger and Eastwood
Those that are disagree with you.
Yup, all the left wingers in hollywood.
Nonsense. We're everywhere.
That's right, you're all sitting around crying the blues because there isn't
a Democrat in office passing laws to give you more entitlements and that
just irritates the ***** right out of you.
A film or book is not disqualified for the category of Documentary
simply because you disagree with its content.
The simple definition of the word means Moore's film is not a
documentary.
No. In fact quite the opposite is true. I suggest that you purchase a
dictionary so as to avoid embarrassing yourself like this.
n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political,
social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and
often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by
narration.
Now who's embarrassed?
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
18 Aug 2004 08:19:18 AM |
|
|
"A. Dulcimer" <ADulcimer@network23.net> wrote in message
news:fdl6i0l5s6vav3gvcipf498ejk9vdtpl1h@4ax.com...
A film or book is not disqualified for the category of Documentary
simply because you disagree with its content.
The simple definition of the word means Moore's film is not a documentary.
No. In fact quite the opposite is true. I suggest that you purchase a
dictionary so as to avoid embarrassing yourself like this.
Propaganda is a more accurate description.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Monroe" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
18 Aug 2004 11:43:02 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:17:30 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:keh4i0129t4an4n6icko0d4r62n52llvvh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:56:12 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
Moore's documentary? ROFLOL. Let me help you with the definition of the
word
documentary: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or
inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Moore's film is at best propaganda. He has a long history of taking
quotes
out of context and pasting them together to paint a picture he wants you
to
believe. The only people who still believe his film is true are Howard
Dean
and his wacko followers.
You in the movie business?
No, I'm a Republican, not a left wing fanatic.
Careful, goosestepper. One of your right wing brothern answered the
question "yes".
Those that are disagree with you.
Yup, all the left wingers in hollywood.
I appreciate your honesty about being closed minded.
A film or book is not disqualified for the category of Documentary
simply because you disagree with its content.
The simple definition of the word means Moore's film is not a documentary.
Only the definition in your little closed mind.
"....becoming the first DOCUMENTARY ever to debut as Hollywood's top
weekend film."
"....won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival..."
And don't think you successfully changed the subject which is
Republican Censorship.
So how did the Republicans censor anything?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
18 Aug 2004 02:13:31 PM |
|
|
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:pl17i0p6j6cftll249s89bj26umc1kubu4@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:17:30 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:keh4i0129t4an4n6icko0d4r62n52llvvh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:56:12 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
Moore's documentary? ROFLOL. Let me help you with the definition of
the
word
documentary: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or
inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Moore's film is at best propaganda. He has a long history of taking
quotes
out of context and pasting them together to paint a picture he wants
you
to
believe. The only people who still believe his film is true are Howard
Dean
and his wacko followers.
You in the movie business?
No, I'm a Republican, not a left wing fanatic.
Careful, goosestepper. One of your right wing brothern answered the
question "yes".
If all conservatives are goosesteppers then that would make all liberals
parasitic leeches waiting for another handout.
Those that are disagree with you.
Yup, all the left wingers in hollywood.
I appreciate your honesty about being closed minded.
You're welcome.
A film or book is not disqualified for the category of Documentary
simply because you disagree with its content.
The simple definition of the word means Moore's film is not a
documentary.
Only the definition in your little closed mind.
n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political,
social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and
often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by
narration.
Or that definition, LOL
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: What is a Liberal? |
17 Aug 2004 06:48:52 AM |
|
|
"James Monroe" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:6822i096ler18ve8sla1io2tjtuehs4dlv@4ax.com...
The republican definition is: Anyone who disagrees with me.
Traditionally that has been the definition of a Democrat. Whenever you
disagree with them or use facts as an argument they immediately start name
calling as if that justifies their position.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
