Slim Smith Tries To Make One Point, Makes Exact Opposite Point But Is Too Stupid To Know

Slim Smith, the resident liberal at the online version of the Commercial Dispatch (Columbus, MS) apparently had a quota to meet this past week. You can always tell when a liberal is short of ideas and needs a quick column to keep his job because the column is ALWAYS the same: racism and conservatives/Republicans. Smith spares no effort at making himself look like a complete tool. 

Fifty years ago Friday, the President of the United States was shot and killed in Dallas and some of the schoolchildren in segregated schools throughout the South cheered the news. 

So he gets off on the wrong foot. After all, I'd be willing to bet some children in integrated schools other places also cheered. The cool thing about anecdotal evidence like Slim is going to use to make his case is that when the evidence doesn't exist you can simply make it up.

Children cheered in Oxford, recalled Lloyd Gray, the editor of the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, who was a fourth-grader there. 

Children cheered in Columbus, said Birney Imes, the publisher of The Dispatch, who was a junior high student at Joe Cook Junior High. 

It happened throughout the South. 

Note this slimeball tactic. Slim takes two alleged eyewitness accounts of events fifty years ago and extrapolates them across one specific region of the USA. So let me make this point: I attended Caledonia Elementary School in that sewer known as Lowndes County and I can attest that on March 30, 1981 there were children of both races in the sixth grade class at Activity Period who cheered the shooting of President Reagan. I'd be willing to bet this also happened at some all-black schools, too, but since it doesn't fit Slim's narrative, he ignores it.

It wasn't as though entire classrooms rose in one voice to celebrate the tragedy. 

No, that was reserved for folks who cheered the acquittal of a black former NFL running back who killed two white folks and got away with it.

By most accounts, it was the reaction of a handful of children, who cheered, then quickly fell silent, as though they were embarrassed, perhaps even surprised, at their spontaneous reaction to the news. 

But the fact remains, a president was shot and the first reaction of some children was to cheer. 

That seems hard to fathom today. 

Or does it? 

No, because kids are kids who generally have no understanding of death and who tend to believe pretty much everything they're told at home. The dumb ones grow up to go to Ivy League schools and run for office and never once learn to question what someone is telling them. 

For all of the progress that has been made, I wonder if, were the unthinkable to happen today, some of our schoolchildren might react much as those schoolchildren did on the afternoon of Nov. 22, 1963. 

Yes, but it has nothing to do with what you're building towards, so this is a pointless claim.

In the years since JFK, all presidents have had their share of bitter critics. Some have been despised and over the years the respect that was normally accorded to office of the President of The United States of America has disintegrated.  

Nothing like dealing with a historical ignoramus. Does Slim not know that Rutherford B Hayes was called "His Fraudulency" by the self-appointed party of the people? Does he know that John Tyler was nearly impeached and that Andrew Johnson actually was impeached? This mythical "respect my generation had for the office of President" is a pile of garbage that Slim and his liberal cohorts need to abandon in favor of reality.

But there is a level of hatred reserved for Barack Obama that hasn't been witnessed in this country since JFK and before that, Abraham Lincoln. 

This is hogwash Not only can you not prove this but this is wrong on so many levels as to make me question whether you're back off the wagon.

1) I'm guessing nobody hated James Garfield or William McKinley. Sure, they were assassinated, but those weren't hate crimes, just good Democrats gone bad.

2) Since the assassination of Kennedy there have been THREE total assassination attempts. NONE was against Barack Obama. Two were made against President Ford and a third (and most dangerous one) against Ronald Reagan.

3) If this is true then why haven't Obama's approval ratings sunk as low as Carter or Bush 43? 

Some Americans may have wanted Nixon or Reagan or Clinton or Bush driven out of office, but those who openly wished for their deaths were confined to psychotics who lived on the ragged edges of the political sphere. 

I'm guessing Slim considers Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams part of the lunatic fringe. In 2007, Williams came to Bush's home state of Texas and said, "Right now, I could kill George Bush." She went on to say "not really" and then modified it by saying she would love to kill him in a nonviolent way. Or what about the recently terminated Randi Rhodes, who in May 2004 advocated the murder of President Bush? Or what about Air America being investigated in 2005 for a skit where Rhodes again talked about shooting Bush?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that Air America was only the home of the left-wing lunatic fringe? If so, then you have a serious problem since one of those former hosts is now a U.S. Senator.

The fact is that this whole paragraph is a pile of garbage with no factual basis.

But the hatred that manifested itself in the impulsive cheers of children upon first hearing of JFK's shooting in Dallas was not confined to the deranged few, especially not in Mississippi.  

Now you're contradicting your earlier claim that it was a "handful" of children. You've gone from a handful of kids to the entire South and now back to the entire white population of Mississippi. No wonder you like Obama so much - your rhetoric comes from the same ill-informed and dishonest sewer pipe as his.

It had been a little more than a year since Kennedy sent in federal troops to squash the riots that had broken out in Oxford in the immediate aftermath of James Meredith's enrollment as the first black student at the University of Mississippi on Oct. 1, 1962.  

I don't know how to break this to you but Kennedy didn't even carry Mississippi in 1960. It's not like he was a popular guy in the first place.

Kennedy's decision to send in federal troops was widely viewed a humiliation among white Mississippians, who bitterly opposed integration. It was a breach of state sovereignty and a slap in the face to the people. Well, it was a slap in the face to the white people, who were then the only people who mattered.  

Fair enough slam but given the reaction of Bostonians to forced busing over a decade later, this is an amusing anecdote at best. Apparently, what was good for a Bostonian to impose on Mississippi was not such a good idea when it applied to them. And THAT was the entire point.

While Kennedy, a liberal Catholic from Massachusetts, was never popular among white Mississippians, it wasn't until the troops descended on Oxford that he became a figure of burning resentment, even hatred. 

 Ah, the myth of the liberal Kennedy. The late Teddy White, who actually knew and admired JFK, wrote at the time that Kennedy was the perfect example of an "enlightened Tory" while Teddy represented the "unabashed liberal extreme." Kennedy was by no means a Reaganite, but he was not an Obama prototype, either. And dare I point out that Kennedy's views on civil rights apparently did not extend to the private life of Dr. Martin Luther King?

And so it was, on that awful November day, children too young to understand why their president should be hated, hated him anyway and cheered the tragedy, if only for a fleeting instant. 

They acted like innocent kids who don't understand death, you moron.

Are things so different today? 

No, kids are still kids. They've gotten stupider via the Smart phones but they're still kids.

There is a segment of our country that actively believes Obama not only isn't an American, but is decidedly anti-American.

Now why would that be, Slim?

1) His attending church for 20 years sitting under the instruction of an American-hating pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Either he never went to church or he heard that bozo spouting that stuff and implicitly approved.

2) His wife saying in 2008 after the Wisconsin primary that this was the first time she was proud of America?

3) His not even knowing how many states we have

4) His stated willingness to kill American citizens with drones outside of war zones

5) His ALWAYS siding with the black guy in a black/non-black situation (Henry Gates, Trayvon Martin)

I've got more, but you can chew on those for awhile.

 Considered from a view that can only be described as a function of paranoia,

In other words, all those things above combined don't really mean anything. Right?

 every policy has an ulterior motive, every act is a willful effort to destroy the Constitution and each move, no matter how innocuous it might appear, is a progression down the slippery slope to tyranny. 

Do you seriously think Barack Obama is the first President this has ever been said about? I heard the same things for eight years about George W Bush, starting with his election and continuing on into his retirement. The Patriot Act, the wiretaps, heck I even heard it said by many that the reason Bush failed to evacuate New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was because he hated black people. Sound familliar, Slim?

The government isn't simply inept, unresponsive or misguided: The Government is the enemy and Obama is the head of that government. 

You need to read more of the founding fathers if you think this is a recent sentiment.

Past presidents have been despised for being dishonest, immoral, inept or even pawns. But they have not been perceived as the enemy. 

You are out of your mind if you believe this. 

That status was once reserved for JFK and is now affixed to Obama. 

 Because they're Presidents and that is what happens to Presidents - period. It's not because Obama is black or a special case. 

Fifty years ago, children who had learned to hate a president at their parents' knee cheered when an assassin found his mark. 

I am not at all certain a similar event would not evoke a similar response today. 

It was shameful in 1963. 

That it could occur today, 50 years later, is all the more shameful.

Ah, here we go. You see, this is how it is with liberals. Since Barack Obama is darker skinned than Ronald Reagan, it is MORE shameful that someone might cheer if he was shot by an assassin. It's a bigger tragedy because those are the liberal rules of the game. Any non-white gets special status because of years of racism/slavery/tyranny that none of us now living had anything to do with. The fact is that it is no more (nor any less) of a shame than Kennedy's murder or Reagan's being shot. The only shame is that the Dispatch actually let this asinine column run.

Why We Know Lee Harvey Oswald Killed President John F. Kennedy

A week from tomorrow, the city of Dallas (and the country) will commemorate the 50th anniversary of one of the darkest days in American history, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy while riding in a motorcade in downtown Dallas. Whatever one's views of President Kennedy's politics or policies - which are far more conservative than today's Democratic Party that claims him, but I digress - the violent removal of the leader of the free world was a tragedy in every sense of the word, and it is merely good fortune (or God's grace) that has prevented a similar tragedy from befalling the nine Presidents since Kennedy was murdered. Unfortunately, the killing of the President has spawned an ugly industry endemic to capitalistic societies, the unparalleled ability to cash in on his demise. Virtually all of those making money pawn the story that a nefarious and unidentifiable conspiracy overseen by nameless powerful people in the government (or the Mafia) murdered Kennedy and covered it up. And polls show the ignorant American public that believed one could simultaneously implode the health insurance industry and yet leave their own insurance untouched truly believe a conspiracy killed Kennedy, with nearly three out of five Americans holding that view. Such polls do not indicate what Americans actually believe about the evidence but rather show that critical thinking is a lost art. The fact of the matter is that the only thing missing in the case that would prove Oswald killed the President is a video showing him firing the fatal shots. And one must surmise that in the post-Oliver Stone world that we would be informed that this video actually "proves" the conspiracy and was wisely made as a decoy to throw all but the "enlightened" off the scent.

Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and he did it by firing three shots from a manual, bolt-action rifle from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. He then fled the scene of the crime, went back to his boarding house and obtained a pistol, murdered Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippitt, fled to a movie theatre and was apprehended after a scuffle with police. Less than 48 hours later, Oswald was murdered by a night club owner, Jack Ruby, who was given a life sentence and died in prison a few years later.

State your belief in this version today and the smug chuckles and shaking heads prepare to engage before bothering to think through the ramifications of their thought processes. So let's simply deal once again with the most common objections and lead all rational and clear-thinking persons to the only rational conclusion of Oswald's guilt.

Part of the problem is that when engaging people on this subject, they only want to talk about certain things. In short, they miss the forest for the trees. Objections are made regarding the timing of the shots, the killing of Oswald by Ruby, or the so-called "magic" bullet. Each of these are presented as fine points. NEVER are the objectors required to function in the same world where they must first present their entire case. Presenting the case for a conspiracy is so impossible that Oliver Stone had to make up a fictional composite character to make up the missing evidence and bring it all together. Keep in mind that ANY conspiracy theory must be held to the same standards as they impose on the lone gunman theory. In other words, it must not only hold up in the minutiae, it must also withstand scrutiny as an entire entity. And not one conspiracy theory can do this. So let's deal with the most obvious objections and why the counter-proposals simply will not suffice.

1. Oswald could not have fired the shots in the time allotted by the Warren Commission.

Other than the so-called "magic" bullet, this must be the most common objection: Oswald could not possibly have fired the shots. But all one has to do is do what nobody else seems to want to do, which is actually READ the Warren Commission testimony that has been online now for a number of years. One can probably recite the claim from memory given by Lou Ivon in the movie "JFK," that the Warren Commission establishes three shots in 5.6 seconds. The only problem is that they never did this. Read the conclusion for yourself from the last line of chapter two:

Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds.

The 5.6 seconds was a general estimate drawn by conspiracy "researchers" misusing what was stated. In point of fact, the Warren Commission was never this precise because they couldn't be sure. The rest of their report notes that the time span may have been as high as 7.9 seconds. That amount of time would actually permit FOUR shots to be fired. The simple fact of the matter is that the entire conspiracy industry is built upon this lie and the lie about a "magic" bullet. Having dispensed with the one, let's evaluate the other one.

2. The Magic Bullet was concocted to explain away the wounds of Kennedy and Connally.

The so-called magic bullet is also a myth. Nobody ever said any such thing other than conspiracy buffs. What the buffs are talking about is the late Arlen Specter's proposal that a "single bullet" caused the wounds to both Kennedy and Connally. It should be noted that this theory was not invented in order to find Oswald guilty; it was invented because there was not one shred of evidence of a fourth shot and the wounds had to be accounted for. When Kevin Costner said "we have come to know it as the magic bullet" and then extrapolated on it, he never bothered to mention that we had come to know it by that name not by the Warren Commission but by conspiracy buffs erecting a straw man. Pictures long ago showed that Kennedy and Connally were not right in front of each other but were somewhat diagonally. That is unless you think the pictures were also invented, in which case this rational discussion is not for you and perhaps a comic book can alleviate your irrationality.

WHAT ALL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS MUST ULTIMATELY EXPLAIN

The principle of Ockham's Razor basically says that the easiest explanation is most probably correct. Rarely are the tables turned on the conspiracy buffs, who excel in asking rhetorical questions but then invent answers that are more irrational than if the "magic bullet" were reality. Keep in mind the following things must all be explained rationally to exonerate Oswald:

1) Why was his palm print on the weapon?

Oliver Stone got around this via an incredibly ridiculous solution - just take the gun to the morgue and press his hand on it. Stone is apparently unaware that dead man do not perspire and thus do not make fingerprints but then again Stone is unaware of a number of rational things anyway.

2) Why did Oswald flee the Texas School Book Depository?

OK, this one might be rationally answered by trying to argue that Oswald figured work would be cancelled for the day, the very reason he gave the police. But this begs the question as to how Oswald even knew the President had been shot since he was not part of any group of people watching the motorcade. His whereabouts are unaccounted for yet he somehow knew the President had been shot. Furthermore, it proves (with the next question) why one cannot merely cherry pick small points of data without constructing a larger picture of the entire assassination.

3) Why did Oswald kill Officer Tippit?

This is the question upon which every "Oswald as patsy" conspiracy theory hinges: at some point you have to explain why Oswald killed Tippit. And the explanations given are legendary and have not one shred of evidence to back them up. Furthermore, it is indisputable that Oswald killed Tippit. It was only seen by ten different witnesses, most of whom identified Oswald (not all were taken to a line-up). If you hold that Oswald fired the weapon but was part of a conspiracy, you still must explain Tippit. The reasons are somewhat less rational than the "magic bullet" that never was: Oswald didn't kill Tippit, Tippit was part of the conspiracy (though they never say what), Tippit was supposed to kill Oswald and got hit instead, even that Tippit and Oswald were involved with the same woman. Sure that makes sense. Oswald just happens to leave work the same minute the President is killed, goes back to his boarding house, and then just happens to run into a guy he knows is fooling around with the same woman he is. Makes perfect sense. Not.

4) Why did Oswald fight with the police in the theatre?

Maybe I should summarize each of these points with a rhetorical question: if Oswald was innocent, why did he take so many actions that only a guilty person would have taken? How did Oswald know the cops were after him? Because he killed Kennedy and Tippit. Why did Oswald enter the theatre without paying? Because he was desperate to get into the dark and hide because he was being pursued for Tippit's murder.

In short, we know Oswald killed Kennedy because he had the weapon, the site, and he acted like the most guilty man alive. RIP President Kennedy.

Setting The Record Straight On Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy"

Surfing the Internet and came across more brain-dead claptrap, the kind of nonsense that historical revisionists tout. Decided it was time to have a little fun.

Southern Strategy Not Working

The Republican Party’s infamous “Southern Strategy” is dying out, and that’s a good thing.

Especially if you're a brain-dead liberal Democrat like Brian Gilmore, who probably has never held a private sector job in his entire life.

The re-election of Barack Obama as president with a multiracial coalition from all sections of the country is evidence that the appeal to race is finally becoming a losing hand.

Shouldn't the FIRST election of Barack Obama proven that? And by the way dingle dorph, how many Southern states did Obama carry this time around?

Richard Nixon was the first to implement the Southern Strategy.

Actually, the Southern Strategy goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson, who was a Democrat albeit one who would be a Republican nowadays. But this doesn't fit his propaganda. Realizing most of his readers are dumber than he is, Gilmore simply throws out this kind of nonsense. And let me tell you something - he doesn't even get the Southern Strategy right.

The idea was to get whites to vote Republican by appealing to their racial impulses.

And make no mistake, this was a fantastic idea in 1968. After all, the Voting Rights Act had just been passed and you could carry the state simply by saying the N word all over TV. What's that you say? Nixon never did that? Fortunately, the Republican Party had a rabble rousing racist named George Wallace. What's that you say? Wallace was, in fact, a Democrat?

 Lyndon Johnson had predicted that the traditionally Democratic South would go Republican after he signed the Voting Rights Act, and that’s what happened

Lyndon Johnson also said he wasn't going to send American boys to fight Asian wars. And does Gilmore want to take a look at actual EVIDENCE? Quick, what states come to mind FIRST when you want to talk about blacks, whites, and racism? QUICKLY!!! That's right - Alabama and Mississippi. So taking a look at the actual vote totals:

MISSISSIPPI
George Wallace 63.4%
Hubert Humphrey 23%
Richard Nixon 13.5%

ALABAMA
George Wallace 65.8%
Hubert Humphrey 18.7%
Richard Nixon 13.99%

Hmmm. So by appealing to racist impulses, Richard Nixon.......finished in THIRD in the most racist states in the South and lost 6 out of every 7 votes in both states. He also finished third in Louisiana and lost both Georgia and Arkansas to Wallace. Obviously the Nixon racist strategy was an incredible success: he went 0 for 5 in the (presumed) most racist states in America. This no doubt would be a winning strategy for anybody!!!

George Wallace, the arch-segregationist from Alabama, was key to the strategy’s birth.

So two racists competing for racist votes (and thus necessarily splitting them) is a guarantee for success? I hope this clown isn't a political strategist.

Wallace, who ran for president in 1968 on a third-party ticket, gathered 13 percent of the vote.

Nationally he did, but you can't make that comparison. It's apples and oranges. If you're going to allege something specific to the SOUTH, you can only count SOUTHERN votes. And about half of Wallace's 9 million votes were from the South.

But Nixon was still able to win half the Southern states, while Wallace won the other half (except Texas).

Nothing like something that proves the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you allege to demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about. Why did Nixon win half of the Southern states? It was NOT because of racism; it was because of something called the Vietnam War. The South provided a high proportion of soldiers to that war, and they wanted it won or done rather than the sitting on the ball strategy of LBJ.

 In 1972, Nixon won the entire South.

In 1972, Nixon won the entire nation except for Massachusetts. Don't try to con me, bozo.

Over the years, the Southern Strategy evolved.

Who won the 1976 election, Brian? Oh yeah, that doesn't fit the narrative, so you edit that part out. It was Jimmy Carter, folks. Incidentally, Carter won EVERY Southern state except Virginia. He deliberately pursued a Southern strategy, but I don't see anybody talking about that.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan announced that he was running for president in Philadelphia, Miss., the same city where three civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964 during Freedom Summer.

You're an idiot, Brian. If you're going to simply parrot talking points then at least get them right. Reagan was already the Republican nominee when he went to Philadelphia, Mississippi on August 4, 1980. He "announced that he was running for President" on November 13, 1979.


 Reagan spoke about states’ rights in his speech. The racial message was obvious.

It sure was. Look at what he said that - for some reason - never gets mentioned when "states rights" are invoked by liberals like Gilmore:

I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].

I believe in state's rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there

Now please tell me - what is so wrong with the basic philosophy here? Even if you don't agree with it, why don't any of the pundits who use the shorthand ever get it right? I realize thinking is hard - that's why so people bother to do it. But all Reagan is saying is he's going to turn things like education back to the states. This is NOT a hard concept to understand.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush surged ahead of Michael Dukakis by using the notorious Willie Horton ad.

Actually, this is more unadulterated nonsense. First of all, Bush NEVER ran a Willie Horton ad. I repeat - Bush NEVER ran a Willie Horton ad. Secondly, Dukakis DID run an ad about Angel Medrano, a Hispanic killer of Patsy Pedrin. So doesn't this mean Dukakis hates Hispanics? Thirdly, Gilmore has his chronology wrong, not that he cares. Bush took over Dukakis after the Convention but before the Labor Day commercial blitz began. And finally, does Gilmore know that Dukakis himself was in Philadelphia, MS on August 4, 1988, and didn't even bother to mention to the nearly all-white crowd about the infamous murders there?

 The campaign spot played to white fears by using the release of a black man on parole from prison.

Once again, Bush never ran any such commercial. The commercial Gilmore has been programmed to talk about is one that was actually run by an Independent group headed by Floyd Brown. So good did Bush and Brown get along that in 1991, Bush sued Brown after the latter ran a commercial attacking the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee that were going to sit in judgment of Clarence Thomas. And what was Dukakis appealing to? White hatred of Hispanics?

Now notice the time jump. No mention of the commercial where James Byrd's surviving daughter's voice shows up in an NAACP commercial depicting Byrd being tied to the back of a truck and dragged down the road. Why no mention? Oh that's right, because that was a Democratic commercial. And why doesn't Gilmore bother to mention that the Willie Horton escapade was discovered when Democratic Senator Al Gore mentioned the incident during a debate in the 1988 New York primary? Oh that's right - only Republicans are racist despite the evidence. Got it.

In April 2010, then-Republican Party chairman, Michael Steele, an African-American, acknowledged that the party had pursued the Southern Strategy for 40 years.

Michael Steele, who had nothing to do with any of it and was not on the inside apologized for something he knew nothing about. Just like the current President does.

In this latest presidential election, the strategy was present again.

It sure was. It's why Herman Cain was called the N word by Republicans and sent packing. What's that? Oh, you mean he won the Florida straw poll of mostly white voters? Or perhaps he's referring to Harry Reid's comments about how Obama doesn't talk like a real black man?

During the GOP primaries, candidate Newt Gingrich rarely passed up an opportunity to refer to Obama as the “food stamp” president.

So pointing out the FACT that 44.7 million Americans are on food stamps is now racist? But blaming Bush for it, of course, is ok.


Mitt Romney even managed to sneak in two references to food stamps during one of the presidential debates — actually, the one on foreign policy.

A President's record is fair game, Brian. Not that you would know anything about that.

In August at a campaign rally, Romney joked to an audience there that “no one ever asked me for my birth certificate.”

So what? Were jokes about Sarah Palin - who never said anything about seeing Alaska from her house - sexist?

 That was a crass reference to the unfounded controversy surrounding Obama’s birthplace.

Yes, and so what? You think jokes are not permitted?

John Sununu, an adviser to the Romney campaign, commented that Obama needed to “learn how to be an American.”

Given how many lies and fabrications you've told here, Brian, please give me a link to this one. I'd like to know the context.

In the end, the country rejected these low appeals,

In the end, the good-looking guy won just like happens in high school. Point?

just as the vast majority of Americans are rejecting the new secessionists who have surfaced after the election.

The vast majority of Americans once favored the Iraq War, too, Brian. Citing popularity is the dumbest argument a moron can make.

These are tremendously positive signs for the United States.

Positive signs? We feel good about ourselves!!!

Negative signs? We're in debt out the wazoo, the current President is on a power trip, and his Cabinet doesn't even want to stay on the job despite there being no jobs out there.

 Now, almost 150 years since the end of the Civil War, we are at last putting the stain of race behind us.


A lot of us did earlier, Brian. But then again a lot of us lived life and saw things and didn't regurgitate every wrong point we were told in a political science class on a liberal university campus, either.