PostAlmostAnything.com RSS Feed

Portland, Oregon Based Blues Singer Curtis Salgado Censors Critics?

DysfunctionalRelations — Sun, 27 Aug 2023 15:37:18 -07:00

Notorious Portland, Oregon based blues singer Curtis Salgado appears to be censoring critics online. This author learned of this recently after receiving a warning from Reddit not to share personal information after they blamed me for an auto-shared link to a short profile of Salgado which was created as part of a research project on celebrities with specific medical conditions many years ago. The profile cited an old article from The Oregonian which talked about Salgado using his fame to help other people with the same condition (https://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/04/salgado_concert_today_highligh.html). Perhaps other aspects of the site in question make burying its content important to Salgado or maybe he simply hired a reputation management company to suppress anything he finds undesirable for any reasons and they thought it worth their time. It may have even been an offended fan for all this author knows. Either way a associate/fan of Salgado crossed a line by censoring articles based on his high profile public activities or perhaps somebody just wanted to bait this author into publicly attacking a celebrity by filing complaints about a URL mentioning a celebrity. Reddit actually removing the link and issuing a warning is most disturbing because it means posting links to information available from the mainstream media can get you in trouble now. The article the removed link to missed a major relevant factor of Salgado's history. According to Willamette Week he is a convicted sex offender (https://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-31253-oregon-lawmakers-honor-musician-and-sex-offender-curtis-salgado.html). WW didn't go into any meaningful details about Salgado's crime other than describing the laws he violated as those which punish "adults who have sex with minors." His conviction was in 1996. The video below features Salgado talking about his experience living with Hepatitis C. He is raising awareness for the Caring Ambassadors Program which helps people with Hepatitis C (https://caringambassadors.org/). CONCLUSION Curtis Salgado has no business burying negative articles about himself. He gave that up as a legitimate activity in 1996 when he became a convicted sex offender. On top of that he is a public figure. Public figures have no business going after content from small websites based on their own public statements. However, this could be a false flag operation.
Learn more: Portland, Oregon Based Blues Singer Curtis Salgado Censors Critics?

Gorgeous Babe With Big Breasts

Rastafoo — Mon, 11 Apr 2022 06:50:58 -07:00

Found this absolute babe on tiktok last night and just had to share with everyone. Apparently I need 200 characters so I'll just say; this is my first time using the site so I hope this is allowed XD https://vm.tiktok.com/ZTdxQsYxA/
Learn more: Gorgeous Babe With Big Breasts

Random Acts of Insanity — Local improv troupe sexually harasses women!

ExposingRAI — Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:21:42 -08:00

Random Acts of Insanity is an improv troupe in the Daytona Beach area led by a man named Andrew Ramos. The troupe's demographic consists of overweight men in their late 30's who believe they're Hollywood A-Listers. RAI used to be a local favorite in Daytona up until things started getting nasty a few years ago. Why you ask? In order to join the troupe, Andrew makes any aspiring comedians sign a form that basically says that he can ban you on sight for no reason whatsoever, and has been doing so since roughly 2016. This means that the troubled troupe is always swapping members, only 2 or 3 of them have remained constant over the last few years. Several females report having been sexually harassed by the males of the troupe, or pressured to have sex in order to join. If the members were not attracted to you: you weren't getting into RAI as a woman, period. Ramos is already the subject of an online controversy thanks to his ex-girlfriend, but unfortunately he just can't keep out of it. Random Acts of Insanity was exposed publicly in 2017 for mocking and sexualizing female comics who have been raped behind their backs. A woman outside of the troupe was the actual whistleblower, but instead of a public apology, Random Acts of Insanity responded by blaming and banning the woman who had told the whistleblower in the first place: A young, pretty autistic girl who had performed there alongside them briefly. Over the next two years several members of the troupe had sent harassing messages from anonymous phone numbers, falsely accused her of crimes, and had improv shows performed on stage mocking her for her autism. This girl ended up attempting suicide in late 2018 as a result of their harassment. You heard me: Random Acts of Insanity caused an autistic girl to attempt suicide because they were exposed for sexual harassment. As for the shows themselves? Painfully unfunny. Literally every joke is a reference to a Hollywood movie. None of these men know how to tell a joke, just spew the latest mainstream movie references and political views as the TV dictates them to. Their entire personalities revolve around who has watched the most Star Wars, Avengers, generic Marvel-DC cape-shit. And they REALLY think that will make them famous one day? Jesus Christ, I give Random Acts of Insanity a 0-star review as a performance act and as human beings.
Learn more: Random Acts of Insanity — Local improv troupe sexually harasses women!

The Young Turks Attack Gripe Sites While Supporting Section 230

PostAlmostAnything.com — Sun, 16 Jan 2022 21:06:13 -08:00

We recently found out that The Young Turks mentioned us in a video last year. We probably would have noticed it sooner, but the mention was entirely oral in the video with no mention of us or our founder in text form. At the time The New York Times had just published an article featuring two of our sites and we were monitoring mentions of it, but our monitoring technique focused on domains of ours mentioned in the body of the article to avoid getting a Google Alert for every link to the article containing the fictitious term "slander industry." The Young Turks released the video on their YouTube channel on May 8, 2021 titled "Slander Industry Is Booming Online" starring Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. The video is embedded below the body of this article. The video includes several personal attacks against our founder as well as an admission that a key piece of legislation which protects online service providers such as ourselves should not be changed. "Slander Industry" is Fake News It is not possible for any industry which traffics entirely in written statements to be accurately labeled a "slander" industry because the word "slander" by definition refers solely to spoken words (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander). Even when a written statement is false it cannot be accurately called "slander." A false written statement is by definition "libel" not "slander" (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel). Any media outlet that wishes to be taken seriously should not put out stories with such obviously inaccurate titles. We were surprised that the story was so prolifically circulated by people taking it seriously despite the title. One would think that any average reader or viewer with so much as a high school education would realize that the title couldn't possibly be true, so the story itself should not be taken seriously. Professional journalists should know better than to use such inaccurate labels. Stories with grammatically incorrect titles such as these are at best fake news. Cenk Uygur Acknowledges Need to Protect Section 230 Despite the story being something not to be taken seriously as a whole, Cenk Uygur did speak one obvious and important truth. He said that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be left alone. That is an impressive admission for someone in the middle of an emotional tirade. Uygur's exact words beginning at about 8:35 were as follows: "Section 230 is critical. You almost can't have any websites without 230's protection. So, I wouldn't want to get rid of that at all... Then you know the thing with politicians. They'll just use it for their own, "now you're not allowed to criticize me online, all the independent things should be shut down." We know how that goes." - Cenk Uyguy We too know how that goes. It would kill most independent media in the United States if Section 230 were changed in a manner capable of rendering anyone liable for someone else's words just because they happen to own the platform used by that other person. We think the problem needs to be fixed at the other end of connection. That other end being that of the reader. People need to learn not to use unverified information as the basis for important decisions. In some cases, such as employment screening, we think people need to be banned from using internet searches if not entirely than at least until they determine a candidate is otherwise qualified from the job. That could be accomplished with legislation similar to Ban the Box. Ban the Box Ban the Box legislation restricts the use of criminal background checks in the hiring process. Typically hiring managers are banned from conducting a criminal background check until they have determined that an applicant is otherwise qualified. At that point they still need to get written permission from the applicant and must give the applicant an opportunity to explain what is found. We think the same thing needs to be done with search engine boxes. Learn more at https://postalmostanything.com/5065/new-employment-discrimination-laws-would-nullify-online-defamation Response to Character Attacks Cenk Uygur mentioned the website STDCarriers.com and its founder by name before attacking his character. The founder of STD Carriers is also the founder of Post Almost Anything. Uygur said: "They pick you one by one and say the worst things about you and now its on your Google results and god help you if you don't have money. How are you, how are you going to get it out of there? You can't and then everybody sees that this is a result on you. Its just the worst thing you've ever seen." - Cenk Uygur Nothing could be further from the truth. A computer that accepts inputs from users doesn't pick anybody. People pick it by signing up for a membership and submitting data via a form. We find it hard to believe that any website could be "the worst thing you've ever seen." Uygur often covers far worse things including terrorists (https://tyt.com/watch/2e3H6nfrtnrzK0N4G4EC0n/clips/7JnMMxG0F0W5Hb2nXy6KhC), shooting protesters (https://tyt.com/watch/4VwNLvsEH8CWRXXS1aeCPB/clips/3UuptLjD0529JMeiDx4ynv), and Donald Trump (https://tyt.com/watch/2e3H6nfrtnrzK0N4G4EC0n/clips/3Q8HsqA30XNVMJrqRDf3Gs). Could Uygur really keep a straight face and say that a first page Google result from STD Carriers is worse than Donald Trump? Of course he couldn't because the suggestion alone is ridiculous. Also ridiculous is his claim that gripe sites are "slandering people for profit." That statement ignores the simple facts that the sites did not create the content and written statements are never "slander." Uygur went on to attack the owner of STD Carriers personally in response to him telling the New York Times, "teach children not to talk to strangers, then teach them not to believe what they read on the internet." Rather than acknowledge the fact that none of the alleged harms allegedly caused by the website would be possible if people didn't believe what they read online, he mocks him by saying, "ok, so this guy is just saying I'm helping people lie and ruing other people's lives. Ha ha teach your kids that there are horribly evil people like me online... These guys are the most vicious liars and least moral people on the planet." Uygur then went on a rant before calling the STD Carriers owner, "a terrible person." He then labels reputation management fees "ransom" as if some crime had been committed. The word "ransom" means "a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ransom). We do not hold anything or anyone captive. Any suggestion that we demand a ransom for anything is not accurate. This type of talk is typical of people trying to criminalize something. They start referring to people, things, and activities using words typically associated with crime because they hope if they get enough people thinking about it in that way eventually it will lead to criminalization. They start calling people "victims" when no law has been broken because if it were up to them a crime would have been committed. We saw this behavior in Oregon recently when doxxing was made a tortious offense by leftists that got together after protesters were getting doxxed by Andy Ngo. Local media outlets started doing stories portraying the subjects of doxxing as victims even though no law had been broken. Eventually the legislature passed an unconstitutional bill which will never survive a competent challenge in court. Uygur made an appeal to the government to do something, but seems unaware that the government did try to do something and it did not work. In 2012 the feds charged the founder of STD Carriers with making threatening communications after a deranged stalker had harassed and swatted his family. The court ruled that because the stalker was motivated by a desire to get her name removed from the site that the business was reasonably related to the offense. Due to the "reasonably direct relationship" which the 9th Circuit upheld, he was effectively banned from running any websites for three years after serving two years for the threat. While serving his time, he picked up additional charges for assaulting a federal employee and impeding a federal officer. As a result of these actions STDCarriers.com was offline from July of 2012 until September of 2019. The owner of STD Carriers figured somebody might try to set him up someday, so he didn't keep backups of his sites in his home. His defense team was also able to recover all the contents of his offshore server. As a result the sites never fell into government hands and he was able to run them again once he was no longer on supervised released for the threat. The government made it clear that they would prosecute him for any violation of federal law they could find to get around the fact that the business itself is not illegal. Back then he wasn't the only one targeted by law enforcement. Other owners of gripe sites ended up in prison for unrelated legal troubles that would not have been exploited by the government had they not been looking for excuses to lock them up. The case should have been challenged on the grounds of selective prosecution, but his lawyer was incompetent. The founder of STD Carriers learned his lesson and has not sent any threatening emails to anyone for nearly 10 years. What Should Be Done Ana Kasparian painted an accurate picture of Congress when it comes to legislation involving technology, "Congress is full of a bunch of, honestly people who can't even legislate on things they understand much less things they don't understand like the internet." Then they discuss their desire for new laws without touching Section 230. Uygur then expressed his desire for someone to bury us with frivolous lawsuits as if they could overwhelm us by forcing us to file so many motions to dismiss that we don't have time for anything else. Some people would lose money on legal fees due to such things, but the owner of STD Carriers is a prolific pro se litigant perfectly capable of getting lawsuits dismissed at the summary judgment phase all by himself. We have already discussed one thing that should be done. Banning employers from doing internet searches of applicants until they determine they are otherwise qualified for the job and are given a chance to explain themselves. Employers should not be able to legally screen applicants by just Googling names and eliminating those with negative information in the search results without further inquiry. They can't do it with criminal records which are more accurate, so why should they be allowed to do it with the internet which is far less reliable? Google took the approach of demoting our sites in search results for personal identifiers. As a result you rarely see direct links to STD Carriers in Google results for names of people. However, because this penalty seems to be a manual one imposed on a per domain basis it is quite easy to circumvent simply by hosting the content in more than one place. Other webmasters have figured this out as well. In some cases it seems they re-brand their sites using new domain names every couple of months. When that happens it can take a few months for the penalty to be applied to the new domain. When the penalty is applied the process repeats. We've also considered moving the main STD Carriers site from its .com TLD to a different one like .net or .org, but we have a little brand recognition so we don't want to take STDCarriers.com down. Normally people redirect visitors from the old one, but that would cause the penalty to follow automatically, so the best we could do would be to leave up a page saying we've moved with a link. We might start using a mirror or two instead of moving the site. We already have a site that syndicates our content which does not appear to be subjected to the penalty at this time despite being a copy of a site that had been penalized. The content and theme were the same with the only difference being the domain name. Domain names cost just under $10 a year and new sites can be added to most hosting packages without incurring additional expenses. In monetary terms it costs basically nothing to syndicate content onto new un-penalized domains on a regular basis. Some have alleged that this practice makes sites "information content providers" under section 230 and therefore liable for statements contained within user generated content (UGC). They argue that syndication amounts to content "development" under Section 230. That simply is not true. Users grant us "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, copy, perform, display, and distribute said Content" and agree that they alone are responsible for the content (https://postalmostanything.com/legal/tou). When we exercise our right to distribute content we do not create or develop it. Under this agreement the author is responsible for the content and we are granted distribution rights of content they alone remain responsible for. The words "create" of "develop" as used in section 230 does not cover copying, displaying, or distributing content. When a newspaper prints copies it is not creating or developing content because the content has already been created and developed. Most of the content is created and developed by the newspaper itself, so they are liable for that content. Other content is created and developed elsewhere before being copied, displayed, and distributed by the newspaper. That is the case when they syndicate content from affiliates. An article created and developed elsewhere before being copied, displayed, and distributed with proper source attribution effectively passes liability for the statements content within to the original author that created the content and those that helped develop it. If we were to sue The New York Times for libel on the grounds that they falsely accused us of slander, we would not be able to successfully add outlets that copied the article as defendants just because they syndicated the content. Syndication is usually a fully automated task that involves copying content from RSS feeds or APIs. When a machine does something automatically there is usually no person to blame. This can become confusing for users that think a person must have posted something. "CDA 230 also offers its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments." - Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230) Unless the EFF is wrong we have the right to distribute content received through RSS feeds which is the case with our syndication site. The syndication site also monitors social media for people using phrases indicating that they are accusing someone of having a STD or admitting to having one themselves. We are not liable for that either because the content is created and developed elsewhere. Our site simply copies, displays, and distributes. Conclusion There is no such things as a "slander" industry. Cenk Uygur grossly exaggerated his objections with defamatory characterizations of the STDCarriers.com owner. Uygur went beyond simply quoting The New York Times to knowingly crafting lies of his own.
Learn more: The Young Turks Attack Gripe Sites While Supporting Section 230

Kristina Bryant Whore

Niceguy007 — Wed, 19 May 2021 09:55:53 -07:00

The biggest whore on Staten Island. Kristina is a fat blonde bimbo and has spent her entire life lying, cheating, stealing, scheming, manipulating and swindling every person and business she has come into contact with. Kristina, while with me had numerous affairs with married men and was even caught by her former boyfriend having sex with her dying father. She was forced to leave her job at the supermarket because she wouldn’t stop f**king her boss who has a wife and children. Kristina is a low life piece of shit, including leaving her father to die alone in the apartment of leukemia and swindling her sister out of her inheritance and the apartment. While her father was dying was also stealing money from as well. She is known for being a home wrecker with no conscience, a hooker offering sex for favors, brags about her BJs giving abilities, a career criminal, an opioid addict, a swindler, cant get a job because she has stolen from former employers
Learn more: Kristina Bryant Whore

Christina Aguilera: Early 2000s See Through T-Shirt Nipple Ring Pic Ad

PostAlmostAnything.com — Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:48:33 -08:00

Noticed some company using this early 2000s picture of Christina Aguilera wearing a see through white t-shirt revealing that her nipples are pierced as an advertisement on Twitter. It really got me rethinking my upcoming social media strategies. Like maybe I've tried too hard in the past to write quality articles about important issues on my older websites when really I just need to grab people's attention with stuff that looks good. I bet if I tweeted something like this every day I would have tens of thousands of followers real quick. I will stay on the lookout for pics like this one that leave little to the imagination without crossing the line into adult content. Then I can keep the site safe for work while still catering to peoples animal urges.
Learn more: Christina Aguilera: Early 2000s See Through T-Shirt Nipple Ring Pic Ad

Fallout 76: A Colossal Problem Bug at Monongah Mine

Mr.CorrectTruth — Sat, 28 Nov 2020 18:16:58 -08:00

Fallout 76 is full of bugs that make it one of the worst Fallout games of all time. Some of the bugs are purely technical while others are by design and arguably not bugs at all. This is likely the latter. It happens when you talk to Maggie at the Foundation settlement and agree to help her find out what happened to her father. That begins the Something Sentimental quest line which is really an event quest. The difference between an event quest and a normal quest line is not evident until later on and how you respond to the event prompt will determine whether or not you can complete the quest line. Shortly after beginning the Something Sentimental quest you find yourself at Monongah Mine but it is blocked by rubble. Maggie suggested that you dislodge the blockage with a nuke. Hoping a mini nuke would suffice I went there and found out that was not the case. Then I realized I would need to launch an ICBM at Monongah Mine just to get inside. Launching an ICBM in Fallout 76 is no easy feat. You have to go to one of three bunkers with missile silos, clear out the enemies, and enter the correct launch code just to fire the missile. That might sound simple, but there are so many enemies in each bunker that no matter how many stimpaks you have it is not enough and even if you produce as much ammo as your resources allow you it won't be enough. Your best bet is to hope that you have saved up at least 15 plasma cores for your Gatling Plasma and bring plenty of melee weapons, but most importantly make sure you have the current week's launch codes. I recommend getting the code from https://nukacrypt.com/ because tracking them down manually would take hours. I've never bothered to track down the codes myself because doing so requires that you find all of the ghouls carrying chunks of the code and solving some sort of puzzle to figure out which order the code goes in. Then the code itself changes every week, so there is a good chance that trying to find out this week's code manually will result in not being able to find every piece or if you do find each piece you probably won't have the code long enough to use it before it expires. Then if you are able to launch a missile the bunker security resets which means you will have to kill the same enemies all over again to launch another one. Anyway, back to the problem at Monongah Mine, I finally managed to nuke the place only to find out that my efforts were a waste of time. When you drop a nuke on the place it doesn't really open the mine. It starts an event called A Colossal Problem that takes place inside of the mine. I didn't know that I had to complete the event to complete the quest line and since I prefer to play Fallout by myself I decided to go to the mine instead of joining the event. Because the mine was in a blast zone fast travel was not available and because I have rarely participated in multiplayer events I didn't know that you could fast travel to the event using the map. When I finally reached the mine the event was no longer on the map and the mine was closed. I asked people on Reddit about this and they said that if the event fills up or is completed by other players it disappears from the map (https://www.reddit.com/r/fo76/comments/k1vmum/a_colossal_problem_event_disappears_from_map/). This leads me to believe that a group of players fast traveled to the event and either filled quota or completed it without me while I was moving on foot to the mine. So, is this a bug or me just not knowing how to play? It may not be a bug by design but it is a design flaw none the less. To think that the person who triggers the event by completing part of a quest line cannot participate due to other people is unconscionable. There is no justifiable reason why an event should ever be rendered unavailable to the person that unlocks it. If the que fills up or is completed by other players that should not result in the event disappearing for the person that unlocked it. It should result in the event being available to just that person or that person's session being moved to another map where them joining unlocks the event for everyone there. I will keep an eye out for the event in the future when I play the game again. I will play again when a new quest line becomes available because the multiplayer bother sucks as a multiplayer game and ruins the single player experience. Fallout was never supposed to be multiplayer. Bethesda Softworks were fools for trying to make a hybrid single/multiplayer game in the first place. I'm not saying they should never have added some multiplayer features, but they certainly never should have integrated them with the main quest line. When people choose a world to enter they can choose between an open public world, private world, and a deathmatch. The options should really be single or multiplayer. In the single player one would only be able to play single player story line related things only. In the multiplayer you would only have multiplayer features that could include completing some single player quests in co-op mode. They should never again make a Fallout game without an exclusive single player experience.
Learn more: Fallout 76: A Colossal Problem Bug at Monongah Mine

Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War Bugs/Glitches

Mr.CorrectTruth — Tue, 17 Nov 2020 20:11:52 -08:00

Playing Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War the past few days on an Xbox One X has been frustrating due to bugs. Two specifically come to mind and one is game breaking. The first less severe bug that I noticed was crosshairs on weapons not working in multiplayer. When this happens you can see the crosshairs partially, but they become pixilated and at times invisible. This can be very frustrating when you aim down your gun at an opponent and have to guess at where the center is. This is not game breaking, but annoying none the less. The second bug is game breaking. A few minutes ago I was hit with a napalm strike in multiplayer and the game froze. I looked at a frozen screen of my character being blown up for about a minute until my console crashed. There are of course other glitches in Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War. 11 of them you can learn about in the video below. You can also check out the link on this page to learn about the calling card glitch.
Learn more: Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War Bugs/Glitches

Battlefield V Glitch: Change Appearance Changes All

NoLimitList.com — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 19:09:35 -07:00

I love Battlefield V even though it drives me nuts sometimes with bugs that make no sense and are really annoying. For instance this week I noticed that if I change the appearance of one Axis infantry class it changes all the rest unless one of them is an elite character. This is very annoying for someone that likes to dress a certain way on the Battlefield. A way that tells other players that I am better than them because I have unlocked better clothes and even if that does not make me a better player at least I look like a better player so that if I get owned I can just hit the reset button and act like I am better again. Now I can only look better one way and that sucks. Damn you DICE and Electronic Arts!
Learn more: Battlefield V Glitch: Change Appearance Changes All

Cyrus Sullivan Explains NLLCAP on The Anderson Show

NoLimitList.com — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:08:41 -07:00

No Limit List developer Cyrus Sullivan told Anderson Cooper during a March 2012 episode of The Anderson Show why the No Limit List Corporate Advocacy Program (NLLCAP) is perfectly legal. Sullivan was on the show to promote one of the No Limit List prototypes, an anonymous reporting service for STD prevention called STD Carriers. STD Carriers is a NLLCAP partner website which supports all the features of NLLCAP just as if they were being applied to content on No Limit List itself without impacting on site content management policies. In the video respected cyber law attorney Parry Aftab agrees with Sullivan that NLLCAP is not extortion after being asked by Anderson "how is this not extortion?" The reason it is perfectly legal is because NLLCAP is an extra service available on top of already existing services that offers to clean up what is already there.
Learn more: Cyrus Sullivan Explains NLLCAP on The Anderson Show

Joan Rivers Has a Foul Mouth

SexualHumor — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:38:02 -08:00

Joan Rivers proved at her roast that she has a foul and disgusting mouth capable of spouting off all kinds of hilarious profanity. Its her way of telling people what she thinks about them and stuff apparently.
Learn more: Joan Rivers Has a Foul Mouth

Colbert Report: Tim Hartfod Discussing Common Sense

SexualHumor — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:53:28 -08:00

Tim Harford tells Stephen Colbert how rational decision-making influences our choices in all aspects of life from unprotected sex to soft drinks while promoting his book The Logic of Life. Watch the video to learn more about how rational decision making influences the choices made my rational people.
Learn more: Colbert Report: Tim Hartfod Discussing Common Sense