Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Government Goons Murder Puppies!The drug war goes to the dogs.
Reason ^ | April 2006 | Radley Balko

Posted on 04/05/2006 12:57:02 PM PDT by JTN

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-252 next last
Comment #101 Removed by Moderator

To: MPJackal

"In Columbine they cowered outside while innocent schoolkids were being shot."

Regardless of what I think about the tactics discussed here, your statement is totally untrue. I'm not sure if it is an outright lie or just your ignorance."


Well then how about explaining the 50 some minutes the cowards waited outside while kids were dying inside? Explain the fact that instead of rescuing the teacher bleeding to death in a second floor classroom where people were calling for help they searched the entire 1st floor then searched the 2nd room by room. I agree with Paddles: COWARDS!

I'm sick of hearing cowardly cops defended by people like you. They make such a to do about how dangerous their job is yet according to the Labor Dept. they rank 30th in on the job mortality. Most construction trades have a higher mortality rate.


102 posted on 04/06/2006 6:46:56 AM PDT by Carolinadave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

to shoot an animal in cold blood is heartless, cruel and unspeakable. These animals are not being killed to eat or as a religious sacrifice. They are being killed because someone wants to go in somewhere and kick some booty, there's no booty to kick so they shoot the dog.

They are a$$holes and cowards that would do that to an innocent dog who in no way, shape or form was a threat to that human holding the gun.


103 posted on 04/06/2006 6:47:51 AM PDT by immigration lady (Defeat is momentary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: JTN

Where are all the links to these facts?


104 posted on 04/06/2006 6:50:29 AM PDT by Dustbunny (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
LOL! A galacticly moronic post. Thanks
105 posted on 04/06/2006 6:55:06 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: immigration lady

YOU seem to be the one misdirecting anger at ME. If, somehow, you see me endorsing the willy-nilly shooting of animals by the JBTs, then you have completely missed the point of everything I've said on this thread. I give up...once again.


106 posted on 04/06/2006 6:58:25 AM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

He was on private property (the neighbors)and as far as I'm concerned the dogs had a right and a duty to bite the son of a bitch. If my dogs let some damn cop walk across my property to bust the neighbors it would be time for re-training.


107 posted on 04/06/2006 6:58:59 AM PDT by Carolinadave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

I got your point but you simply can't compare smoking a joint or some kid selling a quarter ounce of pot with murder and rape. If drug prohibition was ended so called "drug crimes" would mainly be victimless crimes. Sure it sounds like we're giving up on a portion of the population but personally I don't think it's worth what we're spending on trying to save these people from themselves. Not to mention what the WOD has cost us in constitutional protections and freedom.

The only real cure for drug abuse is education that we can't afford while we're busy supporting this industry that basically preys on people's weakness. Make no mistake about it the WOD supports the criminals because without it they would have no incentive to be in this business.


108 posted on 04/06/2006 7:11:58 AM PDT by Carolinadave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

That post is completely out of line, rp. It deserves a response, but not one appropriate for these forums.


109 posted on 04/06/2006 7:17:56 AM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: MadeInAmerica

drive thru TX, MS, GA, FL, AR, MO with $3000 in cash in your pocket and see if you still have it when you exit the states

Well, the only reason you shouldn't still have it when you exit Texas is because you had to put it all into the gas tank.

110 posted on 04/06/2006 7:24:28 AM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

drive thru TX, MS, GA, FL, AR, MO with $3000 in cash in your pocket and see if you still have it when you exit the states


Well, the only reason you shouldn't still have it when you exit Texas is because you had to put it all into the gas tank.

______________________________________________________________

ROFLMAO....that is funny...and true


111 posted on 04/06/2006 7:25:38 AM PDT by MadeInAmerica (- If ILLEGAL means Undocumented - Then Breaking and Entering means Wealth Redistribution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

No one is advocating that but do you realize that at least 25 percent of the people we have in prison are there for relatively small amounts of drugs. In some states you can get 6 months for one joint and 5 years for a second offense of one joint. Those same states will give you 5 years for one gram of cocaine. Seems like a terrible waste of my tax money to me and I'm trying to do everything in my power to see my money better spent.

Since you sound like such a nice person let me say this before you start and piss me off. Do not classify me with the druggies, I neither take drugs nor drink alcohol but I am smart enough to see my tax money being pissed away.


112 posted on 04/06/2006 7:25:45 AM PDT by Carolinadave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Carolinadave
"and as far as I'm concerned the dogs had a right and a duty to bite the son of a bitch."

And he has a right to defend himself. Florida law (where the incident occurred):

"The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners' knowledge of such viciousness."

"A person is lawfully upon private property of such owner within the meaning of this act when the person is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state ..."
-- Florida Statute 767.04

"If my dogs let some damn cop walk across my property to bust the neighbors it would be time for re-training."

It's time for re-training all right. You need to get familiar with your state laws. Or not.

113 posted on 04/06/2006 7:40:01 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Me: are you seriously comparing murder and rape to drug use?
You: Yes.

Then, in your eyes, around a fourth of the US population must be guilty of genocide.

Most of the crime, thuggery, and murder is directly tied to the drug trade, as is forced prostitution (rape). I'm not at all impressed with "casual users" who simply finance the criminal organizations.

That's what happens when high-demand products are driven into the black market. Take my native Russia as an example. Their transition to capitalism has admittedly been far from smooth, but now that western clothing and music are no longer banned, no one gets beaten or killed over a pair of jeans or a Beatles record.

Again, my point is that if you want to legalize drug use, argue for it on its own merits.

Gladly! The WOD has been immoral from the very beginning - racist and fraudulent in its origins, even more disastrous than the alcohol prohibition out of which it grew, and continues to be an inexcusable assault on freedom to this very day. I could go on for pages, but 1) I type slow, and 2) the burden of proof is not on ME to argue why drug users don't belong in cages, but rather on the WODies to argue why they do. The practical (less abuse of search & seizure, less violent crime, etc.) is inseparable from the moral, and will logically follow.

114 posted on 04/06/2006 7:43:43 AM PDT by Freedom_no_exceptions (No actual, intended, or imminent victim = no crime. No exceptions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Personally, I don't think your bleeding-heart-liberal posts about the poor, disadvantaged, misunderstood criminals belong on a conservative forum. You are, by far, the biggest apologist for these scumbags on this forum. But, this is a free country and you are entitled to your opinions.

Just as I am entitled to respond.

115 posted on 04/06/2006 7:47:32 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

i'm not angry at you. I don't know you. But animals do need our protection - even those in the wild because we are encroaching on their territory and now they are coming into "human" space and they are being killed - but this is a different topic all together. I was just making a point how I felt and I was not taking it out on you directly.

Truly sorry if it came across that way.


116 posted on 04/06/2006 7:55:58 AM PDT by immigration lady (Defeat is momentary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: immigration lady
but this is a different topic all together.

Well, see, the slant on the article is that it takes something happening to PUPPIES before people will care. THAT'S what I'm railing against, because the fact that it is happening to PEOPLE should be MORE than enough. I understand that you care about animals - I sincerely hope that you care MORE about PEOPLE.
117 posted on 04/06/2006 8:15:20 AM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: JTN

And to think, some people call them pigs ...


118 posted on 04/06/2006 8:17:05 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carolinadave; TKDietz
"No one is advocating that ..."

Well, if one is going to compare our incarceration rate with other countries, especially Russia and China, then perhaps we should compare the entire justice systems. Maybe there's a reason why Russia and China lock up fewer people -- but maybe that reason is one that we do not wish to emulate.

What's the goal here, anyways? Freedom or incarceration rates? Be careful what you wish for.

I'm sorry, but it really pi$$es me off when bleeding-heart posters like TKDietz use these analogies. Like those who say the WOD is failing because we only arrest a small number of users. But if we institute a policy that results in a larger number of drug arrests, suddenly it's a "police state" with "jackbooted thugs" breaking down doors, killing puppies and babies.

"that at least 25 percent of the people we have in prison are there for relatively small amounts of drugs."

It's 20%, and most of those scumbags are in prison for drug dealing or drug trafficking. If they're there on possession, it was likely due to a plea bargain down from dealing. Your average drug user is not being sent to state or federal prison. (www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/whos_in_prison_for_marij/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf)

"In some states you can get 6 months for one joint"

6 months in prison? For a first offense? Possessing one joint? Excuse me, I find that hard to believe. Which state, please?

"Seems like a terrible waste of my tax money to me and I'm trying to do everything in my power to see my money better spent."

Let me say this. If we are sending first time marijuana users to prison, then I agree that this is a terrible waste of the taxpayer's money.

119 posted on 04/06/2006 8:17:08 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
... Let me say this. If we are sending first time marijuana users to prison, then I agree that this is a terrible waste of the taxpayer's money.

Not an abuse of power nor an intolerance of freedom and expression, but rather a waste of money. You are consistent with that 'ol fascist perspective thingie.

120 posted on 04/06/2006 8:20:26 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_no_exceptions
"but now that western clothing and music are no longer banned, no one gets beaten or killed over a pair of jeans or a Beatles record."

Sounds like a safe place to live. Unlike the south side of Chicago where, every so often, we are treated to the story of some teen murdered for his Bulls jacket or his Air Jordan shoes.

Both legal, by the way.

121 posted on 04/06/2006 8:21:32 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Just as I am entitled to respond."

I don't think you are entitled to call me names like you did, rp. You call me a gutless wonder yet you do so hiding in anonymity behind a computer screen. I'd like to meet you in person so you can do that to my face, man to man. You game for that fight club boy?
122 posted on 04/06/2006 8:21:38 AM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Well?


123 posted on 04/06/2006 8:26:01 AM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: winston2; Wolfie; Know your rights; tpaine; MRMEAN; robertpaulsen

Ping!

Check out RP's comments on this thread.


124 posted on 04/06/2006 8:28:01 AM PDT by Supernatural (A 1,000 lies can be told, but the truth is still the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; TKDietz
TKDietz: "-- we lock up a greater per capita percentage of our people than any other country in the world ..."

Cry me a river.
You want less crime, then let's see you advocate
[Like I do]]for more machine gun carrying cops on every street corner -- more intrusions, more searches, less freedom. Yeah, just what I thought, you gutless wonder.
And stop your God-awful whining.
96 robertpaulsen

That post is completely out of line, rp. It deserves a response, but not one appropriate for these forums.
109 TKDietz

paulsen wrote:
Personally, I don't think your bleeding-heart-liberal posts about the poor, disadvantaged, misunderstood criminals belong on a conservative forum.
You are, by far, the biggest apologist for these scumbags on this forum.

But, this is a free country and you are entitled to your opinions. Just as I am entitled to respond.

Yep indeed bobby, just as you are entitled to hear, -- that you are the biggest apologist for these machine gun toting scumbags on this forum. - You advocate more intrusions, more searches, less freedom. -- Eat your own words.

125 posted on 04/06/2006 8:28:41 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
"Not an abuse of power nor an intolerance of freedom and expression, but rather a waste of money."

Whoa!

First of all, I'm simply agreeing with what the poster said. Second, why didn't you jump all over THAT poster when THAT poster said it back at post #112? Third, it's a moot point since we're not sending the average matijuana user to prison.

Save your "intolerance of freedom and expression" for a real cause, not recreational drugs.

126 posted on 04/06/2006 8:32:48 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Sounds like a safe place to live. Unlike the south side of Chicago where, every so often, we are treated to the story of some teen murdered for his Bulls jacket or his Air Jordan shoes.

Actually, Russia is far from safe, and I wouldn't go back there even to visit. All I alluded to was the basic economics of black markets. If Chicago bans Air Jordan shoes and Bulls jackets, there will still be a demand as kids will want to wear them to underground parties, and there will be even more violence associated with their smuggling.

127 posted on 04/06/2006 8:36:23 AM PDT by Freedom_no_exceptions (No actual, intended, or imminent victim = no crime. No exceptions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
You are a gutless wonder because you refuse to advocate the things necessary to make the changes you want.

You want less people incarcerated? Is that the goal? Is that what you want? Well, c'mon, counsellor. Let's hear your plan.

You want more cops with machine guns on street corners, as in Russia or China, countries with lower incarceration rates? Or, as in the UK, just give a "caution" to those engaged in the kiddie porn business?

Let's hear your solution, Mr. Bleeding Heart.

128 posted on 04/06/2006 8:40:29 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Everybody; robertpaulsen
paulsen whines:

First of all, I'm simply agreeing with what the poster said. Second, why didn't you jump all over THAT poster when THAT poster said it back at post #112?

Gotta love it when bobby whines only a post or two after calling someone else a whiner.

What irony.

129 posted on 04/06/2006 8:41:50 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; 68 grunt

Pointing out blatant hypocrisy is not whining.


130 posted on 04/06/2006 8:44:19 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
... Save your "intolerance of freedom and expression" for a real cause, not recreational drugs.

The most ready example is the most effective. You advocate 'freedom' as a gubermental decision and gift.

I read the thread start and responded, and then I read and responded to the post from you that landed around the same time. There may have been some good points between hither and yon, but I suspect its mainly the same drivel.

131 posted on 04/06/2006 8:45:12 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Paulsen, you are without a doubt the biggest whiner on FR. -- We've all seen you do it time after time when pressed. -- And its a rare day when someone doesn't press you.


132 posted on 04/06/2006 8:49:42 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I've spent hours and hours on these forums going over suggestions for reducing our incarceration rates while locking up the real threats to society longer than we do today. I'm not going to waste my time going over it all again with some game playing weasel who hides behind his computer screen and calls me a gutless wonder.

I am dead serious. I can be in Chicago in a matter of days. Let's have us a little talk, man to man. Once we get that settled, we can go back to arguing online. Otherwise, STFU, I don't have anything to say to you.
133 posted on 04/06/2006 9:39:40 AM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

The line between DU and FR continues to blur.


134 posted on 04/06/2006 9:53:38 AM PDT by NYCynic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
And those local militarized forces are the standing army our founders feared.

Exactly.

135 posted on 04/06/2006 10:20:24 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Pain is nothing. Pain is weakness leaving the body.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; TKDietz
Yeah, just what I thought, you gutless wonder.

And stop your God-awful whining.

Are you having a bad morning? You're usually a lot more civil than that and TKD is certainly one of the more civil, articulate anti-WOD people.

136 posted on 04/06/2006 10:28:23 AM PDT by jmc813 (I Thessalonians 5:9-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_no_exceptions
First, your native Russia hasn't tried capitalism. If they ever do, things will be much better there. You must have a rule of law to have capitalism.

The tireless comparison with alcholohol (you left out tobacco, coffee, chocolate and green tea) is just plain silly.

What would legalization mean? It would mean disbanding pharmacies and prescriptions. Why bother, there could be no regulating law. Or do you propose laws for smart people, but no law for pot heads?

If you are going to tax the drugs sufficiently to pay for their costs to society, then the "illegal" smuggling will continue along with the murder. Additionally, taxes mean that the drugs are going to cost money. When a junkie has no money, because he's brain dead, he will kill for a $5 fix just as readily as a $50 fix. I guess he wouldn't have to kill as many people per fix though. Score one for you.

So you really want free drugs, paid for by me, for you. Followed by no doubt by free social services to care for the derelicts, and free medical care. Do I get free scotch, cigars, coffee, and chocolate too, or is the public largess just to be for serious dumba$$'s?

Perhaps we can offer free drugs as an incentive to get their useless bodies out of the country? Penal paradises full of free drugs and pine boxes.
137 posted on 04/06/2006 10:36:02 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Carolinadave
I got your point but you simply can't compare smoking a joint or some kid selling a quarter ounce of pot with murder and rape.

More of a case of financially supporting murder and rape. What's a man that goes to a whore house full of women that were forced into prostitution guilty of? If society treated drug use with the scorn it deserves, then kids wouldn't think, "its just a joint".

138 posted on 04/06/2006 10:42:37 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: JTN
Obviously, this is because drugs are illegal.

No. Its because they don't have the money. Brain dead druggies will never have the money and they'll kill for the fix, they don't care if its $5 or $100.

139 posted on 04/06/2006 10:45:01 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
So you really want free drugs, paid for by me, for you.

You are the only one bringing up the idea of "free" drugs.

140 posted on 04/06/2006 10:49:03 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

"I thought it was a convenient way of asserting absolute police power and setting the precedent that we really have no rights."

Sooner or later people will begin to shoot back.

Just make sure it's a headshot to bypass the body armor.


141 posted on 04/06/2006 10:49:28 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

I have no idea where you're going with your post. You jump all over the place. Legalization would mean disbanding pharmacies? Costs to "society"? Smuggling of legal products? Addicts killing people over a cheap, legal product? "Free" drugs paid for by the public? Where did you come up with all of this? Until you demonstrate, using logic and reason, how any of these catastrophes would occur as a result of not putting people into cages for using drugs, I'll leave you alone to continue your acid trip.


142 posted on 04/06/2006 10:58:13 AM PDT by Freedom_no_exceptions (No actual, intended, or imminent victim = no crime. No exceptions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
You are the only one bringing up the idea of "free" drugs.

That's because legalization doesn't solve any problem, accept it keeps pot heads from getting hassled. The probelm is what druggies do to get the money. So am I to assume all the proponents here are against providing free drugs?

143 posted on 04/06/2006 10:59:35 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

depends on which people...;-)


144 posted on 04/06/2006 11:34:09 AM PDT by immigration lady (Defeat is momentary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: immigration lady
depends on which peopleanimals...;-)

There, I fixed it...I don't much care for squirrels...
145 posted on 04/06/2006 11:57:59 AM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_no_exceptions
I have no idea where you're going with your post. You jump all over the place.

That's called "hitting all bases". I've obviously given this much more thought than you have. You haven't thought more than one move ahead. Your entire plan appears to be "legalize drugs man". I've heard the argument for 20 years from people that HAVE given it complete thought and the ONLY ones that make sense are the people who take a Darwin approach. Kill the drugies fast and have less trouble. Although that makes sense to me, it is a bit less caring that my conscience will allow. If the things I discussed take you by surprise then you've never really entered into a legalization discussion before, and you've never thought out the follow ons. I often overestimate people. Thanks for the correction.

146 posted on 04/06/2006 4:46:09 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_no_exceptions

I have a quick idea for you. Go down to your local bus stop at 3 AM with a friend. You take out a five dollar bill and wave it around. Have your friend announce that he's got 10 rocks of crack he'll sell for $5. You'll get a quick lesson on the value of "cheap drugs".

Do you think it will hurt less getting beaten for $5 than it would for $100?


147 posted on 04/06/2006 4:50:07 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
That's because legalization doesn't solve any problem,

Do you think there would be an problems solved by holding the New Deal Commerce Clause (and by extension the federal drug war) to be unconstutional?

148 posted on 04/06/2006 4:52:31 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

It would solve a lot of problems for pot heads, and of course giving up on law enforcment would reduce the costs of law enforcment.


149 posted on 04/06/2006 4:59:04 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
It would solve a lot of problems for pot heads, and of course giving up on law enforcment would reduce the costs of law enforcment.

I take it you don't see any downside to "living document" interpretations of the Constitution.

150 posted on 04/06/2006 5:01:25 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-252 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson