Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Besides no Conservative Leaning questions from Candy Cruller, Why no Libertarian Questions? - Vanity

Posted on 10/17/2012 9:20:50 AM PDT by GraceG

The one that that stood out for me was the fact that even in the RNC primary we had at least 1 or 2 Libertarian questions a debate from the "peanut gallery". We never even got ONE question like:

"What do you think the role of the Federal Government should be?"

"What percentage of taxes on ANYONE is too much?"

"If the question in tax policy is fairness, and the same percentage of a tax being mathmatically fair, why isn't a FLAT TAX an option in your opinion?"

"We talk about the war on terror, what about the war on drugs and it's failure?"

"At what point if the government telling us what to eat going to far?"

Nothing, of cource "Candy Cruller" did nothing but pick questions that were left leaning...

Granted I am a small L libertarian conservative, but no good questions about the PHILOSOPHY of government, of course someone put it in good contaxt today that all the "undecided" voters at the debate were nothing more than mere liberals that were pissed off Obana didn't go far enough LEFT in his first term....


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; Society
KEYWORDS: 2012; libertarian; msm; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last

1 posted on 10/17/2012 9:20:59 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I don’t think we would have liked the answers from either candidate.


2 posted on 10/17/2012 9:24:53 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
Candy was all to eager to ask Romney how he is different from Bush.

But where was the question to Obama on how he is different to Carter?

3 posted on 10/17/2012 9:25:43 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
"Candy Cruller"

LMAO

4 posted on 10/17/2012 9:26:01 AM PDT by paddles ("The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paddles

Candy Crugger


5 posted on 10/17/2012 9:27:35 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

A rigged debate is a much bigger scandal than the TWENTY-ONE game show scandal in the 1950s ever was.


6 posted on 10/17/2012 9:28:00 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

There are no “liberarian qiuestions”. Whether one of your or any issue was addressed last night or not, it would fall into a conservative or liberal side anyway.


7 posted on 10/17/2012 9:28:10 AM PDT by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
But where was the question to Obama on how he is different to Carter?

EXACTLY.

8 posted on 10/17/2012 9:28:55 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paddles

“Candy Cruller”
LMAO

Well, all i see are Kit-Kat Bars and Doughnuts, at least both are vegetarian...


9 posted on 10/17/2012 9:29:04 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

[ I don’t think we would have liked the answers from either candidate. ]

Which is exactly the point!


10 posted on 10/17/2012 9:29:22 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

A rigged debate is a much bigger scandal than the TWENTY-ONE game show scandal in the 1950s ever was.

YUP, the debate questions need to be put into a damned drum and spun around and picked randomly with only the dupicate questions tossed....

Anything else is biased.

A Town Hall “Lottery” debate would be far better...


11 posted on 10/17/2012 9:31:48 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Since only a tiny percentage of the people consider themselves “Libertarian” it is of no concern that there were no such questions. Why should there be? There were no questions from midgets either.


12 posted on 10/17/2012 9:36:17 AM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Small, maybe... But still the 3rd largest political persuasion in the US.

It also would have pointed out the "me too"-ism from both Romney and Obama.

It'd be nice to have a real contrast in these debates. You know, someone who gives more than just lip service to the Constitution and the principles of real freedom.

13 posted on 10/17/2012 9:39:19 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Randomly selecting questions would not have helped. In order for that to work, you have to randomly select the questioners, and then from a more varied pool than Long Island.


14 posted on 10/17/2012 9:39:58 AM PDT by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
Candy was all to eager to ask Romney how he is different from Bush.
But where was the question to Obama on how he is different to Carter?

Or different from Bush, really. Obama's continued all of Bush's bad policies, and expanded on most of them.

15 posted on 10/17/2012 9:46:16 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I have seen no evidence that Libertarians understand the Constitution at all.

There is a huge difference in these candidates.


16 posted on 10/17/2012 9:48:45 AM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Simple, because the questions, format, and moderator were obviously chosen to favor the liberal candidate. Asking questions from liberty minded voters, like the kind who consider themselves libertarians, or conservatives, or even just a few Tea Party members, would have helped show how bad a choice President Obama would be for America.


17 posted on 10/17/2012 9:50:25 AM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Why would anyone ask a Rebublican and a democrat, a “libertarian” question?


18 posted on 10/17/2012 9:52:55 AM PDT by FrankR (They will become our ultimate masters the day we surrender the 2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

“Since only a tiny percentage of the people consider themselves “Libertarian” it is of no concern that there were no such questions. Why should there be? There were no questions from midgets either.”

intellectual honesty perhaps?


19 posted on 10/17/2012 9:56:02 AM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
I have seen no evidence that Libertarians understand the Constitution at all.

May I suggest reading some books on the subject, books by Rothbard, Hayek or Thomas Sowell might be a good starting point.

20 posted on 10/17/2012 9:57:40 AM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
Since only a tiny percentage of the people consider themselves “Libertarian” it is of no concern that there were no such questions. Why should there be?

Probably because that "tiny percentage" of people makes up more than 10 percent of the electorate, and in battleground states right now the percentage of voters responding to polls who say they will vote for a 3rd party libertarian candidate is larger than the difference between the two leading candidates. If only the "tiny percentage" of people who consider themselves hard core libertarian all voted for Mitt Romney, he'd pick up quite a few states. If Mitt Romney can't capture the broader group of liberty oriented voters he'll lose to President Obama.

Successful Republican candidates know that they must get the support of the liberty oriented voters, and they usually do, even without much effort due to the statist nature of the Democratic party. But in a close election getting the votes of the liberty oriented voters is essential to any conservative or Republican victory.

21 posted on 10/17/2012 10:05:50 AM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

I have seen no evidence that Libertarians understand the Constitution at all.

There is a huge difference in these candidates.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Heh heh. As I see it, libertarians hide behind the constitution as they push their pro-dope agenda.

When reminded that marijuana laws and issues with no-knock raids are local and state issues, they call you a nanny-stater and generally make fools of themseelves as they align themselves with Ron Paul, Barney Frank and other such losers.

 

22 posted on 10/17/2012 10:35:42 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
I have seen no evidence that Libertarians understand the Constitution at all.

Oh... You are one of those... Ok, I will be sure to use small words then.

Both Romney and Obama have clear records of thinking government is the cure for any particular problem. This is false. 5000+ years of human history proves this out time and again.

Libertarians think that whole Article 1 Section 8 thing isn't being adhered to. Neither is that whole Bill of Rights thing. They are pretty much the ONLY group talking about paring back our collective State and Federal governments to fit back within those limits...

Still with me? A few of those words have more than three vowels in them so I want to be sure your eyes haven't glazed over in incomprehension. Incomprehension; means you don't understand.

Obama wants more gun control. Romney has passed more gun control than Obama and thought it was a "good thing".

Obama wants more government spending. Romney wants to restructure government taxation so they can keep spending.

Obama wants more government control over certain areas of your life. Romney wants control over other areas of your life.

Both apparently think government is the answer to producing more private sector jobs despite the fact that this is never the case. Unless you think Solyndra and Konarka Technologies are examples of "winning" companies.

A real contrast would be someone who wanted to repeal all gun laws that infringe on mere possession and carry of any armament.

A real contrast would be someone who not only doesn't want government subsidies going to businesses, they don't want the government engaging in ANY activity that falls outside of Art 1 Sec 8 or that is expressly prohibited by the Bill of Rights.

A real contrast would be someone who doesn't want to make "government work right"... A real contrast would be someone who wants to make government do the absolute letter of what it is supposed to do and not one jot more...

Of course, that isn't what you are interested in. You are stuck in a "Big Two Party"/"Us versus Them" mindset and anything that falls outside that isn't worth consideration.

Consideration; means to think about it.

Tough job for you... I know. But give it a try some time.

23 posted on 10/17/2012 10:47:08 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Yep. Ya' got us. All we wanna do is sit around smoking dope.

Reigning in multi-trillion dollar deficits, stopping the expansion of the various levels of government into every aspect of our lives in complete contravention of every Founding principle?

Nope. Just pass the wacky-tabacky and we'll be set...

:-\

24 posted on 10/17/2012 10:50:09 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

It’s more than your pro-dope agenda that sets libertarians apart from the crowd as weird Ron Paul-Occupier types.

I use the pro-dope agenda you guys have because it’s a passion of yours. You people are obsessed by it.

But be that as it may, there are still a great deal of other reasons to smirk at you liberals. Look at your (lack of) leader/heroes. Look at the damage you’ve done to the TEA Party. Look at how the Ron Paul/Mitt Romeny alliance drove away real conservatives like Cain, Newt, Bachmann, Palin and Perry earlier this year.

And the whole theme of this thread whining about why there were no libertarian questions at last night’s debate? Priceless!

Face it. You losertarians are inconsequential in American politics.


25 posted on 10/17/2012 11:02:43 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
You people are obsessed by it.

Nope. My main obsession these days is the growing police State and the Jupiter sized debt load our various levels of government are raking up.

Once again, "it's the freedom, stupid."

Damage to the TEA Party? How so? We're (those of us who do more than just give lip service to the various TEA Party groups) fielding more TEA Party backed candidates this election cycle than ever before. And winning... It was RINO insiders that torpedoed far superior candidates like Cain and Bachmann. Had less to do with Paul-bots and more to do with it being "Willard's turn".

You losertarians are inconsequential in American politics.

You just keep telling yourself that little RINO... You sure expend a lot of energy trying to convince everyone else. Heck, I'm not even a "L"ibertarian. They even, finally, stopped sending me junk mail. ;-)

26 posted on 10/17/2012 11:14:18 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Article I, Sec. 8? Could you be a little more vague?

Apparently you know nothing about the 5000 yrs of history. It in NO WAY supports your conclusions.

The “limits” you believe are being ignored are nothing as clear as you think. The common libertarian belief is that the Constitution was written to limit the federal government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Constitution was written SPECIFICALLY to greatly EXPAND federal powers. It was also written to greatly limit STATE powers. It was never intended to prevent government from taking necessary and proper actions for the good of the nation.

Read Hamilton’s Essay on the National Bank if you want a clear understanding of constitutionality. As one would expect from our most brilliant founder, it is one of the most brilliant state papers ever written.

Apparently you don’t understand WHY the 2d amendment is in the constitution, so I will help you out. It was put in the constitution to reassure STATES that their militias would not be disarmed. Not to protect the home or control criminals but to maintain the armed forces of the STATES. Read the damned thing.

There is no parliamentarian form of government here that would make a Turd Party viable or important. So we have a two party system LIKE IT OR NOT. We have a Turd Party, a Fourth Party and even a Tenth party. Add them all together and they don’t amount to a bucket of warm piss and never will.


27 posted on 10/17/2012 11:57:13 AM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Heh heh. As I see it, libertarians hide behind the constitution as they push their pro-dope agenda.”

And that is their BEST feature.


28 posted on 10/17/2012 12:02:00 PM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Should there have been Green questions, Marxist questions and Fascist questions for “intellectual honesty” as well?


29 posted on 10/17/2012 12:05:41 PM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Art 6 and the Tenth Amendment frown upon your fallacious statement...

"For the good of the Nation"... Now you sound just like a Democrat. What you Socialists fail to understand is that there can be no common good if the Individual Good isn't recognized and protected.

You even managed the old liberal canard of the Second Amendment being about a "State Right" to a Militia rather than protecting an individual Right to arms...

30 posted on 10/17/2012 12:12:28 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Those interests were already represented by the Two candidates present. More Marxists and Fascists would have only been redundant...


31 posted on 10/17/2012 12:16:19 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

In the eyes of the elites,”liberty”, as you quaintly call it, is no longer an issue of interest to the public, and the Parties certainly aren’t interested.


32 posted on 10/17/2012 12:21:21 PM PDT by headsonpikes (Mass murder and cannibalism are the twin sacraments of socialism - "Who-whom?"-Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

The Founders worded it more elegantly “...promote the General Welfare...” nothing radical here.

I only take the document for what it says. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Hence, the justification for the amendment is clearly stated to be “the security of a free State...” Does this say that the right of an INDIVIDUAL shall not be infringed? No, it does not. It refers to the right of the PEOPLE. Note I did not make up “militia” the amendment itself brings it up, not me.


33 posted on 10/17/2012 12:48:05 PM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Article 6, now?

The tenth amendment has been the ugly stepchild in Constitutional law and no one really knows what it means.


34 posted on 10/17/2012 12:51:17 PM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Bananas are fruit, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Tires go on cars, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Trees are a source of wood, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You fail at understanding the difference between a Prefatory clause verses an Operative clause.

Grammatic study of the Second Amendment

You are just a typical liberal...

35 posted on 10/17/2012 1:31:20 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
No. You don't know what it means. It's the "catch all" clause that puts a stopped in further Federal expansion.

Ignored by central planning Socialists in both Parties to further the expansion of the government.

But you knew that. You just aren't honest enough to admit it.

36 posted on 10/17/2012 1:32:49 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: freeandfreezing

I am unaware that Sowell claims to be a Libertarian rather than a conservative.

Have YOU read “Money and Credit”?

Rothbard is an economist not a political scientist.


37 posted on 10/17/2012 1:36:02 PM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

If you believe the People do not have the right to disarm criminals, the mentally ill or the too young you are a fool.


38 posted on 10/17/2012 1:38:55 PM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Yeah, we've seen that argument too. Face it, you just aren't very good at this.

What your idiotic pronouncement means is that "gun control is ok because all of you gun owners are criminals and we can punish you without a trial".

Or did you fail Logic 101 along with American History?

39 posted on 10/17/2012 1:42:32 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

There are no “socialists” in the GOP.

Obviously the 10th amendment has had no impact on fed/state relations. Is this my desire? Not particularly but I don’t trust the states anymore than the feds particularly since their legislatures are hot beds of idiocy. Perhaps it will enter into constitutional law in the future but so for it has not. No shyster lawyer has come up with a way to make money suing under its auspices.

In fact, it was largely to protect private property from the states that the constitution was called for and written.

Libertarians would never see the need for a constitution in any case, it would be far too restrictive for their fantasies.


40 posted on 10/17/2012 1:44:14 PM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I know more about American History than you ever will.

What are you raving about? I support non-criminal CITIZENS owning guns and concealed carry. Guns are great but no substitute for brains as you probably have figured out.

My logical abilities point out to me that you apparently don’t know that every “corpse” is “dead”.


41 posted on 10/17/2012 1:47:51 PM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

You couldn’t me any more graceless or crueler to Candy, Grace. The questions came from the audience not from the big bag of Candy!


42 posted on 10/17/2012 1:51:04 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

You couldn’t me any more graceless or crueler to Candy, Grace. The questions came from the audience not from the big bag of Candy!

However Candy was the one who took all the audience questions and picked the ones that would be asked.


43 posted on 10/17/2012 2:01:07 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I suspect then that the undecided who miraculously were able to decide on what socks to wear yesterday morning, as well as on the questions to submit, I suspect they failed to decide on the kind of questions that you and I and others here would like answered. The questions asked were, to be honest, lame and uninformed.


44 posted on 10/17/2012 2:05:44 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
When reminded that marijuana laws and issues with no-knock raids are local and state issues, they call you a nanny-stater and generally make fools of themseelves as they align themselves with Ron Paul, Barney Frank and other such losers.

No, those are not merely State issues. The very legitimacy of the raids stems from the [illegitimate] War on Drugs, and in particular Federal "Law" regarding them.

Hell, even the Prohibitionists realized that in order for the Federal Government to regulate a substance they first had to amend the Constitution. Given that legal precedent, how can the War on Drugs be legitimate? Or is it as I suspect and 'precedence' only counts when it's in favor of something you support?

45 posted on 10/17/2012 2:09:29 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
If you believe the People do not have the right to disarm criminals, the mentally ill or the too young you are a fool.

I believe that a criminal that has served his sentence is a criminal no more.
Or would you like to explain how a criminal, having performed the punishment dictated by the law, must always be under condemnation from the law?

46 posted on 10/17/2012 2:18:32 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob; Dead Corpse
There are no “socialists” in the GOP.

I can think of one... their Candidate for President.

47 posted on 10/17/2012 2:19:45 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
My logical abilities point out to me that you apparently don’t know that every “corpse” is “dead”.

Actually that's not necessarily true, even though it's obsolete it ["corpse"] can refer to a living body.

corpse - noun
1. a dead body, usually of a human being.
2. something no longer useful or viable: rusting corpses of old cars.
3. Obsolete. a human or animal body, whether alive or dead.

If you've done any research into Christian Theology you would be familiar with this, as "the Corpse of Christ"* is not unheard of; indeed it is prominant in the name of a Texas town: Corpus Christi.

* Jesus is not dead, though He died He lives forevermore.

48 posted on 10/17/2012 2:25:21 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

If you murder someone or repeatedly use a gun inappropriately I don’t want you armed and neither do most of my fellow citizens.

Some actions are worthy of life time punishment, even loss of rights. Jail time is only one element of punishment.

Now if you are saying that some felonies do not deserve a lifetime loss of certain rights I might well agree with you.


49 posted on 10/17/2012 2:28:41 PM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Wild rhetoric is always sooo convincing.


50 posted on 10/17/2012 2:30:44 PM PDT by arrogantsob (The Disaster MUST Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-153 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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