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

Skip to comments.

Pat Robertson, marginalized by the MSM, suddenly becomes their voice of reason (i.e. Ken Ham)?
2/6/2014 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

Posted on 02/06/2014 10:05:21 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist

Amazing!

Pat Robertson, the 2,000 leg-presser?...

The creator of the age-defying protein shake?...

He is suddenly now the go-to guy for the MSM (and their voice of reason) when it comes to Ken Ham and his debate w/Bill Nye?

Pat Robertson: Marginalized to Oracle[ized] in a flash! And in Virginia, not Delphi, of all places, too!

BTW, isn't Bill Nye one of those Anthropogenic Global Warming guys, and a believer that man is the main cause of Gorebal Warming?


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Religion; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: 2000lbs; agedefyingshake; billnye; creation; creationism; crevolist; culturewar; darwinism; debate; godsgravesglyphs; gorebalwarming; hamnyedebate; intelligentdesign; kenham; patrobertson; pravdamedia; waronreligion; youngearth
Oracle, thy name is... Pat Robertson.
1 posted on 02/06/2014 10:05:21 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

When it comes to the Age of the Earth the literal interpretation looses all credibility.


2 posted on 02/06/2014 10:09:46 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist; GeronL

During the 2012 election cycle, GOP presidential contenders were asked questions in interviews and a debate or two (if I recall) for their beliefs on creation.

Why wasn’t Obama (a self-professed Christian) asked if he believes that God made the universe? Simple up and down question.

Answer, the media only uses such questions to taunt and ridicule GOP candidates. They know Obama is an atheist secular humanist and they go along with his shuck and jive for flyover country and the church going black community.


3 posted on 02/06/2014 10:10:07 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
BTW, isn't Bill Nye one of those Anthropogenic Global Warming guys, and a believer that man is the main cause of Gorebal Warming?

Yes, his faith trumps your faith. He has "academic consensus". Who cares if there was a blacklisting of those with dissenting opinions. Man has sinned. Al Gore has come to save us all. Even if Al Gore did fail out of theological studies.

4 posted on 02/06/2014 10:11:51 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie

Are you absolutely certain?


5 posted on 02/06/2014 10:11:54 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Republicans need to insist that questions such as these must be asked of Democrat candidates. Same for both, or neither for both... sides. That is how the cookie should crumble, IMHO.


6 posted on 02/06/2014 10:13:43 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
..."Obama (a self-professed Christian)"

Only when backed into a corner, and forced to give an answer of "what" he is. The website of his former church (he no longer belongs to a church) stated at one time that Jesus was a poor black man opressed by rich white Jews. That describes socialism combined with racism instead. Liberation theology is in fact communism disguised as a bizarre form of Christianity. Also, his former church also contained many Muslims.
7 posted on 02/06/2014 10:20:50 AM PST by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Its my understanding that many of the terms form the hebrew and the greek as used in our Bible are representative of a symbolic time.

this may well be the case for the Biblical Years used in dating all things earthly.

A Day Equals One Year

The 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9:24, however, establishes a principle related to prophetic time that few completely understand. Virtually everyone acknowledges that the 70 weeks are not literally 70 weeks, but rather 70 weeks of years, or 490 years. The principle is that in Bible prophecy, you must substitute a period of a year in place of a day. This is the day=year principle. This equation is clearly established in scripture-

Num 14:34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.

Im certainly no expert, but I have a hint of the symbolism based on a passage where satan visits God in heaven. It doesne seem likely as satan was cast out of Heaven.

That scripture appears to be allegorical..however its makes it no less true Spiritually!

biut back to the Biblical Years...

I havent done sufficient stidy on Times in the bible to give a definitive answer . I am basing these time possibilities on other use of symbol and allegory...all Authentic. and as true as can be but not to be read in a manner as to insist that one strip the Bible of all such instances to make it true

The MARK on the forehead and hand are great examples of allegorical speech.

the mark on the forehead is as I understand it related to what and how a man thinks...

the mark on the hand..relative to that which a man does.

Thank you.


8 posted on 02/06/2014 10:24:19 AM PST by MeshugeMikey ("When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

Jeremiah Wright’s church may have blamed Jesus’ oppression on rich Jews but he said in a sermon that it was white EYEtalians who killed Him.


9 posted on 02/06/2014 10:25:35 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

No he is an American hating Muslim !!!!


10 posted on 02/06/2014 10:30:25 AM PST by al baby (Hi MomÂ… I was refereeing to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Bill Nye was the the sperm donor for pajama boy


11 posted on 02/06/2014 10:31:35 AM PST by al baby (Hi MomÂ… I was refereeing to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

I can agree with you that there are many passages that aren’t to be taken literally, but rather symbolically, especially when dealing with the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel, certain passages elsewhere, etc.

Other books, though, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, should be taken literally.

While this isn’t all-encompassing, it does show where I stand.


12 posted on 02/06/2014 10:42:04 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Ken Ham has Science and God on his side.

Bill Nye is the Socialist anti-God, anti-Science Guy.

13 posted on 02/06/2014 10:43:15 AM PST by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

It illustrates your willingness to read the bible as it was written!

It also illustrates why we should all read the whole of the bible ..do a great deal of cross checking and contextual investigation, which you’ve made clear that you have in fact done.

If one insists on adopting a “young earth” position it would behoove one to determine what the chronological references actually were meant to state.

Micro evolution yes...Macro Evolution No Way.


14 posted on 02/06/2014 10:46:59 AM PST by MeshugeMikey ("When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Absolutely not, but it is still not the best argument on the table.


15 posted on 02/06/2014 10:54:02 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Pat Robertson has been marginalized by Pat Robertson.

As a Christian spokesman he has been saying something at least once per quarter to make me cringe since the mid-1990’s.


16 posted on 02/06/2014 11:06:26 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

“Yom” can admittedly mean either a day or an age. But you’ve got to remember that this word was used in conjunction with “the evening and the morning” throughout Genesis 1. Difficult to squeeze long ages within an evening and a morning. Whenever that phrase is used with the word “yom,” it ALWAYS means a solar day. The Holy Spirit even went further and used ordinal numbers (first, second, etc.) in combination with the word “yom,” and that also ALWAYS means a solar day. In this case there’s all three are combined. It’s almost like He anticipated the compromise with the world. ;)

But this idea of creation doesn’t only appear in Genesis 1. It’s literally throughout the Bible. God spoke through prophets proclaiming that that HE created everything, and men praised Him for His creation.

There’s also passages like these:

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
Rev 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Rev 10:5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

To believe in evilution means one thinks God lied, these angels are lying, etc.

This is all so unnecessary to compromise God’s Word in this way. It’s laughably ridiculous to believe that chemicals can spring to life unaided. We know too much about how stupendously complex the most “simple” cell can be. Darwin was ignorant in that he thought “simple” cells were just blobs. We know better now.

AND there’s zero evidence for fish evolving into reptiles into birds, etc. None. Within species, sure. That’s why there are things like zorses, zeedonks, (both horse family or kind), and ligers and tigons (both cat family or kind).

Having faith in God is important, but even more critical is which God we have faith in. Having faith in the God of the Bible is what saves our souls. But if we have faith in the dual pagan gods of “time and chance,” if that’s our creator, then that’s a BIG problem. Because this is what the Holy Spirit commanded John to write:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

THAT’S the Christ we’re to have faith in: Our Creator.

As for me and my house . . .


17 posted on 02/06/2014 11:47:09 AM PST by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: afsnco

The conclusions that darwin jumped to were cearly far far larger leaps...than he could ever have imagined.


18 posted on 02/06/2014 12:46:25 PM PST by MeshugeMikey ("When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 240B; 75thOVI; Adder; albertp; asgardshill; At the Window; bitt; blu; BradyLS; cajungirl; ...
Thanks Laissez-faire capitalist. Seems like a good Digest ping. earlier on FR:

19 posted on 02/08/2014 1:04:58 AM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PATRIOT1876
PATRIOT1876: "Ken Ham has Science and God on his side.
Bill Nye is the Socialist anti-God, anti-Science Guy."

You have the "science" part backward.
Ham is the anti-scientist, who wishes to redefine the word "science" to suit his particular theology.
Nye -- like it or not -- represents natural-science as we have come to know it in western civilization.

20 posted on 02/08/2014 4:30:46 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey; Laissez-faire capitalist
MeshugeMikey: "Micro evolution yes...Macro Evolution No Way."

Alleged "micro" and "macro" evolution are in fact exactly the same thing, over different periods of time.
Small DNA changes (micro) which happen in every generation accumulate over long periods of time to make larger (macro) differences among various populations.

Of course, if you imagine the Earth as only 6,000 years old, then obviously there has been no long period in which macro evolution could happen.

But all the scientific evidence suggests "macro" is exactly what did happen.

21 posted on 02/08/2014 4:37:44 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie; Laissez-faire capitalist; afsnco
ImJustAnotherOkie: "When it comes to the Age of the Earth the literal interpretation looses all credibility."

First of all, the "literal interpretation" (whatever that might mean) is not science, period, it's religion and cannot be taught as "science".

Second of all, both Old Testament (Psalms 90:4) and New (2 Peter 3:8) make clear that God's view of time is vastly different from our own.

Third, Genesis itself provides no scientific specifics on how God accomplished His creations.
We are therefore free to fill in the details with whatever scientific evidence and theories seem best.

Those are some of the basics on which all of western civilization's natural-science is built.

22 posted on 02/08/2014 4:57:13 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie; Alamo-Girl
When it comes to the Age of the Earth the literal interpretation looses all credibility.

Let's deal with mistakes and assumptions based on those mistakes. You assume, for example, that your sentence above its correct.

In reality, it isn't. You have misused the word "loose".

Now, what if in the text, that you say can't be taken literally, you are also making assumptions that are not warranted?

This is by no means an attempt to correct your sentence; it is rather an attempt to show how assumptions have consequences.

23 posted on 02/08/2014 5:31:32 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Everything I’ve read so far says that neither man did a particularly effective job in the debate.


24 posted on 02/08/2014 5:33:33 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

This argument between faith and observed reality will not end anytime soon. The very ground beneath our feet and the sky above our heads contradicts the creationist and, in particular, young earth beliefs. Certainly there are come clever wordsmiths pushing some absurd ideas like the global flood. Disagreeing with them is like fighting tar baby and I’m too old and impatient for that.

I’ve mostly given up commenting on these threads but they are being pushed to the point that it’s irritating to read FR lately.


25 posted on 02/08/2014 6:15:21 AM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
JimSEA: "I’ve mostly given up commenting on these threads but they are being pushed to the point that it’s irritating to read FR lately."

FRiend, only a small number of Free Republic posters seem to me totally beyond the reach of ordinary reason.
But there are a number of topics, and evolution vs. creationism is one, where good people have serious and passionate disagreements.

The important point to remember is that these people are all our friends, our families and political allies.
They should be treated as such, even amidst the most passionate of disagreements.

26 posted on 02/08/2014 6:51:20 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
As employed in discussion of evolution, the word Micro refers to changes within kinds..i.e species.

In that discussion of evolution, Macro refers to changes between different kinds..i.e species.

That being said one cannot add up changes within a given species and arrive at a sum of changes between species.

The timing of same....thats certainly up for discussion..debate as the language used to describe the seven days may or may not have been meant to describe our commonly accepted 24 hour days. There is all manner of allegorical and symbolic language throughout the Bible. Determining whether the "days" of creation are to be given a "wooden" literal interpretation or otherwise is beyond my pay grade.

In cases of allegory and symbology...the truth of that which is being communicated is not dependant on a literal interpretation

Satan was described as a Serpent....in Genisis. That referred to his slippery nature..not his actual literal condition ie being a flesh and blood snake. This is not a problem as it was intended to communicate spirit rather than a literal ontololigcal fact. those days mentioned in Genesis I would suggest are not our 24 hour days anymore that satan was an actual physical serpent. I suspect that days of the Creation were employed to illustrate the Orderly Progression of the Creation, presenting it in a manner that Man could readily understand. Thanks.
27 posted on 02/08/2014 7:04:14 AM PST by MeshugeMikey ("When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Indeed, dear brother in Christ! I pinged you to a similar discussion on another thread in case you wish to pursue this sidebar over there as well.


28 posted on 02/08/2014 8:01:57 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey
MeshugeMikey: "As employed in discussion of evolution, the word Micro refers to changes within kinds..i.e species.
In that discussion of evolution, Macro refers to changes between different kinds..i.e species."

Sorry, but that is just anti-science propaganda -- scientifically there are no "kinds", and there is no separate process for "changes within" versus "changes between different" categories.
It's all just evolution.

Your word "kinds" is strictly a theological concept, not science.
Instead, science classifies all life into eight major and dozens of lesser categories: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, family, order, genus, species... then sub-species, breed/variety, form, race/ethnicity/nation...
Precise definitions of what, exactly, makes for separate classifications have been revised to account for results of detailed DNA analyses.
These have "upgraded" some populations to separate higher categories, while "downgrading" others to just sub-groups of a lesser classification.

One key dividing line between separate sub-species, species & genera, for example, is the ability & enthusiasm of various populations to interbreed.
But remember, this "line" is no line at all -- it's a continuum along which some groups interbreed eagerly, while others cannot even be forced to interbreed.

Point is: long-term DNA changes within separated populations make them increasingly unwilling or unable to interbreed with other populations.
The extent of these DNA changes is strictly a function of time and location, having nothing to do with the theological idea of "kinds".

MeshugeMikey: "That being said one cannot add up changes within a given species and arrive at a sum of changes between species."

Sorry, but your sentence is utterly without scientific meaning.
Extensive DNA analyses show that there are calculable rates of mutations in separated populations.
In the short term, these changes may have no practical effects -- i.e., human "races" still avidly interbreed -- but over longer terms interbreeding becomes increasingly difficult to impossible.
A good example would be African & Asian elephants.

Bottom line: nothing in science has anything to do with the theological concept of "kinds", and any discussion of "kinds" is necessarily unscientific.
The absence of "kinds" makes the creationists concept of "micro" versus "macro" evolution scientifically invalid.

29 posted on 02/08/2014 9:14:35 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Kinds translates into modern english...as Species.


30 posted on 02/08/2014 9:18:21 AM PST by MeshugeMikey ("When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Having watched the whole “debate”, I can agree with you wholeheartedly.

the ones guys reliance on the concept of “natural”.. { God has no part in the “natural” world??]

the other guys insistence on knowing the precise length of the 7 “days” of creation..

rigidity of that sort doesnt allow getting to the bottom “line”


31 posted on 02/08/2014 9:22:59 AM PST by MeshugeMikey ("When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

I heard they pretty much stuck to the crevo talking points.


32 posted on 02/08/2014 10:00:08 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Thank you, sister.


33 posted on 02/08/2014 10:14:18 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey
MeshugeMikey: "Kinds translates into modern english...as Species."

Sorry, but in no possible way is that true.
Just consider, the total number of species on Earth is said to be circa nine million, around two million of them named, with 13,000 more added each year.
Of those circa 6,000 are mammals, 10,000 each birds and reptiles, 30,000 fish and 300,000 plants.
Point is: there is no possible way all those "species" would fit into Noah's Ark, or even 100 Arks.

That's why, in his debate with Bill Nye, Ken Ham suggested "kinds" equates to some higher biological classification, such as: genus, order, family or class -- of which there are progressively fewer -- at some point few enough that "two of each" might conceivably squeeze into Noah's Ark.

Well, that's Ham's "solution" to the "problem" of too many species, but his solution itself raises problems, for example:

So, no matter how you look at it, biblical "kinds" make no sense scientifically.

34 posted on 02/08/2014 11:08:44 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: xzins

It was an “entertainment” event as much as a debate. and nobody won the debate


35 posted on 02/08/2014 12:00:57 PM PST by MeshugeMikey ("When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The best you can do? So the earth is 40,000 years old?


36 posted on 02/08/2014 1:05:20 PM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Absolutely there is room for a lot of interpretation. Literal creationists will burn themselves in effigy before admitting carbon dating is valid, and the earth is over 40,000 years old. Granted they have arguments for every case but you just can’t be inflexible and claim Noah’s Ark accounts for all life on earth.

The people back then had no concept what comprised earth. No antique globes have surfaced I’m aware of. The earth they knew was flooded but most certainly there were a few spots left high and dry.


37 posted on 02/08/2014 1:14:38 PM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Good old Pat Robertson, overflowing fount of reason and sanity...

Pat Robertson Blames Earthquake on Pact Haitians Made With Satan

38 posted on 02/08/2014 1:18:01 PM PST by abishai (Hello Jane!!! I miss you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

...and Hell freezes over and all the little devils go iceskating.


39 posted on 02/08/2014 1:58:41 PM PST by miserare (2014--The Year We Fight Back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie
ImJustAnotherOkie: "Granted they have arguments for every case but you just can’t be inflexible and claim Noah’s Ark accounts for all life on earth."

Indeed, I'd bet you a day's pay that not one person in a thousand, including Christians, can tell you: what, precisely, is the theological point of Noah's Ark story?
Do you even know? ;-)

The entire point, the reason for this elaborate story about a great flood and Noah's Ark, is God's promise that it will never happen again! (Genesis 9:11-17)
So all this falderal & hoopla over the size, sea-worthiness & capacity of Noah's great Ark, misses the main idea.
The point is not "how big was the Ark and how many animals could it hold?"

The point is: a world flood will never happen again.
And doesn't science, in all it's amazing investigative prowess, more-or-less "prove" to us that God's promise is 100% reliable?

So, what exactly is the problem here between science and God?

40 posted on 02/09/2014 5:31:24 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: abishai

It’s interesting how often the stupid is on those headline writers more than Robinson...and I’m not a Robinson fan.

I’ve come across some genuinely stupid Robinson comments, but the vast majority of “stupid comments” are relatively innocuous things twisted beyond all recognition...and sometimes the opposite of what he actually said.


41 posted on 02/10/2014 10:20:22 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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