Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Homosexual Researcher Claims Genome Scan Of Sexual Orientation
TraditionalValuesCoalition ^ | February 3, 2005 | Staff

Posted on 02/03/2005 4:20:37 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-78 last
To: longtermmemmory
Just in time for the We are Family homo-love pledge comming to a video machine near your child.

Why is the timing an issue? Is there ever a time these days when gay rights activists aren't on the march? Does this mean scientists can never release their results, or do they have to ask the activists to stop every once in a while?

This is just Nazi-homo propaganda to avoid the choice argument which homosexuals can use to justify their conduct.

Translation: "if we admit that homosexuality is biological in origin and gays don't have a choice, we'll have to stop calling it a sin. I don't want to do this, so I choose not to believe any science."

When people deny the reality in front of them because of some weird ideology, that's usually called "mental illness." In America, we call it "Fundamentalist Christianity." No matter how much proof scientists have that gays don't get to "choose" to be fairies, you will reject it.

This is the same utter BS as before. They have nothing so they have isolated a theory of a gene near a discredited gene might be THE gene or genes, maybe.

They're looking for correlations. If they find certain genes (in the mother or the homo) correlate to homosexuality, then they can do more research on those genes. That's somehow unscientific?

Note how they don't say this is the area that controls orgams or erections or the existence of a penis.

Why would those have anything to do with who is gay or straight? Straight people can orgasm from putting their dick in a man's behind just as easily as gay men can orgasm by putting their dick into women. Straight men do it in prison; closted gay men do it with women to "prove" they are straight. Orgasms are just a physical process. Preferring men to women is a MENTAL issue, not a penis issue.

No, the puff piece screeeeeeeaaaaaaaam homo!

?

(and conveniently since it is more than one gene, they could never exactly test for the homo"gene" and abort the fetus or treat the illness.)

Sorry the scientists didn't come up with results that are convenient for your worldview. Obviously that means the scientists are frauds. Sorry that genetics are too hard for you to understand. But if God wanted you to understand how DNA worked, he would have put it in the Bible ::snicker::

51 posted on 02/03/2005 8:59:52 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Jamie Lee Curtis is a MAN, BABY.

Doesn't she have a kid?

52 posted on 02/03/2005 10:51:13 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Another reason some gays are against abortion is because it's sick to kill human beings like that. Of course, most FReepers wouldn't associate gays with any sort of conservative values, but that's only because they're so interested in labeling gays as "bad guys" opposed to everything good and decent.

I don't know anyone who does that as indiscriminately as you suggest. You are trivializing the concerns of a good many people who are dismayed by the progress of feminism, easy-access divorce, flippant attitudes toward marriage and sexuality, and the "gay-rights" campaign.

Arthur Bremer was a "good liberal" who only did one bad thing -- he went on a hunting expedition in which he stalked Richard Nixon and George C. Wallace and shot the latter. So guess where he is today?

Point.

Charles Whitman was an exemplar -- an ex-Marine, devoted to his family -- who went off his rocker with an undiagnosed brain tumor and shot 16 people dead from the top of the clock tower on the University of Texas campus. The police killed him. He's still dead. What are the equities in his case? Were the police too quick to "label" him?

53 posted on 02/03/2005 11:07:55 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
But if God wanted you to understand how DNA worked, he would have put it in the Bible ::snicker::

Ah, now it comes out.

Cognitive dissonance: I thought you were on the record as opposed to intolerance toward religious people, esp. as expressed by e.g. Ted Turner?

54 posted on 02/03/2005 11:10:15 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2
Oh boy. . .talk about a clash of left-wing agendas. Wow.

That's almost as much fun as the union thugs vs. the environmental whackos!

55 posted on 02/03/2005 11:37:36 PM PST by JimRed (Investigate, overturn and prosecute vote fraud in the State of Washington !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Doesn't she have a kid?

If she has a kid, it's not of her womb.

56 posted on 02/04/2005 12:02:17 AM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Ah-Ha, fagism is now a birth defect. Now we have justification for abortion? Or not? What do we do with this information, assuming that it is true? There is no simple answer. Your thoughts?


57 posted on 02/04/2005 12:13:10 AM PST by Octar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Ah-Ha, fagism is now a birth defect. Now we have justification for abortion? Or not? What do we do with this information, assuming that it is true? There is no simple answer. Your thoughts?


58 posted on 02/04/2005 12:13:30 AM PST by Octar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2

I don't know, I guess I would be surprised if they didn't. But maybe I'm just projecting my views on others.

Like you, I know several personally, and they're good people. I think they're wrong and I actually feel sorry for them to some extent, since it's such a barren life, but overall they are good people.

But I have also known many in the past, when I worked in show business, who were the least moral people I've ever met. Mostly actors.


59 posted on 02/04/2005 4:33:00 AM PST by ovrtaxt (Go Howard Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

So, I guess the Homo researchers are really just attemting to uncover their asses.


60 posted on 02/04/2005 4:38:18 AM PST by SeaBiscuit (God Bless all who defend America and the rest can go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Ayup. Jamie Lee Curtis is a MAN, BABY. XY Chromosomes yet everything about her personality and mental makeup is feminine.

How do you know Jamie Lee Curtis has XY chromosomes? Isn't that awfully personal information?

61 posted on 02/04/2005 6:00:43 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
When people deny the reality in front of them because of some weird ideology, that's usually called "mental illness." In America, we call it "Fundamentalist Christianity." No matter how much proof scientists have that gays don't get to "choose" to be fairies, you will reject it.

So how long have you had these feelings about "Fundamentalist Christians"?

You do realize, don't you, that that statement is in fact an expression of extreme hatred?

62 posted on 02/04/2005 6:11:17 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
If she has a kid, it's not of her womb.

Correct, she adopted two kids, one in the 80's and one in the 90's. But if you insist she's a "man", I think you'll get an argument from Christopher Guest. They've been married for something like 20 years; since he inherited his title, she's been a baroness, Lady Haden-Guest, and uses the title in England.

63 posted on 02/04/2005 6:32:34 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
But if you insist she's a "man"

I only point it out to make fun of people who claim XY makes someone a man and XX makes them a woman, and there's nothing in between (or if there is anything in between, it's unnatural/evil/sinful/should be cast out by society)

64 posted on 02/04/2005 10:41:34 AM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Well, it's certainly unnatural -- as is hermaphroditism, which is usually quietly "fixed up" by attending physicians and surgeons soon after birth.

Using errors of nature to ridicule society doesn't seem like a such a winning argument to me. What does it prove? Do you seriously intend to argue that we should norm to mutations and abnormalities?

65 posted on 02/04/2005 10:51:38 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Do you seriously intend to argue that we should norm to mutations and abnormalities?

We should not consider mutations and other abnormalities to be immoral, and we should recognize that they exist: when we pretend that people can only be "male" or "female," we're saying that everyone else is subhuman.

66 posted on 02/05/2005 12:30:55 AM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Here is the response you wanted. If, in the future, you ever really want a response to a post, feel free to FReepmail me.

You do realize, don't you, that that statement is in fact an expression of extreme hatred?

Is it, really?

First, we have to have some sort of definition of mental illness: Mental illness is when someone operates according to rules seriously outside of reality, and this has negative consequences. I think that's a good definition as any.

If people choose to believe something unscientific just because it "fits" better with their ideology, then they aren't really operating in our reality. If they want to believe that homos have a choice just because their religion says homosexuality is a sin (and you can't have sin without choice), then they aren't interested in reality. This does have negative consequences, because it leads them to mistreat homosexuals.

If someone was preaching that a racial minority was inherently sinful, and that the evidence for it was all around us, we might consider them to be mentally ill, right? If some group of people gathered on a street corner to express their views, loudly, and if they wrote letters to the editors of newspapers, and formed political groups to have their voice heard, we would consider them to be whacky. If they cited unscientific junk to make their claims, or even pointed to the Bible, we wouldn't take them seriously.

Why? Because we know they're wrong. Likewise, scientists can see that there is a biological component to homosexuality. Certain people deny this because it interferes with their religious or political beliefs. They deny science because they don't like the results of it. They deny reality because they don't want to live in this reality.

Is this an extremely hateful view? I don't think so. Considering that there is plenty of room in what I said to accomodate non-anti-science Christians who accept the world around them in addition to their Bible stories.

67 posted on 02/21/2005 2:03:19 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
The study, "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation," was led by homosexual researcher Dr. Dean Hamer and other pro-homosexual associates.

When someone is grasping at straws, he will dance with any strawman that makes him feel normal.

Once again, the homophobes who call themselves "gay" to escape the fact that they are homosexuals, seek to deny their homosexuality.

68 posted on 02/21/2005 2:07:26 PM PST by N. Theknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Is it, really?

Sure sounded like it to me -- pure vitriol.

If people choose to believe something unscientific just because it "fits" better with their ideology, then they aren't really operating in our reality.

This is what I mean. You're parsing your words to claim that people who are religionists are mentally impaired. I think that you offer this reductionist rationalization of faith in full knowledge of the fact that homosexuality was once listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a paraphilia, a mental disorder.

You are accusing Christians of the same thing of which homosexuals used to be accused. This is garden-variety vindictiveness on your part, irrespective of the merits of the original argument about homosexuality. Which may have been correct, by the way.

If they want to believe that homos have a choice just because their religion says homosexuality is a sin (and you can't have sin without choice), ....

This is not what they are saying, and that is not why they are saying it. It is the other way around: gays argue essentialism (which seems to be a message lost on the Queer Theory radicals in their own ranks) in order to claim an objective condition parallel to race. The entire HRC is founded on the premise that gays can imitate the successes of the civil rights movement, with the difference that they intend to claim their victories in courtrooms, not in the U.S. Congress.

......then they aren't interested in reality.

Begging the question, since arriving at that conclusion demands your premise be accepted. You're smearing religionists.

This does have negative consequences, because it leads them to mistreat homosexuals.

You're defining deviancy up -- for the Christians. Everything they do or believe, you will now claim is "mistreatment" of homosexuals, since their dealing with sexual deviancy does not rise to the standard that your good opinion of yourself demands. As if they, the majority, had to cater to you.

Of course, you have some statistical evidence to back up your walkaway smear of Christians.

If someone was preaching that a racial minority was inherently sinful, and that the evidence for it was all around us, we might consider them to be mentally ill, right?

Premise contrary to fact -- a condition you ignore in rushing to your prejudicial judgment of insanity. This is odious.

Because we know they're wrong.

Not about you, pal, and your mephitic patter.

Likewise, scientists can see that there is a biological component to homosexuality. Certain people deny this because it interferes with their religious or political beliefs.

Nonsense. Your "biological component" has eluded Robert Spitzer, one of the original gay cabal in the heart of the psychotherapeutical professions, lo these many years, and now he is attacked by your fellow polemicists because he couldn't come up with "the gay gene", and was impolitic enough to say so.

People who disagree with the essentialists have evidences of their own that you deny completely by omission, and by ascribing prejudice instead. Which is a form of lying.

They deny science because they don't like the results of it.

Funny, but right now it's your friends who are complaining about results.

They deny reality because they don't want to live in this reality.

Your venomous assertions and ascriptions notwithstanding, Christians do not "deny reality" -- that is your construction, and your hatred showing.

Is this an extremely hateful view?

Yes. Your malice flows like a sump-drain.

Considering that there is plenty of room in what I said to accomodate non-anti-science Christians who accept the world around them in addition to their Bible stories.

You gave nothing. Your sneering reference to "their Bible stories" says it all. You're an ex-Christian, a non-Christian who hates believing Christians. They have judged you and found you wanting, and now it's on. That's all that is left for you -- to find out who is stronger in the house of representative democracy, the God-fearing or their detractors like you.

69 posted on 02/22/2005 2:32:30 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; xm177e2
If people choose to believe something unscientific just because it "fits" better with their ideology, then they aren't really operating in our reality.

This is what I mean. You're parsing your words to claim that people who are religionists are mentally impaired. I think that you offer this reductionist rationalization of faith in full knowledge of the fact that homosexuality was once listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a paraphilia, a mental disorder.

Stop harassing xm1234 with the facts. She doesn’t want to hear that homosexuality is a paraphilic disorder because it interrupts her homosexual propaganda. She doesn’t want to hear that homosexuality was removed from the DSM for political reasons and NOT scientific reasons as she so desperately wants to believe. She’d rather put forth debunked research of finger tip length corollaries for those who practice perversion as proof it’s innate to further her homosexual agenda here on FR.

I just don’t understand why the Viking Kitties keep ignoring her.

70 posted on 02/22/2005 10:43:10 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
She doesn’t want to hear that

If I was a woman or a gay man, I wouldn't have time to post on these threads. I would be out having orgies and whatnot.

71 posted on 02/22/2005 11:21:27 AM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2; Admin Moderator
Meow, troll.

Mods, see exchange above.

72 posted on 02/22/2005 2:08:29 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
I said, if you want a reply to my posts, you can FReepmail me. Don't follow me to other threads or call down the mods.

This is what I mean. You're parsing your words to claim that people who are religionists are mentally impaired.

Nope. I said no such thing. There are plenty of religious folk who don't meet the description I made in the post above.

There is a difference between faith (believing in something for which there is no evidence) and willful blindness (believing in something the evidence strongly suggests to be false).

There is no evidence for God's existence (scientific evidence, at least), but I don't think it's a sign of mental illness to believe in God, and I never said such a thing.

I think that you offer this reductionist rationalization of faith in full knowledge of the fact that homosexuality was once listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a paraphilia, a mental disorder.

In full knowledge of? Yes. Was that the reason I made the connection in question? No.

gays argue essentialism... in order to claim an objective condition parallel to race

Sure. Gays generally argue they are that way biologically, and anti-gays generally argue that gays choose to be that way. The problem I have is not with taking a stance, but with failing to admit evidence contrary to the stance. If there was some big piece of evidence that homosexuality is completely a choice and there is no biological imperative to it, and gays deliberately ignored that because they wanted to justify their gayness, then I would accuse them of the same thing.

You're defining deviancy up -- for the Christians. Everything they do or believe, you will now claim is "mistreatment" of homosexuals

I never said "everything they do or believe" could constitute mistreatment. If their anti-gay views lead them to seriously mistreat gays, then they have done something with negative consequences for society. My assumption was that if they mistreated gays, some of that mistreatment would rise to a serious level (such as casting them out of family homes, denying them jobs, beating them up, etc.). If there is no serious mistreatment, then there is no negative consequence. Are you really arguing that no serious mistreatment of homosexuals occurs because of the way they are demonized by some anti-gay groups?

he couldn't come up with "the gay gene"

That's a logical fallacy. Gays gave up a long time ago trying to find one single "the gay gene." There could be a complex interaction of multiple genes. Homosexuality can be biological even if ZERO genes are involved--there are other biological factors besides DNA (such as exposure to chemicals in the womb).

You're an ex-Christian

I am neither a homosexual, nor a woman, nor a Christian, nor have I ever been any of those things, nor have I ever claimed to be any of those things on FR.

a non-Christian

Brilliant deduction!

who hates believing Christians

But wrong again.

73 posted on 02/22/2005 5:43:52 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2; lentulusgracchus
I am neither a homosexual, nor a woman, nor a Christian, nor have I ever been any of those things, nor have I ever claimed to be any of those things on FR.

No -you just support gays homosexuals and gay homosexual 'marriage' as evident in your all your pro-homosexual liberal talking point postings on the subject and seemingly ambiguous contradictory non- scientific yet scientific profiled declarations:


xm177e2

Why do you favor Legalizing Gay Marriage?

Because I agree with the reasoning of this legal opinion. Marriage has in fact evolved over time (it no longer involves the extinction of the wife's legal personhood, for example). Interracial marriage was banned for the same reasons as gay marriage: it was seen as an affront to the Bible (if God created humanity, then He created the races, right?) and there was not much tradition of interracial marriage in America.

Agreeing with the reasoning behind the opinion is different from agreeing that the opinion was the right decision--the decision to legalize gay marriage should be made by legislatures. I don't particularly like the idea of a court forcing the issue.


??? Homosexuality equates to race? Am I morally wrong to oppose homosexuality as anything other than disordered? Is the liberal opinion you agree with and conservatives disagree with right?


Statement by the founder of Free Republic

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.


Unlike you apparently believe, FR is NOT fair and balanced -it is a conservative site and pro-homosexual advocacy is not welcomed by me, others and apparently the founder of FR.

74 posted on 02/22/2005 10:50:41 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Like all those stoned researchers proving that drugs are harmless. We could save the money.


75 posted on 02/22/2005 10:55:56 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks; xm177e2; Jim Robinson
I just don’t understand why the Viking Kitties keep ignoring her.

Yes, maybe going up the chain of command will yield a positive effect one way or the other?

76 posted on 02/22/2005 11:07:11 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
I said, if you want a reply to my posts, you can FReepmail me. Don't follow me to other threads or call down the mods.

Or I can post to you in the same open forum where you let Christians have it right between the eyes.

I didn't follow you to another thread -- I frequent American Civil War threads, current-events and terrorism threads, and some others ...... and I found you on another thread, making similar assertions about Christians to those I called you on above, in the post you were slow to reply to. So I called your attention to the crickets, and called the other posters' attention on that thread to the fact that you were making ad hominem attacks on people you disagree with about the estate of humanity.

Nope. I said no such thing. There are plenty of religious folk who don't meet the description I made in the post above.

And some who do, by operation of your statement, whom you are making stand in for all the rest. And yes, you did say that. Anyone who doubts that need only scroll up and read it.

There is no evidence for God's existence (scientific evidence, at least), but I don't think it's a sign of mental illness to believe in God, and I never said such a thing.

I'm glad you cleared that up -- because you sure left the strong impression that that was the case.

The problem I have is not with taking a stance, but with failing to admit evidence contrary to the stance.

Then you'd better have a talk with your buds in the gay mafia.....like the ones who started up StopDrLaura.com, to try to shut down her TV show (it worked), and who go around mobbing ex-gay speakers with "negative advance".

As for the evidence, five years ago when it looked like cellular biologists were about to identify objectively "gay" histology, conservatives grumped about all the money being spent on it, but science is science, and nobody put hands over their ears and called out LALALALALALA to shut out what the gay essentialists were doing. They got their shot -- in contradistinction to the psychologists and psychiatrists who've wanted to do more research on the "nurture" end of the gay equation, who've been maltreated and denounced for trying to drag the science back to the dark days of the 1950's, when Irving Bieber was researching the effectiveness of "reparative therapy" in long-term psychotherapy of homosexual patients. (I have a copy of his findings, by the way. Interested? Careful about your reply.)

If their anti-gay views lead them to seriously mistreat gays, then they have done something with negative consequences for society.

Big "if". Do you regard it as "mistreatment", when society corrals pyromaniacs, or requires dipsomaniacs to give up their drivers' licenses? Sure sounds like discrimination to me! How about society's treatment of pederasts and pedophiles? Necrophiliac and other paraphiliac persons? Handedness isn't a crime, but society doesn't rush to compensate for handedness -- should they? Or is our failure to do so, "mistreatment" of southpaws? Careful -- I am one, and I'm not too torqued about having had to learn how to write and shoot a shotgun right-handed, just to get along. Maybe there was a time when I felt oppressed.....but I forget.

77 posted on 02/23/2005 2:06:28 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Do you regard it as "mistreatment", when society corrals pyromaniacs, or requires dipsomaniacs to give up their drivers' licenses? Sure sounds like discrimination to me! How about society's treatment of pederasts and pedophiles? Necrophiliac and other paraphiliac persons?

I don't consider the average homosexual or Christian to be like any of those. You're talking about seriously deranged and perverted people.

The real question is: what is your justification for putting homosexuals in general into that group? Because they aren't completely normal? That's not good enough. Because some of them are sluts? That's not good enough (there are plenty of slutty straights). Because a small percentage are child molesters? The same is true of heterosexual men. What is it that makes gays so different from straights, aside from being attracted to members of the same sex?

78 posted on 02/23/2005 7:48:27 AM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-78 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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