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

Skip to comments.

Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor [Colorado]
CatholicEducation.org ^ | May, 2006 | Ted Harvey

Posted on 06/28/2006 11:25:07 AM PDT by Salvation

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-279 next last
To: Tirian

**I remind people of the post-Roe generation that abortion has been the Black Death of their generation.**

Excellent point. Only difference is that it will have a great impact on those who provided or assisted with abortions at the Last Judgment!


101 posted on 06/28/2006 4:43:35 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rightwingmichigander

That brings tears to my eyes and a lump to my throat!


102 posted on 06/28/2006 4:45:28 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lion in Winter

Amen!


103 posted on 06/28/2006 4:47:52 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: my_pointy_head_is_sharp

You're welcome!


104 posted on 06/28/2006 4:48:41 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

awesome story, thanks for posting, will bookmark


105 posted on 06/28/2006 4:51:51 PM PDT by votelife (we need 60 conservative senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
I never said Harvey or Jessen broke any laws. I did say that the Boston Tea Party broke laws and was not a good example of Christian activism.

Harvey got permission for her to sing/speak in order to address "X" knowing full well he would use her presence to address "Y" knowing also full well if he had not been deceitful in his request neither would be granted. I don't buy into deceit for any reason. As a practical matter it means that, in the future, people don't trust me to do as I say I'm going to do.

In discussions, I remind people all the time that my presence here is because I was not aborted in 1957 and it's a little harder to support abortion when you have to look someone in the eye and say "I wish you had never been born".

You said:.

They didn't get as upset with her presence as you have.

Harvey said:

I then walked back to my chair shaking like a leaf. The Democrats wouldn't look at me. They were fuming. It was beautiful. I have been in the Legislature for five tough years, and this made it all worthwhile..

The House majority leader wouldn't talk to me the rest of the day.


Your statement is not supported by Harvey's statement.
106 posted on 06/28/2006 4:53:38 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Havok

Oops, I agree!

Hate those typos.


107 posted on 06/28/2006 4:58:32 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
My point is that if your faith informs your politics you will never hear a peep out of me. Work for your candidate and I'll take my hat off to you. But I think if Christians want to retain the moral high ground then they should avoid anything that smacks of deceit, deception or dirty tricks never mind lawbreaking.
108 posted on 06/28/2006 4:58:39 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

**Christians at times have had to be bold to get a chance to even be heard. **

Absolutely! And we may soon see Christians persecuted like they currently are in China.


109 posted on 06/28/2006 5:00:33 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath; NYer

My point still stands that if Harvey had told the legislature that Gianna would be speaking about abortion (being an abortion survivor and all), the legislature would have flat-out denied him the opportunity.

And you have to admit, his anti-abortion viewpoint wouldn't have been enforced as well without the aid of Gianna, a survivor of abortion.


110 posted on 06/28/2006 5:01:02 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (Conservatives teach you how to fish. Liberals give you the fish by stealing it from the fisherman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Wow, awesome story!


111 posted on 06/28/2006 5:11:30 PM PDT by visualops (If you build it... www.visualops.com ...they won't come. Build the fence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
Harvey said:

I then walked back to my chair shaking like a leaf. The Democrats wouldn't look at me. They were fuming. It was beautiful. I have been in the Legislature for five tough years, and this made it all worthwhile..

The House majority leader wouldn't talk to me the rest of the day.

Granted, but you left out that "Ironically, Alice Madden, the majority leader and sponsor of the Planned Parenthood resolution, walked over to Gianna and congratulated her."

Looks like the majority leader got over her mad long enough to congratulate this young woman.

And.. it looks like the only ones that got mad were the Democrats. See anywhere where he says the Republicans were fuming mad?

Personally, I could care less if the Democrats got angry. They are a party that supports killing the innocent, taxing you death (I live in a state that is run by Dems and my taxes are eating me alive)and homosexual supporters. It's about time somebody held up a mirror to them to show them what they support is an aberrant crime. They are the real criminals, IMO. They aid and abet the killing of millions of innocent life every year. I bet they did get mad. The truth hurts.

112 posted on 06/28/2006 5:18:20 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Absolutely! And we may soon see Christians persecuted like they currently are in China.

Although we aren't to the level that the Chinese Christians face, we are certainly under the gun in this country. God has been taken out of our public schools, the Ten Commandments are being torn down and taken away from public squares. Every Christmas, Christian symbolism is being attacked and taken away from the public arena. Many television programs mock Jesus Christ and Christians. If you speak your personal convictions you may face losing your job like the Catholic the other day that spoke out against homosexuality in Maryland.

It's getting kind of scary here in America lately.

113 posted on 06/28/2006 5:27:35 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
don't believe you can convince anyone of the righteousness of your cause by dirty tricks.

You evidently admire reason and deliberation, despite your breath. So please do it slowly and carefully for me. What was the trick, what was dirty about it?

And as you answer, I guess I'd like to see the consideration that the liberals, when they gain a significant strength in a deliberative assembly, tend to work the parliamentary rules as strongly as they can, with no regard to equity, to make their point, and to stifle the opposition. And when the rules don't work for them, when wondering what the meaning is "is" is begins to fail, they'll cheat in a heartbeat. And lives are at stake here.

In the face of such tactics, should a Christian say that his principles prevent him from protecting the innocent and helpless and consequently he will let the liberals dominate the conversation? Did Jesus, Amos, or Jeremiah take that approach? Did St. Peter when he preached in opposition to the plain decree of the Sanhedrin? Did Luther, or Wycliffe?

Clearly I don't think so, and I don't think getting rolled by liberals is always a moral duty.

114 posted on 06/28/2006 5:37:02 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (If the gates of Hell prevail against it, it probably never was a church anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
Christians want to retain the moral high ground then they should avoid anything that smacks of deceit, deception or dirty tricks never mind lawbreaking.

What happens when Christianity is outlawed, and Bibles banned?

Will you break the law?

In Hitlers Germany would have you hidden Jews?

Please answer those questions?
115 posted on 06/28/2006 5:51:12 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

For those who allow themselves to be instruments in God's hands: thank you for your courage and strength which comes from a desire to listen and obey Him, our Creator.


116 posted on 06/28/2006 6:02:00 PM PDT by EverOnward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
"So it's OK for Christians to lie in pursuit of a political agenda?"

What lie?

117 posted on 06/28/2006 6:06:46 PM PDT by EverOnward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
I came across a story once, about a Catholic priest named Padre Pio (I think that was his name) who had a spiritual gift of prophesying, especially during confession -- he could tell when the penitent was holding back from confessing a sin.

Anyway, the story goes that he was hearing a young woman's confession, and after she finished, he told her gently that she had not confessed *everything*. She hesitated, but then admitted that she had had an abortion.

After he said the words of absolution, she asked him if he knew what would have become of her unborn baby. "My child," he said, "Your son would have become the pope."

118 posted on 06/28/2006 6:22:01 PM PDT by Proud2BAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Very uplifting story about an admirable young lady and a courageous politician.

Thanks,
jm


119 posted on 06/28/2006 6:34:01 PM PDT by JockoManning (http://www.gravityteen.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

This story is so awesome. This guy had alot of courage. Good for him and Gianna.


120 posted on 06/28/2006 6:35:39 PM PDT by GinaLolaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
If I break the law in order to be true to my faith then I expect and will submit to whatever penalty the civil authorities choose to impose. But I think your hypothetical is far afield from the original discussion.

In Harvey's case, although he did not break the law, he should not be surprised if he's never again recognized to speak. I hope his one moment of causing an agitation was worth it.
121 posted on 06/28/2006 6:35:54 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: EverOnward

He asked to speak to address a certain topic knowing in his heart that he intended to do something else.


122 posted on 06/28/2006 6:37:09 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Are you proposing that people of faith begin acting like people of nonfaith in order to "win". All will be adjudicated in the hereafter.
123 posted on 06/28/2006 6:39:12 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Deut28

Keep on pushing, Ted! Bravo! Bravissimo!


124 posted on 06/28/2006 6:39:26 PM PDT by ducdriver ("Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

You have the sequence of events out of order. The congrats were for overcoming the CP before Harvey's true agenda became known.


125 posted on 06/28/2006 6:40:30 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium

"At what age can a human live outside the womb without help from an older human?"

These days, it seems to be around 30 or later. And of course, nobody could survive without the help of others all through life.


126 posted on 06/28/2006 6:43:24 PM PDT by ducdriver ("Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
You have the sequence of events out of order. The congrats were for overcoming the CP before Harvey's true agenda became known.

Oops! You are correct. I had read the article earlier in the day and should have reread the whole thing again. I remembered from reading it earlier that she had congratulated the young lady and keyed in on the wrong sequence of events in my comments. I apologize.

Still, the only ones that were upset were the Democrats. I didn't see that the Republicans raised a stink about it.

127 posted on 06/28/2006 6:57:37 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
In Harvey's case, although he did not break the law, he should not be surprised if he's never again recognized to speak. I hope his one moment of causing an agitation was worth it.

May I ask why you are so upset over this? Do you think the Holy Apostles cared one whit if they caused an agitation? Do you think Jesus cared that he stirred up the scribes and Pharisees?

If Harvey's "one moment of agitation" causes a person to not get an abortion or changes the mind of one person who is pro-abortion, then yes, I would say it was worth it.

128 posted on 06/28/2006 7:07:50 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

ping


129 posted on 06/28/2006 8:37:26 PM PDT by MrEdd (Bad spellers of the world - UNTIE!,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BagCamAddict
"fetus" is a Latin term - the closest English translation of which is "toddler" it refers to a small child who is not yet safe to leave untended, and was used as a term of endearment. So - if we return two the original meaning it is a child up to age two or three - because the word already has that meaning.

If I or anyone else tries to redefine it at this late date is just as valid (and silly) as saying bluegill are not fish because they swim in fresh water and I want fish to only refer to salt water vertebrates. My attempt to narrowly redefine the word fish in the face of centuries of use would be ludicrous.

130 posted on 06/28/2006 8:52:30 PM PDT by MrEdd (Bad spellers of the world - UNTIE!,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium

That's not what I was defining. I didn't say "live without help from an older human." I said "live." Period.

So I'm not going to argue a point I wasn't making.


131 posted on 06/28/2006 9:09:13 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: g33k355

Of course there are whacko baby killers. I never said there weren't.

I'm not going to debate you about my own personal definition. My, Own, Personal... definition.


132 posted on 06/28/2006 9:32:04 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: FJ290; JWinNC

I'm not going to answer your first question because it's not relevant to what I wrote.

And to your statement: It doesn't make it NOT so either.

You said it yourself, it's a human life that is formING, not formED.

And I didn't say it wasn't HUMAN. I said it couldn't survive outside the body.

(I really really really wish that both extremes on this issue, both the far RIGHT pro-Life and the far LEFT pro-Choice would be able to read and comprehend what people actually type/say, without extrapolating things that are not typed/said/intended. At least the Gentleman in post #54 was able to ask questions and do so in a way that actually allows me to answer and continue the dialogue... because only through dialogue can we understand each other.)


133 posted on 06/28/2006 9:41:22 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: JWinNC
Your first question:

I don't know, because I don't follow the current medical abilities.

Obviously a "pre-birth human"** can't live outside the womb when it's 2 months old (7-months pre-birth).... But a 7.5-month "pre-birth human" can often live outside the womb. I believe I've heard of babies being born 4 months premature and surviving. So that means they can survive at 5-months gestation.

But at what point, between 2-months and 5-months of gestation, babies can live outside the womb, I don't know.

(** I'm calling it a "pre-birth human" because later posts responding to mine challenged my use of the word "fetus" -- even though I had CLEARLY used quotations around the word, and even though I had CLEARLY stated what definition I was using in MY sentence.)

Your second question:

Well, I disagree with your premise that you can jump from my statement to your statement. But like you said, you're not looking to pick a fight. Neither am I. So let me try to be as clear as I can without confusing things even more:

I made a statement about one specific thing: my PERSONAL definition of the difference between a "fetus" and a "baby". My definition has nothing to do with the subsequent death, at any point in time, of that baby. We all die at some point, and that doesn't mean we were never babies. Right?

My definition -- I reiterate, MY definition -- was WHETHER or not a baby COULD live outside the womb, not IF it lives, or for how long. So if a baby dies 5 minutes after being born, then a baby died, not a "fetus." It may have died of a heart defect, but that doesn't make it any less of a baby. That same baby might just as well have lived for 2 years before that heart defect killed it. Or 20 years. Or 80 years. The point is it could have lived outside the womb (if it had been healthy in the first place).

I hope I've made sense here, but if not, tell me where I don't make sense and I'll try it again.
134 posted on 06/28/2006 9:45:00 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

Again, I wish people could read what I wrote, not what you wish I had written. I did not write anything about the definition of Humanity or Human. So I won't debate anything about your entire first paragraph, because you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

And since the rest of your post was based on your first paragraph, I have no response to you. If you care to comment on what I actually DID say, then I will respond to that.


135 posted on 06/28/2006 9:47:40 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: BagCamAddict
(And to reduce the number of people who will ask me at what point a "fetus" becomes a "baby", I'll tell you my personal definition: The point at which the baby can survive outside the womb.)

That point gets pushed further and further back every year. We've now had premature babies born at 20 weeks which have survived. How much further back can we push that before you say, "naw, doesn't matter, not a baby"?
136 posted on 06/28/2006 9:48:51 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

As I thought I made perfectly clear, by my use of quotations around the words, I was using a specific definition for that word, MY PERSONAL definition.

It's not relevant what the root of the word is. I could have just as easily used "$t#K*T" in my sentence, because I provided the definition for the word I had framed in quotation marks.

And I was not trying to redefine the word. Did I say that I was? Clearly not. So again, I wish people on this topic could read, hear, understand, and reply to, what is ACTUALLY SAID, not what they wish the person had said or hoped they might have intended to say, just to fan the flames of this debate even further. I do not understand why people can't simply have dialogue on this topic.


137 posted on 06/28/2006 9:52:06 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: BagCamAddict
Obviously a "pre-birth human"** can't live outside the womb when it's 2 months old (7-months pre-birth)..

Not yet. Certainly not with current technology. Do you predict science will never make this possible? If you think it might someday be possible, will your definition of baby have to change, in order to exclude these extreme cases?
138 posted on 06/28/2006 9:57:36 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

Well... that gets into a completely different, and HUGE, topic... of whether or not we should be intervening in such drastic ways for (babies) that weren't meant to survive in the first place.

I mean, the primary reason cited by pro-Life people is religious/God. So one could ask, "If God didn't want that baby to survive, who are we to go to such drastic means to keep it alive."

Then you can also argue that God gave us the technology to be able to do so...

And of course that is a HUGE HUGE topic, arguing whether ANY medical intervention, of any kind, should ever be done, on any human, at any time. And whether or not modern medical miracles and the amazing breakthroughs in medical technology are all part of God's plan, and He wouldn't have given us that technology if He didn't want us to use to save every single life, etc.

So as I said, it's a huge can of worms to start talking about whether or not we should even be going to the extreme measures necessary to keep a 20-week baby alive outside the womb.

But of course all of that is completely off topic for this thread, and for my original post. :-)


139 posted on 06/28/2006 10:04:47 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
But I think your hypothetical is far afield from the original discussion.

I don't think so, abortion is very much as bad as the two examples I asked you about.

What would you do, or how far would you go as a "Christian" for the cause of stopping precious unborn children from being murdered?
140 posted on 06/28/2006 10:05:14 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: BagCamAddict
So I'm not going to argue a point I wasn't making.

That's because you can't argue some point that makes no sense. It's just an excuse to kill a child.
141 posted on 06/28/2006 10:09:01 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: BagCamAddict
So as I said, it's a huge can of worms to start talking about whether or not we should even be going to the extreme measures necessary to keep a 20-week baby alive outside the womb.

I think the aforementioned survivors would vote "yes".

But of course all of that is completely off topic for this thread, and for my original post. :-)

Ah, yes, agreeing with the post about how "unChristian" it was to "sneak her in". Funny, seems like she came through the front door. And sang, to EVERYONE'S pleasure. And got applauded. The anger came LONG after she had sat down. Were the people mad that she was there - or were they mad that they learned an extra detail that they didn't care to know?
142 posted on 06/28/2006 10:14:46 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

I don't think my definition would change. The definition would be the same, but the age at which a baby can survive outside the womb is, and probably will continue to change. The point is not whether that "fetus" could survive if it were born in the year 2435, but whether or not it could live outside the womb TODAY. So the definition will stay the same forever, but the science/skills will change.

But at that point, my definition of "human" might come into play!

I'm thinking of Sci-Fi-Future movies, where all the "humans" are born from test tubes, and there are no more interpersonal relationships, and everything is done by genetic engineering: We need more factory workers, so we "breed" "beings" who can stand the monotony of working on an assembly line all day, etc.

At this point in time, our super-human efforts to save a premature baby (20-weeks gestation), result in a relatively normal human being. But I can't forsee the future, and I don't know (a) how long it will take to develop the skill/technology to keep an 8-week-gestation "baby" alive, and (b) whether the resultant "product" of that effort will be "fairly normal" or not.


143 posted on 06/28/2006 10:15:53 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium

And a person can't debate with someone who won't debate on issues.


144 posted on 06/28/2006 10:17:47 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

Oh I don't disagree with that. But as I said, it's a big can of worms. (Who pays for all the effort to keep that one baby alive, how many others die because resources are spent keeping that one alive that could have been spread out to others, etc., etc.) I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm just saying it's a big topic.

And I don't think the people were mad at either of the two things you mentioned. I think they were mad at the false pretext under which she was introduced - Cerebral Palsy - when the true motive was the Planned Parenthood angle. If I were in that audience, I could feel both joy at having heard her sing, and joy at hearing her story of accomplishments and survival, AND anger at the person for "duping" the audience with the false introduction. I just don't see why there had to be any "duping" at all. Why the false pretext? Why not just bring the woman in and say, by the way, here's the other side of the Planned Parenthood story. So I think that's where the anger was, and that's why I agreed with the first person who posted that comment. (False pretext isn't exactly "Christian-like.")


145 posted on 06/28/2006 10:25:25 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Ted Harvey needs support. He is running again. How many officials have a backbone to stand up for what is right; in spite of what it can do to their political career.

Let's support him!

http://www.tedharvey.com


146 posted on 06/28/2006 10:45:09 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BagCamAddict
I'll debate you about when a baby begins their life any day.

But I am sure you won't get it, because you don't want to.

Facing the truth is very hard for some especially if they have had an abortion, or participated in anothers.
147 posted on 06/28/2006 10:52:13 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium

A baby begins its life at conception.

What is there to debate?

Or are you one of those who likes to debate something that isn't even contested? Based on the oozing animosity in your post, I suspect you are.


148 posted on 06/28/2006 11:12:45 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Pinged from Terri JUNE Dailies

8mm

149 posted on 06/29/2006 4:19:03 AM PDT by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam Tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Wow, I'm late to the party. That's AWESOME! Great post- thank you!


150 posted on 06/29/2006 4:25:33 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-279 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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