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

Skip to comments.

Fed-up Wal-Mart worker quits over pro-'gay' agenda
WorldNetDaily ^ | November 1, 2006 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 11/01/2006 4:19:04 AM PST by Man50D

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: I'm ALL Right!

Good questions. Don't gays use the same products the rest of us use?

Gays often say that what goes on in the privacy of their own homes/bedrooms is nobody's business. Well, fine. KEEP IT THAT WAY! Stop shoving it in my face, flaunting it everywhere you go in public, and trying to force acceptance of it by passing laws legitimizing it.

Here's a hint: Keep it private and people won't get so in your face when you get in theirs.


41 posted on 11/01/2006 8:00:27 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WKB

Well...since the WalMart closest to me is 40 miles away...


I guess I won't shop there. ;o)


42 posted on 11/01/2006 8:06:55 AM PST by dixiechick2000 (There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
I think it was her:Charlyn Jarrells Porter, Senior Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer
43 posted on 11/01/2006 8:09:02 AM PST by madison10 (Live your life in such a way that the preacher won't have to lie at your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: trustandobey

bump that


44 posted on 11/01/2006 8:18:34 AM PST by tutstar (Baptist ping list-freepmail to get on or off)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: madison10

I had a man in mind who was meeting with the NLGCC and reporting back to the head office, although she is obviously involved in "diversity" at Wal-Mart.


45 posted on 11/01/2006 8:20:47 AM PST by Nextrush (Communism died in the Soviet Union, but Diversity lives on everywhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero
The people on these threads are pathetic. If you all boycotted every company that gave a few grand to some gay group, you'd be living out in the woods in a log cabin, chasing rabbits with a stick. Forget all the good Wal-Mart does and has done, all the people they employ, all the money they save Americans, they **GASP** gave a few thousand bucks to a gay group!

By your logic, no company can ever be held accountable for any donation it gives, no matter how objectionable it might be. You would just pull out your "moral balance scale" and do a weight comparison, and as long as the "good" outweighs the "evil" everybody is to keep their yaps shut and their wallets open.

46 posted on 11/01/2006 8:30:26 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: megatherium
One, the gay community isn't that small, only 2%

As opposed to evangelicals? Church-going Catholics?

They realize that gays are ordinary people

Who have a lower life-expetency than three-pack-a-cigarette smokers who skydive. It's not a lifestyle you'd want someone you care about to get involved with.

you'd best not be allergic to gay people.

Which is why Wal-mart was just floundering away when homophobic Sam was running things. LOL. The idea that gays are somehow more "creative" than straights I've always found laughable. Cole Porter, as talented as he was, was certainly not more so than Hank Williams or Johnny Cash or Chuck Berry.

47 posted on 11/01/2006 8:31:58 AM PST by Tribune7 (Go Swann Go Santorum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero
Come on, Janet Naird, put your holier-than-thou money where your holier-than-thou mouth is.

Correct me if I'm wrong: This comment gives the impression that you're "holier-than-thou, Janet Naird."

48 posted on 11/01/2006 8:34:12 AM PST by Colofornian (Nice boomarang post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
The WND could write the same article about every company in the Fortune 1000.

So everyone can boycott all "homosexual agenda" companies, here is a list of companies "outed" by WND as having an 100% rating by "Gay-Rights" groups.


Adobe Systems

Aetna

Agere Systems

Agilent Technologies

Allianz Life Insurance

Alston & Bird

American Express

AMR Corp. (American Airlines)

Anheuser-Busch

Apple Computer

Arnold & Porter

AT&T

Avaya

Bain & Company

Bank of America

Bausch & Lomb

Bell South

Best Buy

Boeing

BP America

Bright Horizons Family Solutions

Bristol-Myers Squibb

California State Automobile Association

Capital One Financial

Cargill

Carlson Companies

Charles Schwab

Chevron

ChoicePoint

Chubb

CIGNA

Cisco Systems

Citigroup

Clear Channel Communications

Clorox

CMP Media

CNA Insurance

Coca-Cola Company

Consolidated Edison

Coors Brewing

Corning

Credit Suisse First Boston

Cummins

Daimler Chrysler

Dell

Deloitte & Touche USA

Deutsche Bank

Dorsey & Whitney

Dow Chemical

DuPont

Eastman Kodak

Eli Lilly & Co.

Ernst & Young

Estee Lauder Companies

Faegre & Benson

Fannie Mae

Ford Motor Co.

Freescale Semiconductor

Gap Inc.

General Mills

General Motors

GlaxoSmithKline

Global Hyatt

Goldman Sachs Group

Google

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care

Heller Ehrman

Hewitt Associates

Hewlett-Packard

Honeywell International

Hospira

ING North America Insurance

Intel

IBM

Intuit

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Jenner & Block

Johnson & Johnson

Kaiser Permanente

Keyspan

Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group

KPMG

Kraft Foods

Lehman Brothers Holdings

Levi Strauss & Co.

Lexmark International

Liz Claiborne

Lucent Technologies

McDermott Will & Emery

McKinsey & Co.

Mellon Financial

Merck & Co.

Merrill Lynch

MetLife

Microsoft

Mitchell Gold and Bob Williams

Morgan Stanley

Morrison & Foerster

Motorola

Nationwide

NCR Corp.

New York Times Co.

Nike

Nixon Peabody

Nordstrom

Northrop Grumman

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe

Owens Corning

Pepsico

Pfizer

PG&E

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

Powell Goldstein

PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Prudential Financial

Raytheon

Replacements

SC Johnson & Son

Schering-Plough

Sears Holdings Corporation

Sempra Energy

Sprint Nextel

Starcom MediaVest

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

State Street

Sun Microsystems

SunTrust Banks

Tech Data Corp.

The Olivia Companies

US Airways

Viacom

Visa International

Volkswagen of America

Wachovia

Walgreens

Wells Fargo

Whirlpool

Xerox
49 posted on 11/01/2006 8:34:55 AM PST by FFIGHTER (Character Matters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
…PROTECT MARRIAGE !... Your children deserve it as wholesome as possible…

You saw what happened in NEW JERSEY!... Don't let it happen in your state! Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota and South Carolina see details below how to vote on all 8 states - links to each state’s election boards - etc)

Why gays hate marriage - By Kevin McCullough - Sunday, October 29, 2006 -- [ excerpt ] --

Despite of all that their angry-mob front groups argue for in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution and more importantly the sanctity of marriage. That is also the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.

This week - dateline Trenton New Jersey... where a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal, utopia.

With utter contempt for God, and for the voters of their state the New Jersey seven unanimously said that all who live in the confines of its borders must fundamentally agree to the moral premise, that what the Bible terms perversion, the voters should call healthy.

But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges, and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral world view? The answer is simple, no longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over the actions of their sexual behaviors because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy - that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong….

Eight states are voting on amendments to their Constitutions. All of them seek to protect marriage essentially the same way as Arizona's amendment describes it below


...The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment will preserve the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman” and prohibit the creation of any other legal status similar to that of marriage. It will assure that marriage is defined by the voice of the people and not by a few activist judges.
I am hearing rumors that the homosexual agenda research institute (kidding!), as most lefty organizations... resort to lies or disinformation To confuse the voters purposely, on how to vote on the ANTI-GAY-MARRIAGE amendments in the different states. So, I did the research for every of the eight states voting on amendments to their constitutions preserving the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman.”

All of the eight states define the amendment (change/addition to the state's Constitution) essentially the same way. Arizona defines the amendment this way:

All states handle this by having the voters vote on once, except for COLORADO that requires voting on twice: one amendment and one Referendum.

-- Public Announcement from EP -- :)


* VIRGINIA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for VIRGINIA at the bottom)

* WISCONSIN Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for WISCONSIN at the bottom)

* TENNESSEE Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for TENNESSEE at the bottom)

* ARIZONA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for ARIZONA at the bottom)

* SOUTH DAKOTA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH DAKOTA at the bottom)

* SOUTH CAROLINA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH CAROLINA at the bottom)

* IOWA The only state I could not find the information.. what a mess.. even the Servers were so slow. Drove me crazy!... Found the documents but seems like they did not include the amendment….speaks poorly of that state to me)

* COLORADO

****** On Amendment 43 (Marriage)> Vote "YES" (to add amendment)

****** On Referendum I: Vote "Do not approve" or "NO" (To reject it,depending on how the question is phrased. Don't trust homosexual groups - they lie and confuse issues - this should be looked more carefully since it can be approved later anyway.

(Colorado is more complicated. It has 2 items: Adding Amendment 43 (Vote "YES) and approving Referenum I (Vote NO or Do NOT approve). See COLORADO at bottom for details)


* VIRGINIA *

Virginia State Board of Elections

Virginia: The amendment - Ballot question # 1 (page 3)

1 FINAL COPY Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Be Voted on at the November 7, 2006, Election PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Article I. Bill of Rights. Section 15-A. Marriage. BALLOT QUESTION NUMBER 1

Excerpt -------------------------

EXPLANATION Present Law The Constitution does not define marriage. Under current statutory law in Virginia, persons who marry must have a license and be married by a licensed minister, judge, or other person authorized by law to perform marriages. Present law prohibits marriages between certain individuals. For example, the law prohibits a marriage between a brother and sister, between a couple where one of the parties is married to someone else, and between couples of the same sex. In 1975, the General Assembly enacted a statute (present Code of Virginia § 20- 45.2) that states "A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited." In 1997, the General Assembly added a sentence to § 20-45.2 that states that: 2 Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable. In 2004, the General Assembly passed a law to prohibit certain civil unions or other arrangements between persons of the same sex. That law (Code of Virginia § 20- 45.3) states that: A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

Thus, civil unions or other arrangements which purport ?to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage? are prohibited by statute.

Proposed Amendment If approved by the voters, this proposed amendment will become part of the Constitution of Virginia. The proposed amendment adds a definition of marriage as the ?union between one man and one woman? to the Constitution's Bill of Rights and prohibits Virginia and its counties, cities, and towns from creating or recognizing any legal status by any name which is comparable to marriage. Marriage in the Commonwealth creates specific legal rights, benefits, and obligations for a man and a woman. There are other legal rights, benefits, and obligations which will continue to be available to unmarried persons, including the naming of an agent to make end-of-life decisions by an Advance Medical Directive (Code of Virginia § 54.1-2981), protections afforded under Domestic Violence laws (Code of Virginia § 18.2- 57.2), ownership of real property as joint tenants with or without a right of survivorship (Code of Virginia § 55-20.1), or disposition of property by will (Code of Virginia § 64.1- 46).

A "yes" vote on the proposed amendment will result in the addition of the proposed Section 15-A to Article I, the Bill of Rights. A "no" vote will mean that there will be no change made in Article I, the Bill of Rights."


* WISCONSIN *

Winsconsin State Elections Board website

Winsconsin:November 2006 Referenda Questions

Winsconsin:See the actual document (the amendment)


* COLORADO *

Colorado Secretary of State – Elections Center

Colorado:Amendments and Referendums

[1] Colorado: Amendment 43 (Marriage)

[2] Referendum I: Referendum I Referendum I Colorado Legislative Council Staff FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: August 31, 2006 Fiscal Analyst: Janis Baron — 303-866-3523 BALLOT TITLE: SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TO AUTHORIZE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, and, in connection therewith, enacting the "colorado domestic partnership benefits and responsibilities act" to extend to same-sex couples in a domestic partnership the benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are granted by colorado law to spouses.....

Summary of Legislation

Upon voter approval, Referendum I establishes legal domestic partnerships in the state of Colorado. Additionally, it specifies eligibility requirements, definitions, procedures, rights, responsibilities, and means for terminating domestic partnerships. The fiscal note cannot accurately project the number of domestic partnerships that would be entered into in Colorado should Referendum I be adopted. For purposes of this analysis, the fiscal note assumes 3,500 annually.


* TENNESSEE *

Tennessee Division of Elections

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment # 1 (Marriage - Page 3)

Constitutional Amendment #1 (Page 3)

Shall Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section: SECTION___. The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.


* ARIZONA *

Arizona Secretary of State - 2006 Ballot Propositions and Judicial...

Arizona Proposition 107: Proposing an amendment to the constitution of arizona; amending the constitution of arizona; by adding article xxx; relating to the protection of marriage...

OFFICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE

proposing an amendment to the constitution of arizona; amending the constitution of arizona; by adding article xxx; relating to the protection of marriage

~[snip]~

The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment will preserve the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman” and prohibit the creation of any other legal status similar to that of marriage. It will assure that marriage is defined by the voice of the people and not by a few activist judges.

A “yes” vote will protect Arizona from having marriage radically changed to a union of any two people regardless of gender. It will affirm that both mothers and fathers play significant roles in the raising of children and that the legal union between a man and a woman deserves special status in producing the next generation of responsible citizens.

A “yes” vote will not prohibit same-sex couples or anyone else from forming relationships. It will, however, keep schools, media, organizations, religious denominations, and other societal institutions from being forced to validate, and promote same-sex “marriage”.

A “yes” vote will not invalidate anyone’s civil rights. Marriage is about bringing men and women together, not about civil rights.

A “yes” vote will not restrict private companies from voluntarily granting benefits to domestic partners, nor will it prevent domestic relationships from taking advantage of existing laws that enable these individuals to share health insurance or death benefits, designate hospital visitation rights, or grant medical durable power of attorney to anyone.

A “yes” vote will affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of a strong family and that strong families are the foundation of great nations.

~[snip]~

ARGUMENTS “FOR” PROPOSITION 107 Protect Marriage Arizona’s Statement Protect Marriage Arizona has been formed as a grassroots response to attacks on marriage in state after state. We say, “Let the people decide.” We believe Arizona citizens should be given the opportunity to vote on our state’s marriage policy, and we are confident that Arizona will join 20 other states that have voted to reaffirm the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. A state constitutional amendment provides the strongest possible legal protection for marriage against redefinition by activist state court judges. We also hope to show our national leaders that states want the opportunity to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage. Marriage between a man and woman is the basic building block of society. As the Supreme Court put it, in a case upholding laws that prevented marriage from being redefined to include polygamy, “marriage is the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.” Arizona promotes and benefits marriage because marriage between a man and a woman benefits Arizona. Children do best when they have the security of living with a married mother and father. With all the challenges to marriage in society today, the last thing Arizona needs is to redefine marriage in a way that guarantees some children will never have either a mom or a dad. Unfortunately, today’s courts seem bent on destroying that foundation. It’s time for the people to respond by voting ‘yes’ on the Protect Marriage Amendment. The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment does exactly what it is entitled to do, that is, protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. NAME, the National Association of Marriage Enhancement, encourages Arizonans to vote “Yes” on this amendment to protect, for future generations, the long-standing definition of marriage as one man and one woman. The traditional definition of marriage must be protected. Some would say marriage is a right; it is not -- it is a privilege that carries responsibilities. Society confers legal benefits to marriage, because marriage benefits society. Historically, healthy marriages have been foundational building blocks to any successful society -- Arizona included. This amendment to Arizona's constitution will affirm marriage’s traditional definition, ensuring it for future generations by prohibiting its redefinition by activist judges and others. Research indicates many benefits for children who are raised by a mother and father, including: they are more likely to succeed academically, are physically healthier, emotionally healthier, demonstrate less


* SOUTH DAKOTA *

South Dakota: 2006 Ballot Question Pamphlet Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson

South Dakota: Constitutional Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. 2006 Ballot Question Pamphlet Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson Constitutional Amendment C Title: An Amendment to Article XXI of the South Dakota Constitution, relating to marriage. Attorney General Explanation South Dakota statutes currently limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. However, the State Constitution does not address marriage. Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.

A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.

A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is.


* SOUTH CAROLINA *

South Carolina State Elections Commission - Ballot Measures 2006

South Carolina: Constitutional Amendment 1 - Marriage

SUMMARY

This amendment provides that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists only of the union between one man and one woman. No other domestic union is valid and legal. The State and its political subdivisions are prohibited from creating or recognizing any right or claim respecting any other domestic union, whatever it may be called, or from giving effect to any such right or benefit recognized in any other state or jurisdiction.

However, this amendment also makes clear it does not impair rights or benefits extended by this State, or its political subdivisions not arising from other domestic unions, nor does the amendment prohibit private parties from entering into contracts or other legal instruments. View Complete Text Information Provided by: South Carolina State Elections Commission

50 posted on 11/01/2006 8:36:07 AM PST by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Wal Mart hasn't been worth a plug since Sam died.


51 posted on 11/01/2006 8:36:54 AM PST by WKUHilltopper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

There is a considerable body of research on which they make that determination. For example, in the 1950s it was assumed that homosexuals are generally very disturbed people, unable to lead productive, stable lives. But the research of Evelyn Hooker, who studied homosexuals in her circle of acquaintances (not homosexuals in treatment or prison), demonstrated that apart from their sexual orientation, homosexuals do indeed live normal, stable lives, often in difficult and demanding professional careers.


52 posted on 11/01/2006 8:42:41 AM PST by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

My apologies for not responding to your post point by point, but I haven't got the time right now.


53 posted on 11/01/2006 8:44:24 AM PST by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero
Let me know how much he pays.

Well, a certain Paul said the "wages of sin is death." So for some folks, I recommend they shy away from the "fringe benefits" touted by the opposition spiritual employer.

As for what He actually pays: "Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'"

Still, I think servant-slaves bought off the auction block serving a mansion in heaven will be a wee better off than even one who may "gain the whole world."

54 posted on 11/01/2006 8:49:35 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

"By your logic, no company can ever be held accountable for any donation it gives, no matter how objectionable it might be."

My problem is with who does the "holding to account" and whose idea of "objectionable" are we talking about? Those phrases sound startlingly like something you might read in college handbook on "speech codes".

I have no love for the homosexual agenda but I have no love for hypocrites either. Someone hating gay people that much makes no sense to me. Quitting Wal-Mart because they gave a few bucks to some gay group? Yeah, that'll teach 'em!! How will they ever recover from the loss??

People praise her "principles". BS. Grandstanding and bragging is what I see. Let her boycott them for what they did if she feels that is the right thing to do. However, not to do the same to every other organizations who does the same makes her a hypocrite. Grandstanding and trumpeting her hypocritical actions while invoking God as endorsing her childish and hypocritcal behavior is embarrassing to me, to be quite honest.


55 posted on 11/01/2006 8:50:31 AM PST by L98Fiero (Evil is an exact science)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Other than one woman feeling good about herself, this is a total non-story.


56 posted on 11/01/2006 8:52:05 AM PST by GSWarrior (To activate this tagline please contact the moderator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FFIGHTER
The WND could write the same article about every company in the Fortune 1000. So everyone can boycott all "homosexual agenda" companies...

And your point is?

(I mean, you're not one of those folks who when you go into the voting booth & you can only choose between 2 mainstream candidates--one whose a letch versus one whose a tyrant--you wouldn't tell all of us that we can't possibly boycott both Candidate A & Candidate B, would you?)

57 posted on 11/01/2006 8:53:33 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

No problem. I await your reply at a later time.


58 posted on 11/01/2006 8:54:28 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
Other than one woman feeling good about herself, this is a total non-story.

You're right. The average conservative can't be bothered with overseeing what cauffers their retail buck is really trickling into. They'd just as soon cover their eyes & ears, hold their nose, and spend their $ wherever to feed their retail frenzy.

59 posted on 11/01/2006 8:57:48 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: NickatNite2003

=a concerted effort by marxist, socialists to bring down America from within.


60 posted on 11/01/2006 9:03:40 AM PST by PLOM...NOT! (Checking in from Wisconsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 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