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

Skip to comments.

Zogby Poll: Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schools
CNS News ^ | July 13, 2009 | Christopher Neefus

Posted on 07/14/2009 10:19:19 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

(CNSNews.com) - A Zogby poll commissioned by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, with an even higher number reported among Democrats...

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2009polls; abortion; atheismandstate; cardiffgiant; catholic; christian; corruption; creation; culturewar; darwinlegacy; education; eugenics; evolution; globalwarming; homosexualagenda; ideologyofscience; intelligentdesign; jewish; judaism; junkscience; littleredschoolhouse; parentalrights; philosophy; science; scienceeducation; scientism; socialism; theorynotfact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 07/14/2009 10:19:19 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 07/14/2009 10:19:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Can they also teach Creationism then? Oh wait... Creationism can’t be proven right? /sarc


3 posted on 07/14/2009 10:23:03 AM PDT by Mind Freed ("Every man has the right to be a fool 5 minutes a day. Wisdom is not exceeding the limit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Of course any theory’s weaknesses should be discussed— be it evolution, intelligent design, global warming, the Big Bang, etc. However, for some theories, the discussion of weaknesses would overwhelm strengths.


4 posted on 07/14/2009 10:24:59 AM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind Freed

There’s only room for one theory that can’t be proven!


5 posted on 07/14/2009 10:29:00 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou

I agree with you 100%. The only problem is that Darwinism has become a litmus test of sorts.

If you even hint at the fact that there are some problems with it — you become labeled something like a ‘Creationist’ and become treated something akin to a ‘9-11 Truther’.

It’s almost like challenging the orthodoxy of Global Warming.

Sadly science — which once tried to reveal the majesty of the cosmos and universe is becoming co-opted by those who want it to be their religion.

And as in many religions — heretics will be burned.


6 posted on 07/14/2009 10:29:21 AM PDT by rom (Obama '12 slogan: Let's keep on hopin'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
Excellent point, Clara Lou! I have never thought of it that way, and yet what you is absolutely true. Not only are the evos afraid of the positive arguments for Intelligent Design/Creation, they are deathly afraid of exploring the weaknesses of evolution because they far outweigh the strengths. Brilliant!
7 posted on 07/14/2009 10:32:45 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


8 posted on 07/14/2009 10:32:54 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The Libs, not surprisingly, have succeeded in reversing the roles in the play/movie Inherit the Wind. They have reversed the roles but for the most part they have avoided the stigma of the know- nothingism of the fundamentalist Protestants caricatured in the Spencer Tracy movie. Have you ever watched a nature show on PBS and heard the announcer say that the specie developed some mutation or other to cope with a survival threats such as a predator or climate change? They often phrase it in such a way that nature made the adaptation so that the animal could survive. This is precisely the opposite of Darwin's theory which holds that the mutations are random and not designed for survival at all. But by granting "nature" a cognitive intention, the tree huggers can substitute their own religion for the Gospels.

It is not necessary here to outline the kind of wrath that often falls upon heretics and Darwin deniers. The Liberals have reversed the roles of the Scopes Monkey Trial in every respect but they have paid no price.


9 posted on 07/14/2009 10:36:55 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Not only are the evos afraid of the positive arguments for Intelligent Design/Creation, they are deathly afraid of exploring the weaknesses of evolution because they far outweigh the strengths.

Not a fair description at all.

What is the last chapter of Origins about? The very thing you claim those who accept evolutionary theory are deathly afraid of.

10 posted on 07/14/2009 10:37:57 AM PDT by freespirited (Money doesn't buy happiness but will pay a research staff to study the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“exploring the weaknesses”

Scientists have already explored the weaknesses in evolution. And they continue to do so every day. That’s how science works.


11 posted on 07/14/2009 10:38:42 AM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

By that you refer to spontaneous generation of life ?

Turns out Loius Pasteur musta been wrong afterall............ :-)

The irony of this is so rich.

From wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

The theory was synthesized by Aristotle[1], who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.

The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented.


12 posted on 07/14/2009 10:43:31 AM PDT by lucias_clay (Its times like this I'm glad I'm a whig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rom

Darwinism is the basis of secular humanism,
so, yes, if you “question” it, you’re undermining
their religion and will be punished for it.


13 posted on 07/14/2009 10:45:20 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, save Bowman for later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“A Zogby poll commissioned by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution”

—Of course, so do I. And teachers do.

“Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture, said the findings contradict the prevailing notion that “a small group of the uneducated” – as critics charge — drove skepticism over Darwin’s theory.”

—How does it do that?

“But the new Zogby poll represents a broad-based and well-informed public consensus for academic freedom on evolution. The Darwin lobby has isolated itself from public opinion.”

—If there is such a thing as a “Darwin lobby”, I bet most of them chose “B” also.

This might be the most bizarre and misleading spin put on a poll - ever.


14 posted on 07/14/2009 10:50:11 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Hmmm,... let’s see how many posts before someone comes in claiming it’s not a legitimate poll.....


15 posted on 07/14/2009 11:03:06 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Teach the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism......great...as long as they teach Creationism!!!


16 posted on 07/14/2009 11:16:04 AM PDT by kenmcg (THE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Do they also want to discuss the strengths and weakness of the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity?


17 posted on 07/14/2009 11:18:12 AM PDT by kate in carolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenmcg

“Creationism”

Which brand of creationism do you mean?


18 posted on 07/14/2009 11:18:41 AM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: metmom

A Zogby poll? That’s gotta be bogus!
http://moderateindependent.com/v2i2zogby.htm
“ZOGBY CAUGHT IN INTERVIEW ADMITTING HIS LATEST POLL IS BUNK”


19 posted on 07/14/2009 11:26:42 AM PDT by tumblindice (Lemme see if I understand. Religion: molecular biology and paleontology; Science: tubthumping and sn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kate in carolina

We’ll leave that for your co-religionists over at the Temple of Darwin.


20 posted on 07/14/2009 11:32:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Interesting discussion going on here, if you’re interested:

chromasome fusion #2
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200907/0210.html


21 posted on 07/14/2009 11:39:50 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Obama has entered the "cracking stage" of his presidency. ~ Gagdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

ping for later


22 posted on 07/14/2009 11:51:52 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Hmmm,... let’s see how many posts before someone comes in claiming it’s not a legitimate poll.....

The poll may be legitimate, but the spin is not. The poll asks about "the scientific evidence against [the theory of evolution]," but the writer turns this into support for teaching the "weaknesses" of the theory. They're not the same thing.

23 posted on 07/14/2009 11:59:25 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Yes, GGG, I believe that the strategy of ID’ers should be to ask endless questions about the weaknesses of Naturalism. Eventually, most kids will realize that the entire theory is a house of cards. Your Fellow Mutated Paramecium, Bob


24 posted on 07/14/2009 12:45:10 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Ken Miller? The chortling, arrogant Darwinist, finds himself boxed in by simple logic? They’ll soon make up, err... think of, SOMETHING highminded and nebulous-sounding to satisfy the “educated” masses! Bob


25 posted on 07/14/2009 12:51:27 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Boxen

Yeah, which version of creationism?

Same problem exists with prayer in schools.

Which prayer?


27 posted on 07/14/2009 1:17:04 PM PDT by pikkel (Just trying to figure stuff out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Time for Eugenie Scott’s organization to run a poll and find whatever they want to find.

Can’t have the wrong people questioning Darwinism, can we?


28 posted on 07/14/2009 2:12:09 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

And do we know that the Scientifically Accepted weaknesses in Evolution are not being taught now?


29 posted on 07/14/2009 2:55:42 PM PDT by The_Repugnant_Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

*Not only are the evos afraid of the positive arguments for Intelligent Design/Creation*

You have been asked many times to provide proof to support your arguments yet you refuse to do so. Childish insults and name calling isn’t the same as proof.


30 posted on 07/14/2009 3:47:59 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

How do you define Naturalism?


31 posted on 07/14/2009 3:49:44 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Time for Eugenie Scott’s organization to run a poll and find whatever they want to find.

I like that idea! Let's see, using DI's polls as a model:

Which of these two statements comes closest to your own beliefs:

A. Science teachers should teach the best and most widely accepted scientific theories.
B. Science teachers should teach religious beliefs on an equal footing with scientific theories.

or

A. Humans are closer to chimpanzeess than to fish.
B. Humans, chimpanzees, and fish are equally related.

Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
32 posted on 07/14/2009 4:37:16 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

“Childish insults and name calling isn’t the same as proof.”

They use those in lieu of “you are going to burn in hell”.

That’s pretty much the “one-two punch” of creation science.

Go easy on them though. They can’t help it, they’re just not very bright.

I can advocate for their position better than they can, and I’m not even on their side.


33 posted on 07/14/2009 5:02:56 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
It was Zogby that did the poll not The Discovery Institute, and your attempt at impugning the poll because it does not reflect what you want it to fails just as much as trying to spin weakness in Darwinism as something other than evidence against it.

Actually I would expect the Darwinist poll to ask for a choosing of teaching Darwinism on the one hand or child abuse on the other, an idea I think will become the theme in The Temple of Darwinism.

34 posted on 07/14/2009 6:14:26 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Do you find that childish name calling helps you convert people to your cause?


35 posted on 07/14/2009 7:03:09 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

Never had a cause to seek converts for here on FR, but if calling people childish works for you, let me know.

A little touchy about “Darwinist” are you now?


36 posted on 07/14/2009 8:47:12 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
It was Zogby that did the poll not The Discovery Institute,

Zogby carried out the poll, but DI "commissioned" it. That mean DI wrote the questions and paid Zogby to call people up and ask them. They like to call it a "Zogby poll" because that makes it sound more objective than it really is. I could pay Zogby to ask people my questions, too.

I'm not impugning the poll because it doesn't reflect what I want it to, I'm impugning the writer because it doesn't say what he claims it does. And "weakness" is not the same thing as "evidence against," though I know that distinction is lost on most creationists.

37 posted on 07/14/2009 8:52:39 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

I enjoy rational debate and I have some trouble understanding why so few young Earthers debate in a rational way.


38 posted on 07/14/2009 8:53:41 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Why not ask them, I've never supported YEC. Or ask the braying, foul mouthed chorus that regularly shows up to post when GGG posts an article.
39 posted on 07/14/2009 9:19:59 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

In Darwin’s Origin Darwin discusses what he calls Difficulties on Theory and says some of the “difficulties” or just as properly, “weaknesses”, if unresolved, would be fatal to the theory. He felt they could be resolved but the point is “difficulties” was simply a mild way of saying “evidence against”.

But if you know who chose the exact wording of the questions please tell us how you know. If the questions were not objective please say how so.

No poll can be really “objective” as the pollster is a questioner not a mind reader so a poll where you would write the questions would be no better.
If you think your poll would be, go hire a polling agent.


40 posted on 07/14/2009 10:00:13 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
He felt they could be resolved but the point is “difficulties” was simply a mild way of saying “evidence against”.

I disagree with you. The weaknesses or difficulties with the theory would be questions it was (as yet) unable to answer, or implications for which there was no evidence. "Evidence against" would be observations that contradicted the theory altogether.

For example, if I were a D.A. I might have a theory that so-and-so murdered his wife. A weakness of my theory might be that I don't have the murder weapon or, if I do, I can't tie the suspect to it. Evidence against my theory might be the fact that he was out of the country when the murder was committed.

But if you know who chose the exact wording of the questions please tell us how you know.

That's what "commissioned a poll" means. Read about the poll John Ziegler commissioned of Obama voters. Ziegler:

These questions were carefully chosen to try and identify which news stories broke through the clutter and reached the average Obama voter....Though I point out that, while the inherent nature of the summarizing of complex events in a single simple question is always open for debate, I stand by the accuracy of all of them.
Pretty clear he wrote the questions. Zogby:
Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them...
Pretty clear they didn't write the questions. That's how these things work.

If the questions were not objective please say how so.

I've said a couple of times that my beef isn't with the questions, it's with what Neefus claims the results demonstrate.

41 posted on 07/14/2009 11:27:21 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

If you don’t have a problem with the poll or the questions no matter who wrote them then what “spin” did the posted article give the results of the poll that was not reflected in the responses to the poll?

So where’s the beef?


42 posted on 07/15/2009 1:36:52 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Question from the poll:

“QUESTION: Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of evolution as a scientific theory?” (caps mine)

Strongly Agree 54%
Somewhat Agree 26%
Total Agree 80%

Strongly Disagree 11%
Somewhat Disagree 6%
Total Disagree 26%
Unsure 4%

What spin?


43 posted on 07/15/2009 4:02:54 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

What a cop-out - wasn’t everyone ‘out of the country’ when macro-evolution apparently happened?!?!


44 posted on 07/15/2009 5:07:00 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
If you don’t have a problem with the poll or the questions no matter who wrote them then what “spin” did the posted article give the results of the poll that was not reflected in the responses to the poll?

Question from the poll:
“QUESTION: Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of evolution as a scientific theory?” (caps mine)

The article this thread is about says

According to the report, which was commissioned by the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, respondents were given the two following statements:

Statement A: “Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.”

Statement B: “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.”

Nothing in there about "strengths and weaknesses." As I said back in #23, the spin is that the poll (as reported) asks about "scientific evidence against," but then the writer claims that if offers support for teaching the "weaknesses of."

Now I see that the question you posted is in the full poll. (I searched on the text of the question.) This question, in fact, is not objective. The question is worded so as to actually be a question about "academic freedom" and "discussion." The DI writers immediately claim that it supports "teaching the controversy." There's a difference between discussing and teaching. I bet you'd get similar results is you asked people whether "teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss whether the Holocaust actually took place." Most people would probably say they should have the "freedom" to "discuss" it. That doesn't mean they think teachers should teach Holocaust denial as an equally valid alternative theory.

45 posted on 07/15/2009 8:50:22 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Ask yourself this: if DI wanted to find out whether people thought biology teachers should “teach the controversy” and “teach both the strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, why didn’t they just ask that straight out? Why ask one question about “scientific evidence against” and another one about “academic freedom to discuss” and then claim the results supported something they didn’t actually ask?


46 posted on 07/15/2009 8:55:34 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

But they did ask exactly that question about strengths and weaknesses that you claim is spin.


47 posted on 07/15/2009 9:05:04 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Earlier you said you weren't impugning the poll and had no “beef” with the questions, so now you do?

The article stated what the poll said and you claimed it was just spin, I pointed to the question in the poll that said what you claimed it did not and now you're unhappy with the taste of your foot.

You could’ve read the poll, it's readily available, but you didn't. This is the poll the posted article is about and what the article says about the poll IS IN the poll.

You don't like the results of the poll that the article reported, so be it, but what the article stated was accurate.

“Clearly, support for the freedom to teach the controversy about Darwinian evolution cuts across religion, party affiliation, political ideology, and educational levels.”

A quite reasonable conclusion based upon the poll results.

48 posted on 07/15/2009 9:50:47 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
But they did ask exactly that question about strengths and weaknesses that you claim is spin.

Yes, they asked a question phrased with a couple of buzzwords likely to skew the response. That's the spin.

I'll go through this one more time, but then I'll stop banging my head against this particular wall.

Their headline claims that "Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schools." But they never asked that.

Their writeup claims that "more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution." But that's not really the case either--they asked about "students and teachers" discussing the issue. "Students and teachers discussing" sounds like it could be a classroom roundtable or the answer to a student's question; "teachers discussing" sounds like teaching. Since their report immediately claims support for "teaching" the controversy, you know what conclusion they want you to draw.

Furthermore, the words "have the academic freedom to" in the question skews its meaning. If they wanted to know whether teachers should discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory, why didn't they just ask that? (Hint: because if you ask Americans if they support "academic freedom," they'll probably say yes.)

49 posted on 07/15/2009 9:56:46 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Didn't see this before my last reply.

You could’ve read the poll, it's readily available, but you didn't.

Acknowledged. The poll is not linked from the article at the top of this thread, and originally I was just commenting on what was in the article.

You don't like the results of the poll that the article reported, so be it, but what the article stated was accurate.

No, it's not, and my criticisms have nothing to do with whether I like the results or not. I'd say that your inability to see the flaws in the poll and its interpretation is due to the fact that you do like the results.

50 posted on 07/15/2009 10:21:39 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 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