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

Skip to comments.

Drew Carey Says Libertarians Can ‘Get Away’ in Hollywood, but Conservatives Pretty Much ‘Doomed’
Newsbusters ^ | 03/20/10 | Anthony Kang

Posted on 03/21/2010 7:46:16 AM PDT by 198ml

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-93 last
To: 185JHP

Yes I know. You roll the dice in Vegas but you can’t get a roll in the hay.


51 posted on 03/21/2010 9:31:54 AM PDT by John-Irish ("Shame of him who thinks of it''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Seeking the truth

I know.


52 posted on 03/21/2010 9:33:26 AM PDT by John-Irish ("Shame of him who thinks of it''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: John-Irish
Yes I know. You roll the dice in Vegas but you can’t get a roll in the hay.

Well, not legally...

54 posted on 03/21/2010 9:36:21 AM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

My impression from the article is that he’s speaking of the Hollywood mind-set, and in that respect he’s correct.


55 posted on 03/21/2010 9:38:27 AM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
Absolutely brilliant post, and one with which I agree completely. The Founding Fathers were not a bunch of drugged-out hippie hedonists. They were very clear that liberty in America would not survive if the people were not moral and did not exercise self-control.

I don't know, but I suspect that prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas because it would hurt the profits of the other vice (gambling). Most people do not like whores trolling for business in their presence, and no good neighborhood where middle-class law-abiding people live will have open solicitation going on. Drugs, gambling, and prostitution are all dangerous to stable family life, which is the basis for all civilization, including free civilization.

56 posted on 03/21/2010 9:38:27 AM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 198ml
...xcept for that fringe, radical segment known as conservatives.

Drew must have been listening to MeCain.

I guess Drew thinks...

1. Adhering to the U.S. Constitution is radical
2. Reading up on our Founding, and understanding why our nation was formulated like it was, and supporting that is radical.
3. Objecting to killing a million unborn each year is radical.
4. Thinking that each of our citizens should be able to keep the benefits of the sweat of their brow, is radical.
5. Thinking that parents are the best people to make the decisions for their children is radical.
6. Thinking our borders should be protected against the illegal hoards is radical.
7. Supporting small government and more personal responsibility is radical.
8. Supporting a business friendly environment so that more of our citizens can find work in the private sector, is radical.
9. Thinking that having more people working for the government rather than the private sector is terribly wrong is radical.
10. Thinking that our military should be so powerful that no nation would ever think of challenging it, is radical.
11. Thinking that our citizen's safety trumps the comfort of terrorist detainees is radical.
12. Thinking that a nation that was developed side by side with another, that applied itself to making a better life for it's people is better than a territory that refused to create a better life for it's people rather than try to destroy every Jew in it's neighbor nation, is radical.
13. Thinking that capitalism is better than fascism is radical.
14. Thinking the the same form of governance that has been tried and has never worked successfully with or without oppression of it's citizens, is a bad unacceptable idea, is radical.
15. Thinking that the U.S. should become energy independent and develop it's own energy resources on and off it's shores, is radical.
16. Thinking that international agreements that impair our ability to make sovereign decisions, is radical.
17. Thinking that the government should not be running over 50% of what used to be the private sector is wrong, is radical.
18. Thinking that our schools should not be teaching homosexuality to our K-12 children is radical.
19. Thinking that placing homosexual marriage on the same par with Heterosexual marriage is wrong, is radical.
20. Thinking that our nation should be a God fearing nation, is radical.

Sorry Drew, your idea of radical and mine are quite different.

57 posted on 03/21/2010 9:39:28 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (If we as Republicans can't clean up our house, who can or will? Just say no to MeCain(D).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814

Shut the hell up with the whole “you propose we bring back prohibition,” “look at all the organized crime it created” crap! Yes it’s a major problem, but that’s like the RIDICULOUS equivalent of saying “Well I have one arm missing already, let’s chop my other perfectly functioning arm just to be even.” And oh yea — there’s also that one tiny mundane detail of alcohol not being even in the SAME UNIVERSE as H or crack or Oxy or meth.


58 posted on 03/21/2010 9:40:42 AM PDT by 198ml (Speechless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
(from Wikipedia)

Since 2003, Las Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman has repeatedly stated that he favors legalization of prostitution in the city, perhaps turning East Fremont Street into a little Amsterdam. Goodman said there are pragmatic reasons to back legalized prostitution. Those include the acknowledgement that illegal prostitution is occurring and that brothels could provide safer, regulated and revenue-generating sex, he said.

59 posted on 03/21/2010 9:42:17 AM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: 198ml

Drew Carey is from Cleveland and thus not really an American.


60 posted on 03/21/2010 9:42:46 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Tax the poor. Taxes will give them a stake in society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 198ml
Shut the hell up

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel!

And oh yea — there’s also that one tiny mundane detail of alcohol not being even in the SAME UNIVERSE as H or crack or Oxy or meth.

Are you seriously asserting that alcohol abuse in the United States causes far less damage than meth abuse?

61 posted on 03/21/2010 9:46:00 AM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: 198ml
Let's suppose it were up to you...would you bring back prohibition?
62 posted on 03/21/2010 9:47:35 AM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: windcliff

ping


63 posted on 03/21/2010 9:54:58 AM PDT by stylecouncilor (What Would Jim Thompson Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814

I’m not opposed to that take on it actually. I would certainly hope that he doesn’t harbor that view.

I did not mention the amendments, particularly our right to own weapons in that list. It’s an important right to champion because it is infringed to a degree no other right is.


64 posted on 03/21/2010 9:56:07 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (If we as Republicans can't clean up our house, who can or will? Just say no to MeCain(D).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814
True. People go to Hollywood from middle America because they don't want to live in middle America. Having been an Art major, and knowing the mindset of most people in acting programs, even in middle America, there's a screening process that shoos away most people who don't "fit the mold." Considering the chances of being successful, a person almost has to be mentally unbalanced to pursue a career as an actor or actress.

So, in Hollywood, you end up with irrational people who left an area to pursue an almost insane dream. They spend most of their working career pretending to be someone other than who they actually are.

65 posted on 03/21/2010 9:57:01 AM PDT by Richard Kimball (We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
“Jon Voight is leading the conservative cause for Hollywood... “

Yep, and as far as employment, he couldn’t get arrested.

Jon has a new series on FOX this fall, called "Midland."

66 posted on 03/21/2010 10:08:40 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod (New Wizard of Oz: Pelosi as the Wicked Witch of the West & Michelle as the Wicked Witch of the East.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BlessedBeGod

Voight is one, so is Sinise. It’s a question, what’s more important, your principles or your pocketbook. Libertarians usually fail on this question.

You want a healthy family, don’t be a libertarian. Don’t tolerate the liberal social garbage that destroys people.


67 posted on 03/21/2010 10:17:34 AM PDT by BenKenobi (And into this Ring he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: bert

Are you “seriously asserting” just as many and anybody can get a dimebag of meth from every liquor store?
-are you “seriously asserting” fear of incarceration isn’t a major deterrent to some middle class whiteboy in the suburbs who may be curious about trying coke but doesn’t know how to get it and/or is too scared to?
-don’t act like you know how the drug trade works or think it’s like that in every inner city just cuz you’ve seen The Wire.


68 posted on 03/21/2010 10:26:31 AM PDT by 198ml (Speechless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814
"The same could certainly be said of alcohol. Would you bring back prohibition? "

While I realize that this is the classic libertarian "gotcha" question, I will answer by saying "no", I would not bring back prohibition.

It is easier to build a dam while the river is still but a stream. Alcohol has been around for centuries and a very small percentage of drinkers are actually alcoholics; alcohol use is readily detectable, whereas drugs can be concealed and more secretly used.

I am not condoning one over the other, but with the laws and controls in place for alcohol it is easier to track (yes, and tax) than drugs. The sale of it - and who it is sold to - can be more easily controlled.

Legalize drugs and most of our future citizens will be be stoned from sunrise to sunset. The stuff has lasting effects, and is highly addictive. The casual drug users who become addicts is far more prevalent that casual drinkers who become alcholics.

Alcohol and drugs are kindred in nature, but in practice are as drifferent as day and night.

But, I know libertarians want their drugs and will foist any argument to keep them, so what I am saying to you is a moot point, I suppose. But saying that drugs are ok because alcohol is "ok" is like a kid saying, "Bawwwww, Johnny got a new bike, why can't I have one too....bawwwww.". It's the classic liberal "I want" syndrome backed by flimsy facts and bratty excuses. .

In this life, we usually argue vehemently and come down on the side of our wants and desires, so if anyone wants to be a druggie, then be one...but it shouldn't be a plank in a political party.

Druggies and alkies are all weak people, who need a crutch to handle reallity. But my take is, if you can't handle reality while you're sober or straight, you sure as hell can't handle it while stoned....and when you sober up, guess what...reality is still there...patiently waiting on the addicts to grow up.


69 posted on 03/21/2010 10:31:43 AM PDT by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814

Of COURSE not! That ship has sailed, thus all the more reason we shouldn’t normalize the use of every other drug in today’s culture and society.

Far more destructive drugs already exist — it’s called entitlement and welfare programs — just look at Greece. Thus it’s all the more reason not to flood our homes w/ more destructive drugs.


70 posted on 03/21/2010 10:31:47 AM PDT by 198ml (Speechless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi; FrankR
You want a healthy family, don’t be a libertarian. Don’t tolerate the liberal social garbage that destroys people.

Absolutely agree 100%. And I thought post #42 was a great reasoning of how libertarians fail in their thinking.

71 posted on 03/21/2010 10:38:00 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod (New Wizard of Oz: Pelosi as the Wicked Witch of the West & Michelle as the Wicked Witch of the East.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“Unfortunately they can take years to die and can do enormous amounts of damage in the mean time.”

That is why we have a Second Amendment.


72 posted on 03/21/2010 10:48:44 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
I consider libertarians closer to the original FOunders than either Democrats or Republicans.

The only reason that libertarians do not call themselves "liberal" is that Progressives somehow appropriated that word in the early 20th century. Until then "liberal" referred to the philosophy of John Locke, which was indeed the philosophy of the Founders. Certain key concepts reasoned by Locke form the basis of the American idea of government and the rationale for its Declaration of Independence, and are incorporated directly in its founding documents. The Founders were liberals in this sense and their opponents, the Tories, were the conservatives.

Unfortunately, the language of politics has become so corrupted that it almost seems as if it were "designed to diminish the range of thought", which was the objective of Newspeak in Orwell's 1984. The words "conservative" and "liberal" have no fixed definition and mean precisely what the speaker (or hearer) intend them to mean, nothing more nor less. Unfortunately, the word "libertarian" has recently been similarly corrupted with knuckleheads as diverse as Noam Chomsky, Bill Maher, and Glenn Beck referring to themselves as liberatarian, or leaning libertarian. It may be somewhat correct for Beck since he's at least superficially partial to the Founders, but Chomsky and Maher's views align with the Founders and "real" libertarians in very few regards and only by coincidence.

"The end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom." -Locke

73 posted on 03/21/2010 11:14:17 AM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Libertarians are no more supportive of the Obama nanny state than they are of the Giuliani nanny state.

The same faux reasoning that you use to justify prohibition against vices that you do not like have been applied to beer, demon rum, Coca Cola, Big Macs, comic books, and religion. I suppose your slogan should be, “it’s not fascism when we do it.” Government is not going to create heaven on earth. But it is pretty adept at creating infernos, and that’s where your reasoning inevitably leads. Obama and Pelosi rationalize their positions in exactly the same way as you.


74 posted on 03/21/2010 11:33:00 AM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Skepolitic
"The same faux reasoning that you use to justify prohibition against vices that you do not like have been applied to beer, demon rum, Coca Cola, Big Macs, comic books, and religion. "

I don't know WTF you are talking about with your mixed metaphors, and I don't think you do either; I never heard of anyone spending their life in rehab getting unhooked from Big Macs and/or Comic books. No one robs a convenience store to get money to buy a Coca Cola, or beer...or even rum.

Regigion is spritual and has nothing to do with any of this...I don't know what you're smoking, but your reply has nothing to do with anything the rest of us have been talking about.

Pssst...I really don't care if you're a libertarian, but if you are one, then you should defend my right to speak my opinion on the subject. If you don't, then you're just another progressive...it's simple as that. It's in the Constitution...go read it.
75 posted on 03/21/2010 11:49:07 AM PDT by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Dead on.

Sane libertarians left the movement when Ayn Rand arived with her hippy commune crowd.


76 posted on 03/21/2010 11:53:01 AM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814

Got to get rid of the welfare state first, otherwise it’s not a Libertarian paradise but a Brave New World dystopia.


77 posted on 03/21/2010 11:55:48 AM PDT by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for, it matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814

Alcohol is used without serious damage by millions of people, and has been for thousands of years. It’s entrenched in our culture. There is no such thing as “safe” use of meth, which is a synthetic chemical of recent origin.


78 posted on 03/21/2010 12:08:15 PM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814
Maybe he favors it, but someone must oppose it, or it would be legal by now in a place like NV. I suspect the casino lobby figures it would be bad for business, because it might defeat their attempt to "clean" habitat where they can market gambling as a mainstream habit, and because visitors would spend on whores money they might otherwise have gambled away.
79 posted on 03/21/2010 12:15:14 PM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

make that: ‘defeat their attempt to create a “clean” habitat...’


80 posted on 03/21/2010 12:17:04 PM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814

Vegas. “Where you spend all night in the casino just trying to get ahead/and you spend all day at The Holiday Inn just trying to get out of bed’’.


81 posted on 03/21/2010 12:35:17 PM PDT by John-Irish ("Shame of him who thinks of it''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
you should defend my right to speak my opinion on the subject

I certainly agree that you have an unalienable right to an opinion and to express it at any time or by any means at your disposal. Only a statist like, say, John McCain or Van Jones would disagree.

But you are not entitled to your own facts. Progressives used the exact argument you advance to obtain passage of Amendment XVIII in 1919. Alcohol-related crime increased with its prohibition.

Lots of people have advanced arguments about regulating fatty foods, transfats, and soft drinks due to adverse health effects. You can pretty safely bet that national dietary regulation will appear in the next few years. (But I am sure you wouldn't because some people have gambling problems.) The rationale is the same as yours: some people can't help themselves, so they need a nanny government.

WRT religion, there are a lot of people in high places who think that all, or at least some, religions are destructive to social order and individual mental health. There are innumerable examples in history. Nero banned Christianity, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther, later Popes launched the Inquisitions, Calvin burned Michael Servitus at the stake, Salem had their witch trials, and the 20th century was far, far worse for people of faith. In each case, the political elites believed that they were acting positively to achieve some noble objective such as maintaining social order, preserving the salvation of individual souls, or preserving the Faith and the Church. In the incomparably evil cases of the 20th century, idealists who aspired to create a new socialist man or an ubermensche severely persecuted adherents of particular faiths. The Hitlers and Lenins of the world strongly believed Judaism and Christianity to be subversive of their ideas on social order and ridiculous, superstitious impediments to individual potential. To them the argument against allowing the continued existence of these faiths was just as persuasive as your argument against marijuana.

Psst ... I really don't care if you're a religious-right conservative, either. We probably agree on a lot of the important stuff. BTW, it was the Progressive Party that advocated Prohibition. I am way farther from the progressives than you, my friend.

82 posted on 03/21/2010 2:37:56 PM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
I will grant you that at the margin legalization of drugs will result in more people using drugs. On the other hand, it would eliminate the wasteful "war on drugs" with all its attendant costs. That's a tradeoff I'm willing to accept. If someone is such a loser that they want to ruin their life using recreational drugs, that's their business and not mine, and they're likely to do so regardless of the law in any case.

I don't care what you do as long as I don't pay for it.

83 posted on 03/21/2010 2:51:22 PM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
...and because visitors would spend on whores money they might otherwise have gambled away.

Sounds like a better expenditure of disposable income to me...

84 posted on 03/21/2010 2:52:49 PM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
There is no such thing as “safe” use of meth, which is a synthetic chemical of recent origin.

I don't think it's my (or the government's) place to tell someone which recreational drugs they should use, regardless of their vintage.

85 posted on 03/21/2010 2:54:13 PM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Got to get rid of the welfare state first

Fine with me! Not that it's going to happen, mind you.

86 posted on 03/21/2010 2:55:15 PM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
Sane libertarians left the movement when Ayn Rand arived with her hippy commune crowd.

Of all the ways I can think of to describe Objectivists, "hippy" and "commune crowd" aren't at the top of the list.

87 posted on 03/21/2010 2:56:41 PM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: 198ml
A quote from Robert A. Heinlein, quite relevant for this thread:

"Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

88 posted on 03/21/2010 3:04:35 PM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PLD

“John Vought is such a great actor..I will go to see any move he is in..”

Except that one he did the love scene with Jane Fonda. I think it was called “Coming Home.” I bet he wants to puke if he ever thinks about that love scene he did with her.


89 posted on 03/21/2010 3:16:04 PM PDT by Enough_Deceit (Proud Mama of a US Marine and a US Soldier Bitterly Hanging On to Her Guns and Religion. Ooorahh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GL of Sector 2814

“don’t care what you do as long as I don’t pay for it.”

You do pay for it, that’s the thing. All this liberal society garbage is a drag on the rest of us. I think we have a duty as good neighbours to act as a check on this trash because we certainly don’t benefit.


90 posted on 03/21/2010 3:20:52 PM PDT by BenKenobi (And into this Ring he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
You do pay for it, that’s the thing. All this liberal society garbage is a drag on the rest of us. I think we have a duty as good neighbours to act as a check on this trash because we certainly don’t benefit.

Please see my Heinlein quote is post #88. Quite relevant to what you just said!

91 posted on 03/21/2010 3:28:20 PM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (Of course this is the best of all possible worlds. I'm in it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Skepolitic
"I am way farther from the progressives than you, my friend. "

You are not entitled to YOUR own "facts" either, my friend.

Trying to make your case by implying that I lean progressive is a losing battle. The only thing you know about me is that I am NOT for illegal drugs and prostitution; but that seems to you that I'm probably tinkling in your backyard, so you're understandably upset...no one wants their lifestyles challenged.

Most of the arguments about fatty foods and soft drinks have been about getting more taxes out of people, just like the cigarette debacle.

Your post seemed articulate enough that you should not even consider equating food and soft drinks to illegal drugs. I've seen what drugs can do to families and individuals; they wreck lives and break up families. Never seen a 7-up send anyone to jail, or a Twinkie cause an overdose.

As far as your views on religion go...you've been watching Glenn Beck too much.

But, I know the me-me-me generation usually only worries about themselves, they don't care if drugs are legalized so long as it doesn't touch them or affect their own supply. Sounds like you're one of those selfish people who wants to live on "Fantasy Island" with all his toys and not be bothered by anyone.

So I'm closing the debate by surrendering to you and your right to smoke pot and wallow in your self-interests; quoting the history of the church will not stop some 12-year-old from overdosing on some illegal drugs or cause a 30-year-old with brain damage from drugs to waste away in an alley somewhere.

Your "F***'em, let'm die" attitude will sustain you through many episodes of shallow reality shows and rounds of golf...so, have a good life, and I hope your kids avoid the reality you are deeming they have a right to wallow in. Lots of times the me-me-ers don't have kids because they might have to stop being kids themselves...and utopia would disappear in a puff of marijuana smoke.
92 posted on 03/22/2010 7:23:33 AM PDT by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: 198ml
I suppose, as long as you support or “tolerate” perversion and debauchery, you are still acceptable in Hollyweird...
93 posted on 03/22/2010 7:36:10 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-93 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