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

Skip to comments.

Georgia, Tom Coburn Call for Constitutional Convention
Slate ^ | 2/6/14 | Dave Weigel

Posted on 02/07/2014 9:04:18 AM PST by taildragger

Two months ago, Emma Roller and I wrote about the possibly historic Assembly of the States in Mount Vernon. Momentum had been building oh-so-slowly on the right for a new, state-led constitutional convention, which could pass amendments far quicker than the Congress could. (And no one sees a scenario, any time soon, where there'll be 67 conservative votes in the Senate to pass amendments.) The reaction: Largely just a lot of doubt that this would come to anything.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: 17th; article5; corburn; levin; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-135 next last
WHEREAS, the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending; and

WHEREAS, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent; and

WHEREAS, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, it is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty of our people, particularly for the generations to come, by proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power.

I'm sure that every state in the Union would pass a Constitutional amendment. The trouble is that it would not be the same amendment.

In related news, Jon Ward talked to retiring Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who'll be a private citizen in 10 months. His plans? "I'm going to be involved with the Convention of States. I'm going to try to motivate so that that happens. I think that's the only answer. I'm just going to go around and talk about why it's needed, and try to convince state legislatures to do it."

That would be helpful to the cause. Glenn Beck has his audience, but the mainstream media sees him as a duplicitous clown. (Really, how many times can he make news for apologizing about his tone, from back when he was famous?) Mark Levin is an icon on the right, but a shrill radio host who refers to the next Democratic presidential nominee as "Hillary Rotten Clinton" and "her thighness" might not be an ideal intellectual ambassador. But Coburn? There's a chair molded to fit him on the set of Morning Joe.

1 posted on 02/07/2014 9:04:18 AM PST by taildragger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: taildragger
Mark Levin noted last night on his show, Sen Coburn didn't retire because of his health but to go out across the Country and promote the Article 5 movement.

IMHO this is big news and no one is discussing it.

A former Senator leaves a dysfunctional body to champion it's ultimate fix...

2 posted on 02/07/2014 9:06:15 AM PST by taildragger (The E-GOP won't know what hit them, The Party of Reagan is almost here, hang tight folks....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

Be careful what you wish for. In this era of the low information voter and the ascendency of the entitlement mentality an constitutional convention could backfire big time. Once started there’s no way to predict where it will go.


3 posted on 02/07/2014 9:10:32 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
It's not a constitutional convention, it's a convention of states per article V of the Constitution. It requires 2/3rds of the states to draft an amendment and 3/4s of the states to ratify that amendment.

It is NOT a free-for-all.

/johnny

4 posted on 02/07/2014 9:17:29 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

It’s a convention of the states, where 2/3s of the states have to send delegates on a specific subject. Any amendments have to get approved by 3/4ths of the states. It’s highly controlled and highly unlikely left-wing ideas would get through that process. Hell, it’s tough to get wildly popular ideas like term limits through that process.


5 posted on 02/07/2014 9:19:34 AM PST by ilgipper (Obama is proving that very bad ideas can be wrapped up in pretty words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
Georgia, Tom Coburn Call for Constitutional Convention

I don't believe anyone is calling for a Constitutional Convention.

But

a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution

But this is Slate; that explains the misinfomation.


6 posted on 02/07/2014 9:19:53 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your teaching is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Article V
ping-a-ling


7 posted on 02/07/2014 9:20:21 AM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!

IT IS A CONVENTION TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS!


8 posted on 02/07/2014 9:20:40 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

The senator needs to add an amendment to the existing constitution not have a constitutional convention. Opening up a CC will open all the constitution up to revision to include changing existing amendments as there is no control over want can be reviewed in a CC (loss of the second anyone?).

The progressives want this more than any other method as they will likely do anything pack the convention vote as this is simpler than changing the minds of the many to get what they want.

This will let our enemies do their best to undermine and influence the changes to our constitution; I believe that the kleptocractic politicians and “social leaders” will take great amounts of money for their vote and screw us in the process.

If this is the best idea, then the dissolving of the United states is certain.


9 posted on 02/07/2014 9:20:42 AM PST by Liaison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
No disrespect to you, but "bring it".

What I've been confiding to my wife in private is that it's time to just shut this country down and start over.

Either we can get back to the Constitution or something else can happen. "Let it begin here."

Call everyone else in the world and ax them if they wouldn't mind if we just took a time out lasting a year or so and get back to them.

I'd never say such a thing in public forum, of course. /s

10 posted on 02/07/2014 9:21:32 AM PST by OKSooner ("As the riders went on by him, he heard one call his name...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Thank you for clarifying the situation that it is not a CC. whewwwww!!!


11 posted on 02/07/2014 9:22:06 AM PST by Liaison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Once a national convention is convened by 2/3’d of the states then they can offer any amendments to the constitution they want. If 3/4 of the states vote to pass any such amendment then it becomes part of the constitution. Once that convention has been convened everything can be on the table. Very risky in this day of the LIV and entitlement crowd who may be the majority.


12 posted on 02/07/2014 9:23:12 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Well said!

The real problem that we face was illustrated in the post that you replied to.

Uninformed individuals need to be brought up to speed.


13 posted on 02/07/2014 9:24:05 AM PST by Howie66 (Molon Labe, Traitors!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

The founders, particularly Madison, pushed for and got this option into the Constitution precisely because they feared one day that the Federal body would become corrupt and without such an option, there would be no means or avenue for the states to respond and remedy the issue short of by force of arms.

That day has arrived.

Yes, certainly it is an option which the very same progressives, socilaiists, marxists, etc. will try and coopt. First they will try and have it absolutely ignored. But should it appear to be gaining traction, they will then try to demonize anyone associaed with it, and failing that, they will try desperately to get their own people in there to use it as a means to continue to advance their agenda.

However, the current course we are on has shown a not only increasing allowance for uncosntitutional acts by the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislative branches of the Federal Government (IOW, by the entire Federal Government), but at an accellerating rate.

There is little hope that an appeal to those bodies will result in any meaningful halt...though we must oursleves, through good candidates and movements like the Tea Party continue to avail ourselves of that option as well.

But, at this point, I have more faith in the states themselves controlling the attendees, than I do in the Congress...and particularly the Senate at this point.

IMHO, we need to put the pressure on, and heavily, from both directions, and pray to God in Heaven, as our founders did, for His help as we give our all in maintianing our liberties and restoring our constitutional government.

AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm


14 posted on 02/07/2014 9:24:52 AM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
"It’s highly controlled and highly unlikely left-wing ideas would get through that process."

I don't know why that's so "unlikely" in a country that elected Obama twice. Especially one that reelected him despite his terrible track record. I think its a VERY risky proposition.

15 posted on 02/07/2014 9:25:32 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: taildragger; All
The Constitution isn't broke, so let's not "fix" it by amending it.

The main problem with the Constitution, imo, is actually dishonest pro-big federal government interpretations of it which the crooks running DC get away with as a consequence of inexcusable, widespread ignorance of the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.

What needs to be done to restore state sovereignty is to impeach a bunch of crooks in DC. The problem is that the "leaders" in DC who have the power to impeach the crooks are themeselves crooks who also need to be impeached.

What patriots need to do instead of crying for the Constitution to be amended is the following. They need to work to elect a 2/3 conservative majority in each House of Congress in the 2014 elections. If they succeed then Congress will be positioned as follows.

Congress controlled by a conservative supermajority will have the power, under the Constitution's Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I, to override presidential vetoes. In other words, Congress will be able to repeal Obamacare Democratcare, for example, without Obama's signature.

16 posted on 02/07/2014 9:25:55 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liaison

“If this is the best idea, then the dissolving of the United states is certain.”

I have some news for you, neighbor. It has already begun.

The question is, are you prepared to stand in defense of our Freedom and Liberty?


17 posted on 02/07/2014 9:26:53 AM PST by Howie66 (Molon Labe, Traitors!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
The State legislatures select who goes to the convention. The enabling legislation I've seen from several states is very tightly controlled, including felonies for any delegate that oversteps their authority.

You really need to do some research on what has been going on for several years.

/johnny

18 posted on 02/07/2014 9:28:57 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OKSooner
"No disrespect to you, but "bring it".

No disrespect taken. I'm just making the point that such an event would be very, very risky and we could lose big time. BUT, have we reached the point where taking such a risk has become absolutely necessary? - I think we very well may have. I'm not saying don't do it, just make sure your eyes are open to the stakes at risk before you do.

19 posted on 02/07/2014 9:29:49 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
"The State legislatures select who goes to the convention. The enabling legislation I've seen from several states is very tightly controlled, including felonies for any delegate that oversteps their authority."

And why would you think that liberal states won't participate and send very liberal delagates to such a convention? How are you going limit such a convention to just the conservative state delagates you prefer? The libs could certainly co-opt such a convention.

20 posted on 02/07/2014 9:32:00 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

If the commies running the state and local governments give up the enormous federal funding first, we might begin to trust them more.


21 posted on 02/07/2014 9:33:36 AM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
2/3rds of the states don't have liberal legislatures.

This has been in the works for a long time. Your objections show you to be 'low-information' on the subject.

Do some research.

/johnny

22 posted on 02/07/2014 9:34:17 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
"Yes, certainly it is an option which the very same progressives, socilaiists, marxists, etc. will try and coopt. First they will try and have it absolutely ignored. But should it appear to be gaining traction, they will then try to demonize anyone associaed with it, and failing that, they will try desperately to get their own people in there to use it as a means to continue to advance their agenda."

And that is a very real risk that could end up backfiring on conservatives and give the progressive socialists everything they want. BUT, as I noted above, have we reached a point where it is a risk worth taking? Have we reached the point where ultimately the socialists will get what they want anyway if we don't take action now? I think we may very well have. But let's not be deluded as to the ultimate stakes we are playing for here.

23 posted on 02/07/2014 9:37:24 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

There are nearly no conservatives in state and local governments.


24 posted on 02/07/2014 9:38:35 AM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
"2/3rds of the states don't have liberal legislatures. This has been in the works for a long time."

You have much more confidence in that than I have. And I don't know what "has been in the works for a long time" adds to the argument. Various people have been talking about constitutional convention for various reasons for two hundred years but that doesn't make it a less risky proposition. In fact, the most common objection to this idea over the years has been the great risk involved of limiting the result once you let the genie out of the bottle.

25 posted on 02/07/2014 9:41:19 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
" ...such an event would be very, very risky and we could lose big time. BUT, have we reached the point where taking such a risk has become absolutely necessary? - I think we very well may have. I'm not saying don't do it, just make sure your eyes are open to the stakes at risk before you do.. "

Something like that must have been what my dad said in 1942 when he hopped on that bus and made the short, fateful ride from Durant, OK, over to Fort Sill.

I think you're right on the money. One last chance to save the country by acceptable means...

"Let it begin here."

26 posted on 02/07/2014 9:42:13 AM PST by OKSooner ("As the riders went on by him, he heard one call his name...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Really? I beg to differ. Texas certainly doesn't have a liberal legislature. How many States refused to set up Obamacare exchanges?

/johnny

27 posted on 02/07/2014 9:44:19 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
It is not a constitutional convention. It is an article V convention of the states. The two are completely different animals.

Do some research.

/johnny

28 posted on 02/07/2014 9:45:32 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

Morning Joe? Who listens to Morning Joe? Up until then you had some good stuff going.


29 posted on 02/07/2014 9:46:11 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

A convention either fixes the problems or it brings them to a head. Either way, I think it is our best chance to avoid a 40 slump into socialism/tyranny.


30 posted on 02/07/2014 9:47:39 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
"It is not a constitutional convention. It is an article V convention of the states. The two are completely different animals. Do some research. /johnny"

I don't see a difference. An article 5 convention a convention convened by 2/3 of the states for the purpose of offering constitutional amendments. There are no established rules for conducting or limiting such a convention once it has been convened. Thus, I don't know how you couldn't call it a constitutional convention.

31 posted on 02/07/2014 9:49:23 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

LIVs do not vote on amendments. States do.

And more than 30 of the states are conservative.

It will be Game-Set-Match of conservatives over liberals.


32 posted on 02/07/2014 9:51:16 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

> “I don’t know why that’s so “unlikely” in a country that elected Obama twice.”

Again because the voters do not vote for amendments, states do.


33 posted on 02/07/2014 9:54:23 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: familyop
There are nearly no conservatives in state and local governments

There are plenty. It's an entirely different deal at the state level. For instance, here in Missouri, we get subjected to Senators like McCaskill and governors like Nixon because the cities produce enough popular votes to elect them. However, the legislature in Missouri is a Republican supermajority in both chambers, and a conservative one at that. State legislatures have a tendency to offset the voting power of the urban areas because they encompass every area of a state--even the conservative ones. In some places, like California, yeah it's a lost cause because it's been lost to liberals. However, in some states with huge liberal urban areas and more conservative areas elsewhere, the state legislatures don't reflect how places vote in statewide elections.

34 posted on 02/07/2014 9:55:19 AM PST by gopno1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
The Constitution isn't broke, so let's not "fix" it by amending it.

I beg to differ.

There are two issues where, though it might not be broken, it needs amendment:

1. Human Rights Amendment - Life begins at Conception
2. Anti-gay Marriage Amendment - Marriage is between one man and one woman.
35 posted on 02/07/2014 9:56:29 AM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
Momentum had been building oh-so-slowly on the right for a new, state-led constitutional convention, which could pass propose amendments far quicker than the Congress could. (And no one sees a scenario, any time soon, where there'll be 67 conservative votes in the Senate to pass propose amendments.)

Sloppy writing or intentionally misleading?

-PJ

36 posted on 02/07/2014 9:57:16 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Did you see the conservative Tea Party tsunami at the state level in the 2010 election?

It was the biggest massacre of liberals at the state level in American history.

The country is still conservative at the grassroots.


37 posted on 02/07/2014 9:58:18 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Intentionally misleading. The liberals need to keep low-information conservatives confused about the difference to keep it from happening.

/johnny

38 posted on 02/07/2014 10:00:18 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012
I don't believe anyone is calling for a Constitutional Convention. But a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution But this is Slate; that explains the misinfomation.

Uri’el-2012, I could have changed the title, however I wanted to report it as they did. It is a shame Slate flubbed the title that bad and that it got some here riled up as well...

39 posted on 02/07/2014 10:00:42 AM PST by taildragger (The E-GOP won't know what hit them, The Party of Reagan is almost here, hang tight folks....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
"Did you see the conservative Tea Party tsunami at the state level in the 2010 election?"

And what did it get us? The most liberal and anti-conservative Republican Speaker and House leadership ever. Again, be careful what you wish for.

40 posted on 02/07/2014 10:02:13 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

It was suggested you do some research. There are rules for a Convention to propose amendments.

The first rule in a COS is that any amendment that passes must have approval of 2/3s of the states. That is itself is a tight control.

The second rule is that 3/4s of the states must ratify any passed amendment before the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. That is a high bar but not for conservatives. Conservatives still control the majority of the states.

A CC is called to draw up or revise a Constitution. A COS merely amends the existing Constitution if any amendment can get past 38 states.

There is NO CHANCE of a runaway convention. The rules are clear.


41 posted on 02/07/2014 10:04:06 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

Here’s my proposal:

WHEREAS, the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending; and

WHEREAS, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent; and

WHEREAS, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, it is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty of our people, particularly for the generations to come, by proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power.

THEREFORE, let is be resolved that henceforth, the Federal Government, and the Courts, shall actually follow the Constitution as it exists.


42 posted on 02/07/2014 10:04:48 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

I said at the “state level”. Do you have a reading problem? Apparently so!


43 posted on 02/07/2014 10:06:21 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
"LIVs do not vote on amendments. States do. And more than 30 of the states are conservative."

There are plenty of LIVs populating State legislatures. Furthere there are plenty of "conservatives" that have thier liberal side. Many social conservatives are not necessarily economic conservatives and vice versa. Once a convention gets convened there's no limit to the wheeling and dealing which will take place. Would a staunch "pro-life" delagate be willing to trade the 2nd amendment for an anti-abortion amendment? Like I said, once the genie is out of the bottle there's no way to insure where this thing is going to go. I'm not saying don't do it but if you do then make sure your eyes are open.

44 posted on 02/07/2014 10:08:00 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
"The first rule in a COS is that any amendment that passes must have approval of 2/3s of the states. That is itself is a tight control. The second rule is that 3/4s of the states must ratify any passed amendment before the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. That is a high bar but not for conservatives. Conservatives still control the majority of the states."

So the only procedural and substantive guidance we have is the numbers necessary to open the convention and to pass amendments. That's not a lot to go on. Everything else is wide open.

45 posted on 02/07/2014 10:10:03 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: circlecity; Hostage
And what did it get us? The most liberal and anti-conservative Republican Speaker and House leadership ever. Again, be careful what you wish for.

Illogical and Defeatist.

What are you going to do, sit on the side of the road and cry?

Or elect more liberal representatives?

NO!

YOu get back into the fight and further crush the left out of the GOP.
46 posted on 02/07/2014 10:11:38 AM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

> “There are plenty of LIVs populating State legislatures.”

Not in the conservative states that were swept by the Teap Party groups in the 2010 elections.

It’s obvious you’re blowing smoke now.


47 posted on 02/07/2014 10:11:51 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
"A CC is called to draw up or revise a Constitution. A COS merely amends the existing Constitution if any amendment can get past 38 states."

So, both use the same process to amend an existing constitution. I see no difference for a country that already has a constitution. The only fixed rules are the numbers required to begin and complete the process. Everything else is wide open.

48 posted on 02/07/2014 10:12:40 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Your comment reads almost (but not quite as bad) like the super-ignorant ones on Slate. Please, I hope we have a higher order of member here on Free Republic.


49 posted on 02/07/2014 10:13:43 AM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

> “So the only procedural and substantive guidance we have is the numbers necessary to open the convention and to pass amendments. That’s not a lot to go on. Everything else is wide open.”

38 states is not a lot to go on? Make an appointment with your neurologist, there’s a concern showing here that you need to have your head examined.

> “Everything else is wide open.”

Yeah? Like what? Name one thing!


50 posted on 02/07/2014 10:14:30 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-135 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