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

Skip to comments.

Police want pot crusader barred from stations
edmontoncanada.com ^ | 8.12.03 | Derrick Penner

Posted on 08/12/2003 12:47:25 PM PDT by freepatriot32

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-219 next last
To: presidio9
Yet another righteous observation with someone who morally equates laws against mind destroying drugs with slavery.

Pssst....don't generalize. It weakens your argument. Marijuana does not kill brain cells. Alcohol does. You should specify which "mind destroying" drugs you're talking about.

101 posted on 08/13/2003 9:53:39 AM PDT by Sir Gawain (Too much Bozo Spew broke my bozo filter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; Protagoras
Marijuana was legal for quite some time in this country. Are you willing to say that drug use has decreased since marijuana was made illegal?
102 posted on 08/13/2003 9:57:55 AM PDT by Sir Gawain (Too much Bozo Spew broke my bozo filter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Provide evidence to the contrary or accept it as fact

LOL, nice try dopey.

You beat you wife everyday. Provide evidence to the contrary or accept it as fact.

Pro Drug activists than yourself

I hate drugs as much as I hate liars, like you. Moral slob.

103 posted on 08/13/2003 9:58:47 AM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
pssst> Marijuana has been conclusively linked to scizophrenia.
104 posted on 08/13/2003 9:58:53 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Once again: It is a FACT drinking fell during Prohibition. You strongest desires can not change that FACT.
105 posted on 08/13/2003 10:00:05 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
To: Sir Gawain
Please provide evidence for your research.

Provide evidence to the contrary or accept it as fact.

LOL, funny how quickly your own words show what a goof you truly are. As well as a liar and a moral slob.

106 posted on 08/13/2003 10:02:43 AM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Once again: It is a FACT false that drinking fell during Prohibition. You strongest desires can not change that FACT.
107 posted on 08/13/2003 10:03:56 AM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
For the purposes of this thread, I have no opinion on the legality of alcohol. I will, however, point out that alcohol use fell by 50% during Prohibition.

But crime related to alcohol increased by 100%. Which would you like: more criminals or more people that use mood altering substances?

108 posted on 08/13/2003 10:10:49 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
My answer was not dishonest. Rather, it was the correct meaning as used in biblical context. Otherwise, as you have noted the broader primary definition or rather scientific classification may include indigestible items. In choosing this definition as your interpretation it is as if you are using science and deceptive word play to call God a liar.

My answer was not self serving. It should be a duty for freedom loving Republicans to keep government from imposing upon individuals, through force and coercion, arbitrary puritanical beliefs that are contrary to established religious facts, beliefs and scripture.

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time;
the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1774.

It is simple fascist ignorance to believe that this herb bearing a seed is just a weed to be eradicated when it just so happens that its seed contains the most complete and absorbable combination of amino acids required by the human body for sustenance of any plant on the face of Earth

It was God which gave us free will.
Satan, the adversary, attempts to make us use it adversely to the will of God. Since God made herb, saw that it was good and gave it to man then those that wish to eradicate it are opposed to the will of God.

109 posted on 08/13/2003 10:12:27 AM PDT by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
So now you know more about drug use than Ozzie, who says that pot use led his son jack to try harder drugs?

Abusing chemicals for most of one’s life does not make one a Chemist.

Being a psychotic does not make one a Psychiatrist.

110 posted on 08/13/2003 10:14:53 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
So drugs are potentially bad for you then?

Life in general is potentially bad for you since we all die.

111 posted on 08/13/2003 10:16:28 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Sure, and more and more people are pro-war on drugs too. Contrary to your naive brush-offs, I have a lot of first hand drug addicts. All of them started with pot. Many can not stand alcohol.

Just because someone that is willing to use hard drugs also used pot does not prove a causal relationship.

Let’s examine other correlations

All users of hard drugs have a beating heart. Unlike pot use – the correlation between people with beating hearts and hard drug use is a perfect 100% therefore having a beating hearts leads to hard drug use. (BTW: there is 0% hard drug use among people that do not have beating hearts).

Starting to see the folly of unwarranted correlations?

112 posted on 08/13/2003 10:24:57 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Spelling is the last refuge of people with no intelligent rejoinder in this forum.

Claiming people are on drugs is the second to the last refuge of people with no intellegent rejoinder in this forum.

113 posted on 08/13/2003 10:34:30 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Laws against 'mind-destroying drugs'(LOL!) are not morally equivalent to slavery.

Nor are laws against possession of fire-arms morally equivalent to cannibalism.

One really must learn to make distinctions - it's the first sign of practical intelligence.
114 posted on 08/13/2003 10:34:55 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"Less people drank during Prohibition."

Are you going to lobby our elected officials to bring back alcohol prohibition?
115 posted on 08/13/2003 10:48:35 AM PDT by Stew Padasso (pro-rock.com - bsnn.net - libertyteeth.com - BFD - Puff Puff Ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Claiming people are on drugs is the second to the last refuge of people with no intellegent rejoinder in this forum.

Riiight... So why am I the only one making intelligent points here. Either you guys are all stupid, your stance has no defensible merit, or you are all under the influence of some mind altering substance. Which is it?

116 posted on 08/13/2003 11:25:27 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Are you going to lobby our elected officials to bring back alcohol prohibition?

Not at all. Just pointing out the stupidity of potheads who think Prohibition was repealed because it wasn't working. It was repealed because a majority of Americans wanted alcohol legal.

117 posted on 08/13/2003 11:27:08 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
You agree claiming people are on drugs is the second to last refuge of people with no intelligent rejoinder in this forum and then in the same message you speculate that everybody that does not agree with your opinion must be stupid or on drugs.

Amazing.

118 posted on 08/13/2003 11:31:35 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
"Riiight..." = sarcasm.


Look into it.
119 posted on 08/13/2003 11:35:09 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Not at all. Just pointing out the stupidity of potheads who think Prohibition was repealed because it wasn't working. It was repealed because a majority of Americans wanted alcohol legal.

Let me get this straight, are you claiming alcohol prohibition was a great success? And you have the nerve to speculate that other people may be stupid.

120 posted on 08/13/2003 11:35:41 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Read more carefully: The idea that Prohibition was repealed because "it wasn't working" is a pothead myth.

"Prohibition was a great success" is your own personal opinion, not mine.
121 posted on 08/13/2003 11:45:10 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Read more carefully: The idea that Prohibition was repealed because "it wasn't working" is a pothead myth. "Prohibition was a great success" is your own personal opinion, not mine.

Maybe you need to think this one out.

You claim “alcohol prohibition wasn't working" is a myth therefore alcohol prohibition must have been successfully working (in your mind) - that would make it a success (based on your logic). Your only point of argument would the word "great"

Your statements are not very well thought out - you shoot from the hip.

Alcohol prohibition is was dismal failure just as marijuana prohibition is a dismal failure.

122 posted on 08/13/2003 11:59:49 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"Riiight..." = sarcasm. Look into it.

So when you claimed you were making intelligent points, that was pure sarcasm. Now I understand.

123 posted on 08/13/2003 12:02:41 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Wrong again. I claim that Prohibition did not end because it wasn't working. It ended because a majority of Americans disagreed with the law. That is exactly the way it happened. You are the one trying to tie the end of Prohibition to its success/failure. Unfortunately, that's not the way it happened.
124 posted on 08/13/2003 12:07:17 PM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"Bear in mind this sacred principle,
that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail,
that will to be rightful must be reasonable;
that the minority possess their equal rights,
which equal law must protect,
and to violate would be
oppression."

--Thomas Jefferson
125 posted on 08/13/2003 12:07:48 PM PDT by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Of course Prohibition was working!!!

Thousands of gangsters and crooked politicians, judges, and cops were doing 'swell', in the slang of the era.

Prohibition, like slavery, is an historical scandal for America. So is the WOD.

Deal with it.

126 posted on 08/13/2003 12:12:44 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Right. But Prohibition ended when a majority of Americans said "Enough. I want a drink." This will never happen with Marijuana.
127 posted on 08/13/2003 12:14:03 PM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
I missed the part about a right to smoke pot in the Constitution.
128 posted on 08/13/2003 12:14:57 PM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Preamble: ...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

Amendment V: nor shall (anyone) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the PEOPLE.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Nowhere in the Constitution is it enumerated what one may put into ones body. Therefore, that right is reserved for the states or the people. However, since God has already specified in the Bible what one may consume, it is, in fact, the People’s God given right.

129 posted on 08/13/2003 12:16:54 PM PDT by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Besides, I was referring to your majority rule post.
130 posted on 08/13/2003 12:23:11 PM PDT by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Wrong again. I claim that Prohibition did not end because it wasn't working.

One again THINK!!!!! If prohibition wasn’t “wasn’t working” then it ipso facto was successfully working.

BTW: while alcohol consumption did go down during prohibition in the beginning, near the end alcohol use began to increase as the illegal channels became more efficient. Prohibition made crime increase dramatically and it empowered organized crime. Americans disagreed with the law because it wasn’t working and they wanted to drink. I have seen no source of credible information that claims prohibition worked.

You are the one trying to tie the end of Prohibition to its success/failure. Unfortunately, that's not the way it happened.

In your mind only.

From the CATO Institute:

Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure

by Mark Thornton (Mark Thornton is the O. P. Alford III Assistant Professor of Economics at Auburn University.)

National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment"--was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure

More

I will take the CATO Institute and an Auburn University Professor over “presidio9 says so”

131 posted on 08/13/2003 12:25:40 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Right. But Prohibition ended when a majority of Americans said "Enough. I want a drink." This will never happen with Marijuana.

Now presidio9 claims to be able to see into the future.

132 posted on 08/13/2003 12:28:14 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
You're implying that a successful criminal scheme, once entrenched, is immovable, so long as it doesn't inconvenience a majority.

I'm a trifle more optimistic than you.
133 posted on 08/13/2003 12:31:40 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
My link do not work - I will try again:

This is the link to "Alcohol Prohibition was a Failure" on the CATO Institute website:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

134 posted on 08/13/2003 12:31:59 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"Once again: It is a FACT drinking fell during Prohibition. You strongest desires can not change that FACT."

can you please provide a source for this?

thanks in advance

135 posted on 08/13/2003 12:44:55 PM PDT by bc2 (http://www.thinkforyourself.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
You want all these posions made legal

Just like the poison alcohol is legal---because banning it failed miserably, just as the War On Some Drugs is failing.

136 posted on 08/13/2003 12:49:28 PM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Just pointing out the stupidity of potheads who think Prohibition was repealed because it wasn't working.

'Republican opponents of the law, headed by Columbia University president Nicholas Murray Butler, James Wadsworth, and Henry Curran, urged the platform committee to admit the failure of the Eighteenth Amendment. "We ask this not only for the practical reason that Federal prohibition, after eight years of trial, is doing more and more harm and less and less good-that it just doesn't work -which is a fact that you and I and everybody else knows," said AAPA president Curran. "Our plea rests on higher ground than that. It goes far beyond all questions of liquor traffic. It rests on the safety of the Constitution itself." He explained, "The introduction of this solitary sumptuary statute into our Constitution has already nullified the very spirit of that well-tried instrument. The prohibition amendment is more than a meddling barnacle on the framework of our ship of state. It is a direct puncture in the sound hull of local self-government by our local sovereign states."'

'[...] The Anti-Saloon League, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals, the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, and lesser groups made their standard dry or wet arguments. Grayson Murphy made a statement typical of the nearly two dozen AAPA officers and directors who spoke: "In the first place, the eighteenth amendment is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the rest of the Constitution.... [This] has led to all sorts of government acts which are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution ... [and] more crime, more corruption, more hypocrisy than any other law or set of sumptuary laws I have ever heard of in the world."" One of the few fresh approaches came from AAPA research director John Gebhart, who presented an impressive array of evidence on the evil effects of prohibition. He documented increases of drunkenness and crime since 1920, the adverse impact of prohibition on the legal and penal system, and the economic burdens of the law. Gebhart revealed a new study showing rises in both alcohol consumption and liquor prices since 1920. Prohibition had not stopped drinking, Gebhart concluded; it only increased costs to consumers and diverted profits into the hands of criminals." [...]

'[...]in 1929 an independent and effective women's repeal organization, the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform, appeared to challenge old assumptions.

'The spirit propelling this organization was Pauline Morton Sabin of New York. [...] The ineffectiveness of the law, the apparent decline of temperate drinking, and the growing prestige of bootleggers troubled her even more. Mothers, she explained, had believed that prohibition would eliminate the temptation of drinking from their children's lives, but found instead that "children are growing up with a total lack of respect for the Constitution and for the law.""

'In later statements, she elaborated further on her objections to prohibition. With settlement workers reporting increasing drunkenness, she worried, "The young see the law broken at home and upon the street. Can we expect them to be lawful?"" Mrs. Sabin complained to the House Judiciary Committee: "In preprohibition days, mothers had little fear in regard to the saloon as far as their children were concerned. A saloon-keeper's license was revoked if he were caught selling liquor to minors. Today in any speakeasy in the United States you can find boys and girls in their teens drinking liquor, and this situation has become so acute that the mothers of the country feel something must be done to protect their children."" Finally, she opposed federal involvement in matters of personal conduct." National prohibition, in sum, seemed to Pauline Sabin to be undermining American youth, the orderly, law-observing habits of society, and the principles of personal liberty and decentralized government, all important elements in the world of this conservative, upper-class, politically active woman.'

- Repealing National Prohibition, by David Kyvig, Copyright 1979 by the University of Chicago

137 posted on 08/13/2003 1:19:53 PM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I have a lot of first hand drug addicts. All of them started with pot. Many can not stand alcohol.

"A recent study by Columbia University's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, states that the earlier children use the gateway drugs tobacco or alcohol[...], the more likely they are to move on to other drugs. Youth who drank alcohol were 50 times more likely to use cocaine, and those who smoked tobacco cigarettes were 19 times as likely to use cocaine." - Drug Watch International Position Statement

138 posted on 08/13/2003 1:24:07 PM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
It is disengenuous to place blame in the substance by calling it a gateway drug while recognizing that those headed in the direction of hard drugs begins at an early stage in life and may therefore be predestined.
139 posted on 08/13/2003 7:55:45 PM PDT by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
disingenuous
(typo)
140 posted on 08/13/2003 7:57:35 PM PDT by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
An earlier post by you today:

You had to go back 5 days to find that.

You really need to stop worshiping Ozzy Osbourne, put down the booze, and get a life.

141 posted on 08/14/2003 2:06:12 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill (Police state? What police state?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
It is disengenuous to place blame in the substance by calling it a gateway drug

I don't---studies like the one I cited mistake correlation for causation. Occam's Razor discards the "gateway theory" in favor of the explanation that earlier use of one drug and later use of another have a common cause in a predisposition to alter one's mental state.

I cited that passage on "gateway" alcohol and tobacco to point out to presidio9 and other WODdies that if they argue for retaining the marijuana ban because it's a "gateway drug" then they must also support the banning of alcohol and tobacco on the same grounds.

142 posted on 08/14/2003 5:53:57 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
You had to go back 5 days to find that.

10 or 11 posts. Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk. You have nothing intelligent to say, so you make a big deal about typos. But there's a problem: You are human like the rest of us, and just as guilty of typos from time to time. The difference is that since you have made typos out to be the height of stupididity, when you make one yourself you end up looking like the complete drug-addict jackass loser that we all know you are.

143 posted on 08/14/2003 6:06:53 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Please prove that that study took place.
144 posted on 08/14/2003 6:07:30 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I don't feed trolls.
145 posted on 08/14/2003 6:17:28 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"A recent study by Columbia University's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, states that the earlier children use the gateway drugs tobacco or alcohol[...], the more likely they are to move on to other drugs. Youth who drank alcohol were 50 times more likely to use cocaine, and those who smoked tobacco cigarettes were 19 times as likely to use cocaine." - Drug Watch International Position Statement

Please prove that that study took place.

Are you suggesting that the WODdies at Drug Watch International are liars? "Drug Watch International is a volunteer non-profit drug information network and advocacy organization that promotes the creation of healthy drug-free cultures in the world and opposes the legalization of drugs." (http://www.drugwatch.org/)

146 posted on 08/14/2003 6:21:10 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Say, have you heard that Ozzie Osborn says that pot smoking led his son Jack to try harder drugs?
147 posted on 08/14/2003 6:21:26 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
He also says coffee use leads to meth use.
148 posted on 08/14/2003 6:26:15 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
...You are human like the rest of us, ...

Funny, I never thought you were human. More likely a computer-programmed 'bot, spewing out ignorance with every keystroke.

Have another beer....maybe you'll eventually make an intelligent post, but I doubt it.

You are too stupid for words to describe.

149 posted on 08/14/2003 6:28:14 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill (Police state? What police state?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
You are too stupid for words to describe.

The moderator has requested that personal attacks be taken to the Smokey Backroom.

150 posted on 08/14/2003 6:28:55 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-219 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