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

Skip to comments.

A Little Secret About the Nazis (They were left-wing socialists like the modern left of today)
russp ^ | 1/2002 | Richard Poe

Posted on 02/18/2002 2:19:04 PM PST by TLBSHOW

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-162 next last
To: Goldhammer
That's a laugh.
I like how you substitute cutting and pasting for critical thinking. Very efficient.
101 posted on 02/18/2002 11:21:47 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
You obviously have not read Marx's essay.
Not with the same degree of misunderstanding that you and your friends have applied to it, no.
102 posted on 02/18/2002 11:23:53 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
One thing to keep in mind is that Marxism has continued to evolve and mutate, and now has many different flavors (Stalinism, et al). For example, after the failed Easter Rebellion in Ireland, Lenin did a wholesale rethinking of the Marxist objections to nationalism, and decided that nationalism was not necessarily contradictory to the workings of Marxism, but rather could be used as an integral part in motivating the mass to join the revolution.
103 posted on 02/19/2002 1:49:53 AM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer;TLBSHOW
The relation between Fascism (especially Naziism) and Communism is very interesting indeed, and your postings on it are quite illuminating.

My own readings on Communism and its relation to Naziism are pretty much limited to Thomas Sowell's 'eighties-era Marxism and F.A. von Hayek's WWII classic, The Road to Serfdom. I'm afraid I have very little patience for the original texts of Hitler and Marx--but I confidently hope that the WWW hyperlink technology will be employed to illustrate the weaknesses and especially the misrepresentations in the various arguments (such as those attributed, I make no doubt accurately, to Marx). TLBSHOW's proposed book will also be a valuable contribution, I would hope.

In fact, I have come to the belief that socialism crucially depends on superficiality--on obscuring intellectually important connections--for any appearance of validity that its adherents are able to give it. Talk radio--"the long form," as Rush Limbaugh styles it--and the WWW and book publishing all contrast with journalism primarily in that the latter is stylized and has short deadlines--is specificly slanted towards the short-attentio-span public. And broadcast--especially TV--journalism is worse even than the newspaper.

Journalism tends, for commercial reasons, to negativity as well as sperficial negativity, and "superficial negativity" comes pretty close to "cynicism". It is in fact highly anticonservative in tone for those reasons--journalism is not so much the first draft of history as it is the first draft of the Democratic Party Platform.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

But wouldn't it also be wonderful if the "Hitler him bad" channel--a.k.a. the History Channel--would treat Stalinism with remotely similar thoroughness? Or even turn The Road to Serfdom into a miniseries?

104 posted on 02/19/2002 6:55:05 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
The "Jewish question"--and many authors of the era addressed the so-called "Jewish question"--was how would the newly founded nation states of Europe integrate the Jews into political life?

This is a ludicrously anodyne misreading of Marx's essay (assuming for a second that you have actually read the essay). The essay is widely available: I commend it to anyone interested in the subject. And, no, Karl Marx did not advocate the liquidation of the Jews, any more than he advocated the liquidation of the Kulaks. But the Jews represented the same thing for him as they did for Richard Wagner or Joseph Goebbels: the wickedness of egoism and trade, of social relations based on contract and economic calculation. No, Karl Marx is not the ancestor of Nazi anti-Semitism -- Marx merely endorsed the traditional view of Jews as "money-grubbers," and the "problem" of Jewry and Jewish money-idolatry is merely a side-issue in his writings, a problem supposedly to be resolved by the historically-determined destruction of the bourgeois liberalistic order and the institution of a utopian socialist society.

105 posted on 02/19/2002 7:46:18 AM PST by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: martian_22
Of course one needs a viable internal "moral code" to survive in Liberty. "Bad" people need to be ruled or...our old friend chaos arrives.

You aren't related to Catch, are you?

106 posted on 02/19/2002 7:47:07 AM PST by LantzALot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
I have had some difficulty following your responses on this thread. You seem to trying to defend Marx from charges of anti-semitism, yet his works are shot full of it. Marx's father was a Lutheran convert from Judaism. It would appear that Marx's whole hatred of the bourgeoisie was a projection onto the larger society of what he saw as specific jewish characteristics. There seems to be a psychological dimension to Marx's hate, perhaps coming from his feelings toward his father. Indeed, it has been said that the psychological basis of leftist ideology lies in a hatred of the father.

After the horrific, blood soaked 20th century, in which more people were murdered by their governments in deliberate pursuit of Marxist ideology than were killed in all the wars, I would not expect any reasonable person to be trying to defend this man whose actions in his personal life (see the Paul Johnson capsule biography in "Intellectuals") embodied the same malevolence as his philosophy.

107 posted on 02/19/2002 12:08:42 PM PST by thucydides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: LantzALot
***You aren't related to Catch, are you?***

Funny you should ask. At the last intergalactic "22" club meeting, Paramount_22 complained that the owl image subliminals were taking-up too much valuable space in the medias.
"These are bumping us out of time slots that could better serve 22-conditioning.", She said.

"Screw the humans anyway.", Catch_22 chuckled. "They're going to war no matter how hard they try not to. In fact, the harder they try to avoid it the more apparent it becomes."

Well, Mars is with the New Galactic Order and nobody's sweetheart but we like Earthlings, such as they are. If Catch wasn't my 6th cousin I'd have kicked his lack of compassion.

...but he was right.

108 posted on 02/19/2002 12:43:58 PM PST by martian_22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
... It would appear that Marx's whole hatred of the bourgeoisie was a projection onto the larger society of what he saw as specific jewish characteristics ...
For those who content themselves with the text on the page, as opposed to attempting to read the minds of writers or divine the hidden intents of their hearts, what you write is a complete waste of bandwidth.

Read the essay again.
109 posted on 02/19/2002 12:50:56 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
I disagree doctor.

True, he did keep his theory a "moving target." But that was not to accommodate emprirical test or data, but to avoid them.

As to his integrity, read "Marx: The Red Prussian" based in large part on his correspondence with F. Engels.

He apparently was neither a nice nor an ethical man.

In fact, according to the author, Leopold Schwartzschild (sp?), his nickname in his graduate student days was "the calf biter"!!!!

My reading of "On the Jewish Question" also sees it as antisemitic (self-hating?) and positing an identity between "Judaism" and "Capitalism."

Much as Weber later linked "Protestantism" (The Protestant Ethic)with (the Spirit of)"Capitalism."

110 posted on 02/19/2002 1:33:46 PM PST by DrNo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
To be fair, Marx thought eliiminating ALL religions (including Judaism) would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation, Marx did not call for just the elimination of Judaism.

Actually I think you have it reversed. The elimination of Capitalism (the latest and greatest form of exploitation), would eliminate the cause and basis of all religion.

Marx was a materialist; religion was epiphenominal.

It was a secondary consequence of exploitation, not its root or cause.

111 posted on 02/19/2002 1:39:35 PM PST by DrNo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DrNo
... and positing an identity between "Judaism" and "Capitalism" ...
Of all your claims this is the most laughable. The Jews of Marx's era were not capitalists; they were ghetto-dwellers, forced to live in the margins. Some became bankers-money-lenders-usurers, like the Rothschilds, but this was also an artifact of their exclusion from civil and economic life, as Jews were excluded from trades and schools.

The historical illiteracy of our era strikes again.
112 posted on 02/19/2002 2:34:30 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
So, if Nazism is leftist, and Facism is a communist invention, what form of government lies to the extreme right?

In Europe the old monarchical system counted as the right. A restorationist or legitimist Bourbon or Orleanist would probably count as an "extreme rightist," at least before Nazis and fascism complicated things.

The whole left-right schema has a lot of problems.

First of all, those monarchies were not so conservative in the days when they were accumulating power, and absolutism was not a form of conservatism.

Secondly, the Nazis-right, Communists-left dichotomy is dubious. It grew out of the street fighting of the Twenties and Thirties. The Nazis were not classic rightists, but neither were they model socialists. Their ideology, like Mussolini's fascism, was a mixture of right-wing and left-wing elements, that was tagged rightist because of the street combat, not because of a detailed analysis of their program. Given that Strasser and other more socialist Nazis were purged, though, simply labeling the NDSAP left-wing or socialist would also be an oversimplification.

Perhaps it's time more than anything that matters: socialist, nationalist and social darwinist ideas were far stronger from, say 1870 to 1980, than they were before or since. Ideas that we now unhesitatingly identify as right or left like eugenics or nationalization were stronger at various points on the political spectrum then, than they were at almost any point since, save on the very fringes of political debate.

But then, the whole one-dimensional left-right scheme is itself an over simplification. Political scientists have tried to give it more substance and explanatory power by making it a two or three dimensional model. Libertarians also like the two dimensional grid. One sci-fi writer labels his axes: "Attitude toward the State," and "Attitude toward planned social progress".

113 posted on 02/19/2002 2:59:46 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #114 Removed by Moderator

To: Asclepius
Your evasive answer suggests a mind steeped in ideological commitment, that simply will not face reality.
115 posted on 02/19/2002 3:35:55 PM PST by thucydides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Read your history, people. Its all there in black and white, just read your history!
116 posted on 02/19/2002 3:39:42 PM PST by DonPaulJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
Hitler learned about the use of concentration camps from the Soviets during the period of friendship 1938 - 1940.

Not true.

The sad fact is, that Hitler learned about concentration camps from American history. He often used the examples of indian reservations, and america's genocide policy against the american indians, when explaining to his generals what he wanted to do with the jews. Disarming the indians, taking their land and possessions, means of livelihood, giving them no legal rights, rounding them up, putting them on reservations, starving them, killing them, etc.

117 posted on 02/19/2002 3:54:25 PM PST by waterstraat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: x
My favorite continuum I first heard back in the '70s.
The line runs from freedom on one end to security on the other. Works 4 me.
118 posted on 02/19/2002 3:57:56 PM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
... Your evasive answer suggests a mind steeped in ideological commitment, that simply will not face reality ...
More of your mind reading I suppose. What I am committed to is the integrity of the text. To put words in Marx's mouth (or thoughts in his head in your case) does not make for sound hermeneutics.
119 posted on 02/19/2002 4:32:23 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

Comment #120 Removed by Moderator

Comment #121 Removed by Moderator

To: Asclepius
...does not make for sound hermeneutics...

Herman who?

122 posted on 02/19/2002 6:45:37 PM PST by DrNo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
To be more specific: it is universally acknowledged that Marx was a virulent anti - semite. You are engaged in quibbles over whether a particular text can be construed (deconstructed?) so as to show that it could be read in a way that is not anti - semitic. This is reminiscent of the holocaust deniers and revisionist historians. If you are interested strictly in textual hermeneutics, fine. But this thread is supposedly about the question of whether the Nazis were of the left or of the right. In that context, the question of Marx's anti - semitism came up as showing a connection between him and Hitler. Why don't you want to address the larger question?
123 posted on 02/20/2002 6:05:37 AM PST by thucydides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
The historical illiteracy of our era strikes again.

Doctor:

Now that I've had a chance to get to my office and check my sources, let me offer the following support for my earlier-stated reading of "On the Jewish Question."

Robert Tucker (The Marx Engels Reader, 1972, W.W. Norton, page 24) offers the following observation on the piece:

"In the second part, Marx proceeds to the criticism of economics or commerce, which he equates with 'Judaism.'

"His concluding call for the 'emancipation of society from Judaism' (which has been seen on occassion as a manifesto of anti-Semitism) is in fact a call for the emancipation of society from what he here calls 'huckstering,' or from what he was subsequently to call 'capitalism.' "

I can see where you'd call me a(n) historical illiterate, I'm just a dumb working-class kid from the Mid-West at a Southern state university, but Robert C. Tucker is/was a Profesor of Politics at Princeton University!

P.S. Since this is apparently his area of expertise, I trust you will not accuse me of having committed the fallacy of ad verecundiam!

124 posted on 02/20/2002 11:22:56 AM PST by DrNo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: DrNo
... "His concluding call for the 'emancipation of society from Judaism' (which has been seen on occassion as a manifesto of anti-Semitism) is in fact a call for the emancipation of society from what he here calls 'huckstering,' or from what he was subsequently to call 'capitalism' ...
First, please allow me to withdraw the 'illiteracy' remark. It was uncalled for and I apologise profusely.

Second, thank you for the quote. I don't agree with it, but I can at least see where you're coming from.

And here is what I disagree with, the notion that "huckstering" and "capitalism" are somehow linked in Marx's essay. "Huckstering" was a coping strategy for Jews who were excluded from European civil society (cf Gypsies); capitalism was for Marx a fully realized system of production based on the capital accumulation, a novel division of labor, and the serial production and distribution of commodities etc., etc. I would argue that Marx does not implicate the Jews in capitalist commodities production or the bourgeois social order simply because they were excluded from both in Marx's era. They were confined to ghettos, allowed only to dig graves or lend money etc.

Marx's essay is an indictment of Judaism (as a religion, as an alibi for Jewish suffering) precisely because it insulates the Jews from the bourgeois revolution, which Marx believed was an historically necessarily precurser to revolution etc., etc. It's no big deal. I am not a Marxist; I am not comfortable defending Marx. Reasonable people can disagree and all that.
125 posted on 02/20/2002 1:26:01 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
... To be more specific: it is universally acknowledged that Marx was a virulent anti - semite ...
Universally acknowledged, is it? A bold claim, don't you think?

Psychologists refer to this as "social proof." Everyone believes it, so it must be so. Not terribly rational. You can read all about it in Aaronson's Social Animal or Cialdini's Influence, Science and Practice. Logicians simply call it appealing to the mob (argumentum ad baculum).

Please remind me. Which one of us is supposed to be ideologically purblind?
126 posted on 02/20/2002 1:30:40 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Some years ago a compendium of all Marx's writings on jews was published under the title "A World Without Jews." No one familiar with his writings, or who had read historians like Paul Johnson's biographical material would be in doubt of his anti - semitism. You are simply being obtuse.
127 posted on 02/20/2002 2:04:53 PM PST by thucydides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The whole reason that "left wing" and "right wing" entered into our vocabulary was to differentiate between the various flavors of Socialism (e.g. Communists on one side and Fascists on the other).

In some sense, what you claim may have some truth in it, but the origin that I put most faith in goes back further.

At the time of the French Revolution, the Estates General was called. The Royalist supporters sat on the Right half of the hall, and the proponants of the new ideologies sat on the Left side of the hall. Ever since that time, revolutionary ideologues have lambasted all opposition as "from the Right" and alligned with old interests, corrupt monarchy, and old power.

At that time in our nation, despite its feelings of fraternity with French in throwing off an old maonarcy, the Federalists and Adams were as leary of the Left as Jefferson and the Republican-Democrats were fond of them.

128 posted on 02/20/2002 2:22:29 PM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
There's just too much confusion here. Let's cut to the quick. The Nazis (socialists) and Communists (pick the country) are left-wingers. They are the bad guys. They are loved by American left-wing press. Capitalists are the conservative right-wingers. We are hated by the left-wing press. Capitalism is what America is all about. It is why people from other nations risk their lives to come here. We are the good guys. We stand for the Constitution and freedom. It is that simple.
129 posted on 02/20/2002 2:24:20 PM PST by Temple Owl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer
Thanks for the links to Johnson and Himmelfarb on Marx. The Himmelfarb essay is new to me. I have wasted my time on this thread trying to disabuse Asclepius of his notion that Marx was not an anti - semite. Well, the facts speak for themselves.
130 posted on 02/20/2002 2:37:28 PM PST by thucydides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: martian_22
I knew it.
LOL!
131 posted on 02/20/2002 2:59:23 PM PST by LantzALot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
No one familiar with his writings, or who had read historians like Paul Johnson's biographical material would be in doubt of his anti - semitism. You are simply being obtuse.
You believe Marx, a Jew and a social revolutionary, advocated the final solution, and I'm obtuse?

Here's a thought. Read what Marx wrote about colonialism, about the European subjugation of other races. Then come back to me and try to argue that Marx was a racist, that he advocated genocide. 'Kay?
132 posted on 02/20/2002 3:01:47 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT!
133 posted on 02/20/2002 3:03:31 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1/1,000,000th%
what
134 posted on 02/20/2002 3:10:10 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
great article BUMP!

And congrats, TLBSHOW!

135 posted on 02/20/2002 3:11:19 PM PST by bigjoesaddle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
NAZI's were lefties. I was being facetious. How could a socialist not be a left-winger?
136 posted on 02/20/2002 3:11:29 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Logicians simply call it appealing to the mob (argumentum ad baculum).

Isn't that "appeal to the stick?" (To wit, if you don't agree I'll punch you in the nose!)

137 posted on 02/20/2002 7:08:53 PM PST by DrNo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: DrNo
... Isn't that "appeal to the stick?" (To wit, if you don't agree I'll punch you in the nose!) ...
You're probably right. I always get those screwed up.
138 posted on 02/21/2002 3:49:50 AM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: x;KC Burke;TLBSHOW;Temple Owl;snopercod
The Twenty-Five Points of Hitler's NAZI Party (website: The History Place(tm))
 " ... we demand:
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.


139 posted on 02/21/2002 9:07:36 AM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

Comment #140 Removed by Moderator

To: BoPepper
My family was born in Germany so I've known for a long time that NAZI's were socialists beyond the name. Are you suggesting the Chinese government is not socialist? Aren't the workers running the government there to promote the greatest good?

/sarcasm

141 posted on 02/21/2002 10:32:39 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

Comment #142 Removed by Moderator

To: Gritty;First_Salute
Very good article. It should be required reading in all high school history classes, not to mention colleges.

Better yet, let the the little kiddies experience first hand just how "different" they are than the "good Germans".

The Wave, a real-life experiment in Nationalizing Socialism, conducted by Ron Jones, conducted at Palo Alto High School in 1967.

The Wave is based on the real experience of a high school class in Palo Alto, CA (USA), in April 1967. History teacher Ron Jones came up with a seemingly innocent classroom experiment to explain his students why in the 1930's and 40's many (young) Germans were so under the spell of Adolf Hitler that they allowed or even helped the systematic murdering of millions of innocent Jews.

The experiment was successful beyond expectation: after only a few weeks, a movement called 'The Wave' had been founded, whose members at first sought for community-feeling and a healthy working-discipline, but soon after started to see the movement and it's mysterious leader as purposes in themselves. Those opposing the movement became enemies, life-long friends were seperated from each other. Worse still, criticism was met with aggression and intimidation.

For some time, it seemed that Jones had lost control of his experiment, and was caught in it's momentum himself. Finally, he ended the nightmare by confronting the students with their leader, the man they had been following with such vigour. Many cried and all were shocked when they learned that it was Hitler, or Mussolini, or any other dictator responsible for many deaths....


143 posted on 02/21/2002 2:15:47 PM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Bump.
144 posted on 02/21/2002 4:11:34 PM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Ping for the sea of poorly educated and incompetent researchers in the journalistic profession.
145 posted on 05/01/2002 5:51:37 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasDeb
At the extreme left and right, politics are the same: control, control, control. Only their methods vary.

Pat Buchanan's name come to mind?

All one need do to confirm this story is to read Fredric Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

146 posted on 05/01/2002 6:05:15 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
So, if Nazism is leftist, and Facism is a communist invention, what form of government lies to the extreme right?

Anarchy, no govt. ;P

147 posted on 05/01/2002 6:53:03 PM PDT by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Give me a quote, please.

I'm not going to give you a quote and I'm not trying to give direct support the idea that Marx wanted jews exterminated, but the will to take away the rights of those to believe in there own ideology religious or othewise is a disregard for their lives. Maybe Marx didnt realize what the full outcome of that could be.

148 posted on 05/01/2002 6:56:41 PM PDT by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PuNcH
Anarchy, no govt. ;P

It would be nice if the further to the
right you go, the smaller government got, alright.
And conservatives pay lip service to that idea,
but abuse it as baldly badly as democrats in practice. :)

149 posted on 05/01/2002 9:25:14 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
BUMP
150 posted on 07/31/2002 5:30:30 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-162 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