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

Skip to comments.

Dennis Prager Divorcing
Dennis Prager.com ^ | December 30, 2005

Posted on 12/30/2005 10:21:26 AM PST by onedoug

Deenis Prager on now discussing his own impending divorce....


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy; US: California
KEYWORDS: dennisprager; divorce; morality; prager; talkradio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-247 next last
To: HitmanNY
What is relativistic about him? What makes him a hypocrite? Especially since he is not a strong critic of divorce?

An orthodox, or even just a plain "religious" Jew, would not be a "mild" critic of divorce. Family, responsibility, constraints on behavior, absolute values are all part of the religious person's life. He's now off the plantation twice in 17 years, and something seems fishy to me.

He apparently is merely a cafeteria Torah follower, picking and choosing among the offerings, and so how can he deride other lifestyle "choices " like polygamy, homosexuality, and so on, without sounding like a hypocrite? And without theologistic support, what has he to offer? He's not a tax adviser, he's a proffessional moralist. And he's full of crap, as far as I can tell.

101 posted on 12/30/2005 12:44:18 PM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
Moses was a murderer; and the Apostle Paul was complicit in murder. So I guess we should ignore them too

Good point. Nobody but the Praegers know their situation. No need for crass speculation.
102 posted on 12/30/2005 12:45:40 PM PST by Kokojmudd (Outsource the US Senate to Mexico! Put Walmart in charge of all Federal agencies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

Dennis has explictly said many times that he is a traditional, but not orthodox, Jew. Does Jewish law flatly forbid divorce in all circumstances?

No, I don't think so.


103 posted on 12/30/2005 12:45:46 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
You asked, "As a practical matter, how can two people stay together when at least one of the persons decides they want to regularly date and have sex with their son's hunky young soccer coach, for example?"

That's a very reasonable question. My understanding of the vow --- my vow, my husband's vow--- is that if one of us did something abominable in the other person's eyes (I think of the A words: Abortion, Abandonment, Adultery or Abuse) then the couple can live apart from each other, but the guilty party has to try to repent, and the innocent party has to pray for, and hope for, the other person's repentance,and the eventual restoration of the marriage.

That may seem difficult; but that's what the promise is.

104 posted on 12/30/2005 12:45:53 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (On my honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

In New York? Aged now 57?


105 posted on 12/30/2005 12:46:59 PM PST by Inkie (Surround Fallujia and start shooting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BobS

You could be right. But then why wouldn't they come up with some compromise for the 4 or so years their teen is still at home?


106 posted on 12/30/2005 12:47:22 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: SPRINK

Go to the link below and scroll down for Prager:

http://www.krla870.com/personalities.asp

IIRC, there is a "listen live" button near the top of the "front page"
for Prager's "mother station" 870AM:
http://www.krla870.com

Prager is on M-F at 9-Noon (PAC Time) if he hasn't changed slots this year.


107 posted on 12/30/2005 12:47:55 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

This is what's known as "Lashon Horah." If you don't know this to be true, why spread it around? And even if you do, why spread it around?


108 posted on 12/30/2005 12:48:14 PM PST by Inkie (Surround Fallujia and start shooting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Maybe its my training as a lawyer but I don't see what you prescribe as implicit in the marriage vow.

I think as a practical matter, one spouse saying 'Get lost' is all it takes (and that does not necessaily have anything to do with the As you mention). How can a person be expected to stay married to someone who doesn't want to be with them, and at worse, wants to be with someone else?


109 posted on 12/30/2005 12:48:57 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Kokojmudd

The only way to avoid being labeled a hypocrite is never to advocate any kind of moral behavior whatsoever -- because we are all human and can fall from the standards we set for ourselves. So, just in case we do fall, let's not advocate for anything good. Better safe than sorry, eh? </sarcasm>


110 posted on 12/30/2005 12:49:52 PM PST by Inkie (Surround Fallujia and start shooting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
You seem to miss the point. He moralizes for a living, but he can't seem to take one of the basic requirements of traditional Judaism, involving marriage, real real seriously. Thats the problem.

.. Maybe he should move into marriage counseling instead?? Then perhaps he can use his real life experience more directly!

111 posted on 12/30/2005 12:51:33 PM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Compromise is a very misunderstood thing.

If one person wants to break up immediately, and the other wants to wait 4 years till the youngest son is out of his teens, the 'immediately' wins, as a practical matter.

There is no compromise when one side presents a flat 'no.'

The woman I am dating wants no children, period. I want four children, and I am open to adopting one or two more if my future spouse is open to that.

There's no compromise there. The 'No' flatly wins. Thoughtless people think that a compromise would be less than 4 children (maybe 1 or 2). In fact, that's not a compromise at all but a complete surrender on the part of my galpal.

The solution (not a compromise) is for one of us to give in, or marry other people someday. It will likely be the latter (but it doesn't stop us from enjoying one another for now).


112 posted on 12/30/2005 12:53:24 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

I don't think that divorce is necessarily immoral, and Dennis sees it the same way. That is the point - I didn't miss it.

As my dad says, denial isn't a river in Egypt. :-)


113 posted on 12/30/2005 12:54:39 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Inkie

If Prager is responsible for a divorce that is not rooted in scripture, or Jewish tradition, then he needs to resign his position as a moralist. We would expect the same of a minister or any other leader. If a business person fails, they either resign or are fired. If a moralist fails, then they should resign, or their followers should "fire" them.


114 posted on 12/30/2005 12:56:07 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Ah ... er ... !! Are the size of egos, then, like the size of feet, supposedly corresponding ... eh, nevermind.


115 posted on 12/30/2005 12:57:22 PM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Inkie
are all human and can fall from the standards we set for ourselves

Premeditated murder and not telling the truth about how you broke your cell phone (one of his radio show topics, by the way) are not the same thing, obviously.

As a matter of degree, 2 divorces in 17 years is a pretty serious couple of violations. If this implies you dont take marriage seriously, than why moralize to us on any subject involving personal behavior?

116 posted on 12/30/2005 12:57:28 PM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
As a moralist, (his words from his web site) I would hate to be on the wrong side of God when the Bible says God hates divorce.

Prager is Jewish. Judaism regards divorce as a tragedy to be avoided if possible, but not as a sin per se.

117 posted on 12/30/2005 12:59:44 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
What exactly does traditional Judaism have to say about divorce? It would be extra helpful if you could quote the appropriate portion of the Torah and/or Talmud.

I'm well aware that Jesus strengthened the teaching on divorce; but we are of course talking about Judaism.

And again, Moses was a murderer; so should we ignore him too?

118 posted on 12/30/2005 12:59:54 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Inkie
The only way to avoid being labeled a hypocrite is never to advocate any kind of moral behavior whatsoever -- because we are all human and can fall from the standards we set for ourselves. So, just in case we do fall, let's not advocate for anything good. Better safe than sorry, eh?

LOL. Or be a jerk all the time so when we do something good everybody comments on how swell it is.
119 posted on 12/30/2005 1:00:43 PM PST by Kokojmudd (Outsource the US Senate to Mexico! Put Walmart in charge of all Federal agencies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
than why moralize to us on any subject involving personal behavior?

Because if that is the standard, than nobody can moralize. That's why.

120 posted on 12/30/2005 1:01:49 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
I don't think that divorce is necessarily immoral

Then you picked the right moralizer to listen to.

Personally, I don't want to her his sh@t any more on why God says we shouldn't be homosexual or practice polygyny or why we should never try to get the microwave repairman fix our machine on warranty when we broke it through our own negligence, etc. After all, he picks and chooses whats right and wrong, why shouldnt the rest of us?

121 posted on 12/30/2005 1:03:46 PM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

His brand of thoughtful analysis works for me. Divorce is bad and often unseemly, but not necessarily immoral.

Those who can cope with that appreciate his insights. I can.


122 posted on 12/30/2005 1:05:52 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
Do you really expect any of us to believe you actually appreciated his moralizing before this happened? This is just your convenient excuse. Seems your real problem is with the moral code he is advocating.
123 posted on 12/30/2005 1:06:49 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

"A cheater is easy to deride - they break one of the big promises they made in their lives. That being said, the simple fact that someone was alienated by their spouse and took up with someone else doesn't necessarily mean that the cheated-upon spouse is entirely innocent, or even deserving of undue sympathy."

Not true, imho.

There comes a point where wrong is wrong, regardless of circumstance, reason or justification. There is simply never any excuse for cheating, period.



124 posted on 12/30/2005 1:06:57 PM PST by RedStateRocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker

Excuse - no. Reasons? Yes.

I can think of a lot worse somenone can do than cheat on a dreadful spouse and leave them. A lot worse.


125 posted on 12/30/2005 1:08:09 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
Because if that is the standard, than nobody can moralize.

LOL! Really? Its that hard to stay married, even after you failed once??

Hard to believe maybe, but ministers,rabbis, et al are mostly not divorced. In fact, if 50% of marriages stay solvent, wouldnt you think much more than 50 % of professional moralizers would do the same?

Haha, its funny. One of the most prominent moralizers in the country wants to dumb us down to the relaxed standards he finds himself in, now (but not before)! Beyond absurd.

126 posted on 12/30/2005 1:10:18 PM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Life is not predictable. Responsible people try their best and fail. Prager's wife knew he had to run around a lot. He'll be back. Their teen will learn to run around the world early and then settle down. Join the AF and learn a tech skill faster than in college with 12 hours a day mandatory study and visit 8 or 9 countries in the process while meeting a bunch of different people in 6 years. That's what I did. It pays.


127 posted on 12/30/2005 1:10:57 PM PST by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker
Absolutely. When you make a vow of marriage---particularly a Christian vow---you are vowing to honor your spouse even if they sin. So when someone commits adultery, they do not have the excuse that their spouse drove them to do it.

The way I put it to my fiancee (now my wife), I shouldn't marry her unless I felt that I could trust her---AND that I could forgive her if she betrayed that trust. It sounds paradoxical but I think it's critical.

My lovely wife has, thankfully, never betrayed that trust. May I never be tested on that second point.

128 posted on 12/30/2005 1:11:51 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

I listen(ed) to him a lot. I might still listen to him, but maybe not so much.


129 posted on 12/30/2005 1:13:28 PM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
This is just your convenient excuse. Seems your real problem is with the moral code he is advocating.

Seems right out of the Sal Alinksy "Rules for Radicals" play book

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

130 posted on 12/30/2005 1:13:45 PM PST by NeoCaveman (Rules for Radicals on FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
LOL! Really? Its that hard to stay married, even after you failed once??

Actually, I believe that statistics suggest that those who divorce are less successful at staying together the second time.

Haha, its funny. One of the most prominent moralizers in the country wants to dumb us down to the relaxed standards he finds himself in, now (but not before)! Beyond absurd.

What evidence do you have that his standards have relaxed as a result of this incident?

This is like everyone pouncing on Bill Bennett for gambling. It was funny, because he never said he was against it in the first place.

131 posted on 12/30/2005 1:13:50 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
Yes, that's interesting. And I just don't get it. I don't WANT a moral code that is so easy that I follow it to the letter, because it would be so weak as to be useless. And thankfully, Christianity has built into its "rules" the case for when you don't live up to them. Indeed it's fundamental to Christianity that "no one is righteous; no not one."
132 posted on 12/30/2005 1:18:31 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

Look, marriage is sacrosanct, but people screw up. He's now screwed up twice. I really like the guy, but his credibility takes a hit here. You ever listen to him drone on about whether this or that white lie is ok or not , according to God,s wishes, etcetera ? I think this weakens his authority, but what the hey. Maybe nobody else cares; they like the way he talks the talk.


133 posted on 12/30/2005 1:20:29 PM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: IRememberElian

I agree. He acted like he was perfect and he is far from it.


134 posted on 12/30/2005 1:38:59 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
And then he proceeded to reveal his deity to the Samaritans through a multiply divorced woman who was living "in sin" with her fifth relationship

That is the way He approaches everyone, thru their sin.

135 posted on 12/30/2005 1:39:37 PM PST by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

I guess not when your used to it...You know we speak of abortion and how we have too many in the World, but I think we are worse off with all the divorces. I think the motto for divorce should be rare to hardly ever. It amazes me all these folks that get tired of their spouse and move on like life is a game or something. Does anybody ever understand that life is not all fun and games? Especially when you (Prager) are constantly speaking about the ills of the World and then to come out and be part of the ills is just hypocritical. He should have kept quiet after his first divorce much less his second.


136 posted on 12/30/2005 1:46:03 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
Look, marriage is sacrosanct, but people screw up. He's now screwed up twice. I really like the guy, but his credibility takes a hit here.

Well sure, if he's talking about how to hold a marriage together, fine. And yet, even so, one can effectively speak out of one's own failures and provide valuable contribution to the discussion. And why does it necessarily impact his discussion on a whole host of issues that have nothing to do with marriage?

You ever listen to him drone on about whether this or that white lie is ok or not , according to God,s wishes, etcetera ?

Sure. So what does that have to do with marriage?

I think this weakens his authority, but what the hey. Maybe nobody else cares; they like the way he talks the talk.

I'm really not sure when he ever had authority, at least not in the sense of the word I understand it. He is an advocate, but I don't buy his words as Gospel immediately just because he says it.

137 posted on 12/30/2005 1:48:59 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Yes indeed! Now, thank goodness at least some Samaritans didn't write off that woman's "moralizing" because she couldn't keep her marriage together, because they would have missed out on some rather important truth.
138 posted on 12/30/2005 1:50:37 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

No way. I am sorry that cannot be true. The church excommunicates people for this the first time.


139 posted on 12/30/2005 1:53:52 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
Expanding on my last point---it's rather important to me that I don't take him as an authority, because, well, as much as he respects Christianity and its moral teaching, he is not a Christian, and as such his moral code differs in some important aspects from mine.

But that's me.

140 posted on 12/30/2005 1:54:28 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

If you are speaking from a Catholic perspective, then there are two problems with what you're saying. First of all, Prager is not Catholic, so he was never "in-communicated" in the first place.

Secondly, simply keeping your marriage together doesn't make one "good". "No one is righteous; no not one." So your interpretation of HitmanNY's comment is devoid of practical meaning. Dennis Prager is "good" in the same sense that any other person is "good" apart from Christ; that is, not at all.

And yet, even so, we make judgements all the time, and I think we should, about how "good" someone is in the sense of the relative value of the deeds they do. And in that sense, I'd say Dennis Prager is on the positive side; even though again, he is in no less need of God's intervention than I.


141 posted on 12/30/2005 1:59:01 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Read up on Jewish law and divorce.

http://www.jewfaq.org/divorce.htm


142 posted on 12/30/2005 2:01:01 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

I never said Jewish. I said only Church and was refering to the Christian Church (Catholic especially), but to be honest, I did not know he was Jewish until I read a few posts later AFTER I had already posted this one.


143 posted on 12/30/2005 2:05:35 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I know - Prager is Jewish, though, and speaks usually using the Judeo-Christian tradition as a basis.

I think the old Jewish law, in the broadest sense, makes a lot of sense when it comes to divorce. And by that I only mean recognizing the wisdom in no-fault divorce as the best, thought not perfect, practical approach to handling marriages that go sour.

Prager considers divorce a tragedy, but not a catastrophe. I'm inclinded to agree with that. It's an unfortunate fact of life that some people will be saddled with people who either are or develop into poor spouses.

Only a genuinely sick individual sees some sort of social value in forcing two people who can't stand each other to remain together. It makes no sense. Indeed, I have no idea why this idea is considered 'conservative' in any way, since there is nothing conservative about it.


144 posted on 12/30/2005 2:10:12 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

And by the way, I wasn't being flippant. Please do read the jewish rules and law when it comes to divorce. I think it's basic framework presents a sensible approach to a problem that will always be with us.


145 posted on 12/30/2005 2:11:01 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
You wrote: "Maybe its my training as a lawyer but I don't see what you prescribe as implicit in the marriage vow."

In my case, it was not implicit; it was explicit ("Til death.") Besides, Catholics have classes to take beforehand which are supposed to explain what the vows are about in the context of married love. Our classes weren't much, in my opinion, but at least they conveyed a couple of key concepts like "exclusive," "faithful," "open to life," and "permanent."

You wrote: "I think as a practical matter, one spouse saying 'Get lost' is all it takes (and that does not necessaily have anything to do with the As you mention). How can a person be expected to stay married to someone who doesn't want to be with them, and at worse, wants to be with someone else?"

I would not live with such a person. However, even if separated, I would still in reality be married to him. That is to say, the bond created by the vow would still be there; I would not be free to marry anyone else. I would have to hope and pray for his repentance, and the restoration of our marriage.

That's what "vow" means. That's what my mother and father meant, when they married each other. I just checked it out with my husband a half an hour ago: that's what he meant, too.

Whew! :o)

146 posted on 12/30/2005 2:17:26 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (On my honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The vow of 'till death do us part' is broken by the other person when they tell you to get lost. There's no moral obligation to honor that after that point (reciprocal promises and obligations and all that).

I guess we disagree on the practical aspect of all this.

It's hard to imagine God wanting one of his children to needlessly remain alone and miserable while their rotten spouse behaves as if the marriage didn't exist anymore. What makes you think he would want that? What social value does that advance?

Makes no sense.


147 posted on 12/30/2005 2:21:14 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Chuzzlewit; IRememberElian; Torie; ThirstyMan; Yaelle
He didn't give the reason, as that would evidently compromise trust.

Prager stated that, "God hates divorce", as if it were from Torah, which I don't think it is.

Torah however, does specifically endorse marriage - and "monogamous" marriage, by which I believe that many of those contemporaneous with Moses and after were in error by polygamy.....

But I diverge.

That God does specifically endorse marriage, would seem to suggest His unhappiness at marriage breaking apart. Though if it should, were that it were done, with the best interests of all parties - and particularly young children - at heart.

To answer the rabbinical Jesus' paraphrase, being a sinner I couldn't cast the first stone.

Thus I must take Prager at least at his initial word.

God's grace on one who's philosophy has likwise added so much to my own.

148 posted on 12/30/2005 2:23:08 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

I think Jewish law considers divorce a tragedy, but not necessarily a disaster and not necessarily immoral.


149 posted on 12/30/2005 2:24:18 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

Agreed.


150 posted on 12/30/2005 2:25:57 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-247 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