Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A 'Marriage Strike' Emerges As Men Decide Not To Risk Loss
The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | July 5, 2002 | Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

Posted on 07/06/2002 5:00:19 AM PDT by buccaneer81

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 751-798 next last
To: wku man
"Married Freepers just don't understand how slim the pickings are these days...whether at the local pub or the local church, most young, single women in this nation are Oprahtized, confused, money grubbing dingbats (or worse) that any man with a brain wouldn't have anything to do with! I know because I've dodged the bullet twice now. I'd like to think that "she" is out there, but the more I date and the more women I meet these days, the more pessimistic I get. If you're in college, I imagine you know exactly what I'm talking about."

The picking aren't any better for us women. It's scarey out there. The men are just as money-grubbing, and just as confused.

151 posted on 07/06/2002 9:06:14 AM PDT by SCalGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Lust can be a hard one to tame!!

Perhaps Moore's Law can be of help.

I hope that someday, someone invents a holodeck like the one in Star Trek, and then men can go inside and have all the risk-free sex that they want. When the real women find out that they are no longer of any use, then maybe they will consider treating men better.

152 posted on 07/06/2002 9:06:20 AM PDT by Jedi Master Yoda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
What is the underlying cause of this current mess called "marriage"?

It's the freakin' marriage license!

A license is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, as follows:

"The permission by competent authority to do an act, which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort. People v. Henderson, 391 Mich. 612, 218 N.W.2d 2, 4.

This begs the obvious question. Since when did "marriage" become an "illegal act"? Hmmm?

In the 1800's in America, the only persons who needed a marriage license were those people of differing races, who wanted to marry. Why? Because back then it was illegal for a white to marry a black (and vice-versa). Hence, they needed "special permission" from the State to perform an "illegal act".

Today, everyone blindly trots off to get a "marriage license" because, well, that's what you do, right?

When you obtain a marriage license you are essentially forming a "corporation", with the State acting in the role of "third party interest" with an "equitable nexus".

What are the "profits" from such a pseudo corporation? Children for one thing. Real property for another.

And that is why you cannot dissolve your marriage without the State's involvement, assuming there is a marriage license in effect.

And what about "separation of church and state"?

The act of marriage is a religious ceremony!

"By the power vested in me by the State of California, I hereby declare you husband and wife." What???

Imagine this. A Baptism license. Imagine Joe Sixpack saying; "Now, uh, let me get this straight. You're saying I got to get me a license to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour?"

Did your great-great grandparents have a marriage license? No they did not. Did the world come crashing down? No.

George Washington married Martha Dandridge Custis in 1759. Do you suppose George Washington, the First President of the United States of America, trotted down to his local governmental "authority" and obtained a marriage license? Hell no, he did not.

So why do Americans get marriage licenses? Because they are dumbed down and ignorant, and that's by design.


153 posted on 07/06/2002 9:07:17 AM PDT by handk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wondervixen
Well said
154 posted on 07/06/2002 9:07:47 AM PDT by rkrtgw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Nea Wood
Chew on that!

Aha! A pristine 1950s society preserved deep in the jungle of Kalifornia. Who woulda thunk it.....

155 posted on 07/06/2002 9:11:59 AM PDT by philomath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Nea Wood
"Yes, you truly believe that you are victims and that "the system" is set up against you and that the opposite sex is evil. But don't Feminazis feel the same way, in reverse? Chew on that! "

We are looking at the conditions in this country now, and voicing our opinions based on those observations. I have eyes, and I see what is happening out there.

As for sexual morality, the typical young lady of today will hit the sack with almost anything that walks or slithers down the road. It is not uncommon for women to have had hundreds of sex partners before they get married somewhere in their mid to late 20s if they get married at all. They have "explored their sexuality" with both men and women. The poor guy coming home doesn't know if he will find the little lady in the sack with the guy from next door, the girl from next door, or both.

At last glance, the divorce rate was fifty percent. It may be more by now.

STDs have become much more prevalent in the last few years. That is a direct result of prevailing promiscuity in this generation. Some of these STDs are brutal. They are disfiguring and permanent in their effects, even rendering many women incapable of having children.

Ok, considering all factors, the man is facing a woman with no morals, all the viciousness of a pissed-off king cobra, and the health of a person with one foot in the grave. And, the woman thinks she is doing the man a favor by offering him her lily-white hand. The hand is all that she has left. The rest was used up a long time ago.

I am happy that I got a good woman before all of the nonsense that is going on today became common.

156 posted on 07/06/2002 9:16:05 AM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Interesting piece - thanks for posting it.

I agree with many of the points contained therein. I will likely never marry again for many of the reasons cited in the article, and I'm most definitely not "Peter Pan," uncommitted, or immature. The reasons my ex cited in filing for divorce were based solely on her own convenience, and were not the result of any abuse, emotional distance, or dishonorable behavior on either of our parts. Our marriage and our lives were a great adventure in many ways, and when, by necessity, the adventure changed to something different for a while, she was the one who tucked tail and ran first.

This is not a rant against my ex though. She is honorable and successful (and a better shot than I am). We had an understanding, hammered out in excruciating detail before we married, that either party had an open door and was free to walk through it for good reason. I do not keep slaves, and am quite capable of doing my own laundry without turning all the white clothes pink. Her children were already grown and we had no issue of our own, so we were both fortunate that there were no child support issues to consider.

Since many women apparently feel that marriage is a part-time job or choose to define it as till death do us part or until something better comes along, I say "Ignore them and the horse they rode in on" when the next Sadie Hawkins Day comes along. My life is full and complicated enough as it is without blindly signing another social contract with a woman using invisible ink.

157 posted on 07/06/2002 9:16:18 AM PDT by strela
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
This is one instance out of hundreds.

When I was going through my divorce, another guy I know got slapped with the traditional restraining order.

Seems he'd found out his wife was unfaithful, but confronted her before he had evidence. She called the police and proceeded to trash the house, rip her clothes, and as she saw the squad car pull in, attacked him.

Who did the police believe? One guess.

He lost the house, the car, the kids, paid 1800/month in child support (in a much lower geared economy than folks on the coasts are used to, in 1990) and even had his firearms taken away--with the right to own one under Clinton.

One little VHS videotape saved me that.

Unfortunately, guys who get custody of their children are still few and far between.

The wife in the case I cited is a Methamphetamine addict (the case where the guy got custody of his kids), so the judge didn't have a lot of choice, except to farm the children out to foster homes.

Don't let the exceptions cited blind you to the overwhelming majority of cases which go the other way.

158 posted on 07/06/2002 9:16:32 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

Comment #159 Removed by Moderator

To: Nea Wood
So now Katherine, a middle-aged woman with no recent job experience, has to get a job. She certainly can't get a very rewarding or well-paying job. But if she didn't work at all, and just collected alimony, everyone would criticize her as a "typical lazy selfish ex-wife taking her poor, poor husband to the cleaners."

Thank you for pointing out this scenario. I have seen it almost as often as I have seen the shrewish, feminazi-type who eats her male life partner like a spider.

The "Katherine" in your scenario is all the more tragic because she is one of the very few good women who actually live the true spirit of marriage. It cost her. I've seen it.

160 posted on 07/06/2002 9:20:08 AM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Balto_Boy
Three excellent examples.

Number one: Jim Bob marries X and has two kids. From day one, her thing was a new house...not a old one fixed...but a new one. Jim Bob had no great income...barely $20k per year. X would not accept a house trailer...only a house. So Jim Bob borrowed and built the house. The bank only gave him $40k based on his income and he borrowed from 5 individuals in the local area to make up the other $25k. Jim Bob skimped and saved for 10 years to pay back the $25k and at least cover that part of the loan. His wife was extremely upset about the financial situation by the 7th year. As Jim Bob paid the last of the personal loans, X got upset and demanded a divorce. X wanted $1k per month. This left barely $700 a month for Jim Bob to live off of. Jim Bob lives in a run-down house trailer today and has seven more years to go before the kids leave home.

Larry married X and had a great job. He was married to her for 24 years. X decided that Larry was not taking care of her and she went for a divorce. Larry had put a tremendous amount of his money into a retirement account, with almost $400k invested. X asked for half, in cash. By the time Larry gave her the $200k and paid the penelities involved, Larry had $80k left. Larry is 56 and had planned retirement at 60. He will be working until 65 and will have half of the previously planned amount to play with in his senior years.

Rick married at 18, to a wild and crazy Deb. Deb was 17, a hard party animal and spent money constantly. Deb had 1 kid with Rick. And when they divorced 5 years later. She took his truck, his entire savings of $10k and demanded $1500 a month for her and the kid. She promptly moved in with some 18 year old guy and was giving him several hundred a month to pay for his car. Rick tried to correct the situation and was told to just shut up and enjoy.

Guys, we need to get smart. Its ok to have relationships. Its ok to have sex. Its ok to meet her family. But don't marry these women. You don't need pain and suffering. You can live a good life and not have to mess with lawyers or pay alimony. Life can be good, if you just use common sense.

161 posted on 07/06/2002 9:20:50 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Comment #162 Removed by Moderator

To: wku man
Everything will be fine. All is still right with the world. Watch out for those circling Sioux Indians.
163 posted on 07/06/2002 9:22:33 AM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Dark Mirage
What sane woman would want any of the hateful misogynists posting here?

Care to name names? We're apparently looking at two different threads.

164 posted on 07/06/2002 9:23:46 AM PDT by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Dark Mirage
"Why don't you just go forth and kill all the women and make the world perfect?"

You just don't get it, do you? We are not women haters. If we simply hated women, we wouldn't even bother with them.

165 posted on 07/06/2002 9:24:08 AM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Yoda
Actually, you don't realize how close you are. Sony has publicly demonstrated a bipedal "entertainment robot" that can dance and walk up and down stairs. It can see well enough to recognize different people and remember about fifteen different faces, and associate them with names and histories. This robot is about 30" tall, and is expected to go on the market by the end of this year. Price will be "about the price of a luxury car".

Now, take a third generation version of this, 60" tall, and put it inside of a Realdoll (www.realdoll.com). Voila! RoboGirlfriend. Software updates will add the ability to cook and clean as well. I'm not kidding here. These will probably hit the market by 2005-2007. They will cost about as much as a luxury car, with some models being cheaper and some having more options.

Not opining on the battles being waged out there, just letting you all know that the paradigm is about to shift in a really big way.

Oh, and for the ladies, yes, they have male Realdolls as well. Technology has something for everybody! No need will be left unfulfilled, except maybe the need for human companionship.

166 posted on 07/06/2002 9:25:36 AM PDT by Billy_bob_bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: All
Bad as this situation is, it may not be quite as bad as it was 20 years ago. For one thing, a FEW more women and judges may think a father is something a kid needs, not just a menace with a checkbook.

In the cases where there was no marriage nor relationship nor live-in, more courts seems to be asking if the woman did not actually WANT, even DESIGN to have the child...and victimize some man as a mere sperm donor...

More women are deciding they don't WANT the kids, just dump them on Daddy. [0ver 20 yrs ago, an aquaintance of mine with seven children including a baby girl, suddenly had his wife run away with a man nearing 70 who had money, and she wouldn't have anything to do with her own children.]

More women today are so obviously unfit to love and care for ANYTHING, plus with increasing awareness of successful parenting by fathers alone (lower crime rates, more successful children and not just boys, either)...causes that to be looked at at least casually by some judges, as a possible option, whereas 20 yrs ago the mother would just automatically get them regardless of her low morals and lack of decency or character...

167 posted on 07/06/2002 9:26:01 AM PDT by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

Comment #168 Removed by Moderator

Comment #169 Removed by Moderator

Comment #170 Removed by Moderator

To: Nea Wood
I'm not saying that similar scenarios to the one you outline don't happen.

But what about when Dan is working those late hours, going on business trips which are just that--business, and being faithful to Katherine.

Who gets OD'd on Oprah and Rikki Lake and decides that he can't possibly be being faithful to her (despite sexual harassment laws in the workplace, etc.) and decides to keep the score even. (In reality, Bambi would have to approach Dan, or he would be risking a very embarassing dismissal and lawsuit. Bambi might be a cutie, but that doesn't mean she is a dummy.)

So Katherine is busy being unfaithful while he is slaving away. etc., etc. After all, she has all day while the kids are in school, and Dan is a little tired to be heartthrobbingly romantic when he gets home from his day at work.

You illustrate the bias we complain about when you assume that the male is the one who is unfaithful, and in the process smear many of us who have been faithful until the hour the gavel dropped.

You would reframe the scenario to make the male the evil partner, the one at fault, just as the courts have traditionally done.

While it takes two to make a marriage, it only takes one to destroy it.

171 posted on 07/06/2002 9:29:30 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Dark Mirage
Let me guess. You're a family court judge.
172 posted on 07/06/2002 9:29:59 AM PDT by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: strela
We had an understanding, hammered out in excruciating detail before we married, that either party had an open door and was free to walk ....

Since many women apparently feel that marriage is a part-time job or choose to define it as till death do us part or until something better comes along,.....

blindly signing another social contract with a woman using invisible ink.

You didn't have a marriage and you agreed to this arangement before you even set up shop, ....you signed on willingly to this arrangement beforehand, there was no invisible ink, by your own words.

What you got was what you both wanted so why blame her now for the lack of commitment you BOTH signed on for.

173 posted on 07/06/2002 9:30:21 AM PDT by SouthernFreebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: VOA
I try to NOT believe that more than a few human females are simply female baboons.

"Female baboons"! Hmm, that could explain the source of Feminism.

174 posted on 07/06/2002 9:31:15 AM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Dark Mirage
These posts ooze hatred and loathing

Not of women. Of a system gone mad to the delight of some women.

175 posted on 07/06/2002 9:31:28 AM PDT by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
To Wardaddy: "This was Your Life"

Child custody...wholly unfair.

Child Support: Women who need it get too little and Women who don't need it get too much.

Aside from insuring baby killing "choice", this little morsel is probably the FemiNazis/Womyn's Rights activists biggest pluck.

176 posted on 07/06/2002 9:32:11 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #177 Removed by Moderator

To: Dark Mirage
Misogyny is defined as "a hatred of women."

I don't see misogyny on here, nor do I see any misogynistic attitudes on this thread. What I am seeing is people who are sick and tired of certain female attitudes. That's a far cry from what you're citing.

Seems to me you might be practicing misandry.
178 posted on 07/06/2002 9:33:34 AM PDT by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Dark Mirage
Well, if you want to know how men think about the current situation, this is a good place to start. If you think these posts ooze hatred, perhaps, you should start wondering why this situation exists.
179 posted on 07/06/2002 9:35:33 AM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

Comment #180 Removed by Moderator

To: edstet
I have to leave for work now. I will look over your post when I get back.
181 posted on 07/06/2002 9:36:27 AM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

Comment #182 Removed by Moderator

To: Taxman
The feminist inspired rise/ascent of the single mom has been the lefts most successful weapon against the U.S.!
183 posted on 07/06/2002 9:36:47 AM PDT by Righty1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
Gosh where have we heard that lately.
184 posted on 07/06/2002 9:36:49 AM PDT by SouthernFreebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
I will give a major bump.

There is an infection among females particularly American ones. The vast majority are not worth bothering with.

I want to tell them, "I don't come in to help you clean up your personal act... You clean up your own act first, then I will think about joining up because of the fact that your act is together."

She will either contribute things, on equal turf, or I will leave.

Most and YES MOST, females (of my age group) have a serious 'blame the other guy', no respect, backbiting, inconsiderate, self centered, hate all men, mentality.

There are two types of contribution:

first type... being nice and respectful. Being happy. Having fun. Being intimate. Communication. All of these things are free and do not cost 10 cents.

Second type... washing dishes, 'having a baby', or cleaning the house, or for guys 'working all day'...

The second often get put into the first tier.

Things I will not do:

be accused
fight
argue
date the girl, and all of her friends also
I will not be in an unequal relationship

I can list a few more, but you get the idea... I have never been married, doubt I will. I have not been impressed.

185 posted on 07/06/2002 9:37:36 AM PDT by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
So, basically, I may never get married or have children because men are scared that I will divorce them and take everything we've worked for as a couple?

Gee, that's something to look forward to. >: /
186 posted on 07/06/2002 9:37:48 AM PDT by belleoftheball414
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Mirage
You've contradicted yourself, unless women aren't female.

Ok, let's go through it again. It's not a hatred of women. It's being tired of their attitudes and actions - or are you saying that attitudes and actions cannot be changed?

So, where's the contradiction?

187 posted on 07/06/2002 9:40:07 AM PDT by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

Comment #188 Removed by Moderator

To: Dark Mirage
You don't get it. These posts ooze hatred and loathing. Women get worked over in divorces, too.

The only one oozing hatred and loathing is you. Grow up.

189 posted on 07/06/2002 9:41:07 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
You didn't have a marriage and you agreed to this arangement before you even set up shop, ....you signed on willingly to this arrangement beforehand, there was no invisible ink, by your own words.

You seem rather full of yourself, deigning to define what a marriage is. By the laws of the country where we were married and the US states where both of us were from, we were most definitely married in every recognized legal way. The "invisible ink" I referred to in my post is the apparent treatment of marriage by most women these days as a paperwork drill or tax dodge.

What you got was what you both wanted so why blame her now for the lack of commitment you BOTH signed on for.

I don't recall "blaming" anyone for anything in my post, least of all my ex.

There are some wonderful treatments for reading comprehension problems now. You should consider them.

190 posted on 07/06/2002 9:41:18 AM PDT by strela
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
A males instincts warn him that this is the case but in the rational west we are taught to ignore our ingrained biology.
191 posted on 07/06/2002 9:41:58 AM PDT by Righty1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: belleoftheball414
So, basically, I may never get married or have children because men are scared that I will divorce them and take everything we've worked for as a couple? Gee, that's something to look forward to. >: /

It's a shame, but it's a fact of life. I never thought it would happen to me and I was married twelve years. I would have to meet a truly exceptional woman to ever consider remarriage, and I still think I'd never expect it to last forever.

192 posted on 07/06/2002 9:42:16 AM PDT by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
What is it with these women...?
193 posted on 07/06/2002 9:44:49 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
bttt

Happy Birthday President Bush!

Don't miss this one.

194 posted on 07/06/2002 9:44:52 AM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #195 Removed by Moderator

To: Dark Mirage
who believes manhood is defined by misogyny

If you believe a robust discussion of a very real inequity within our legal system and the giving of examples is misogyny in action, you illustrate the very problem.
If you open your mind you'll hear that the posters wish for a fuller meeting ground for men and women than money provides.
Blind labelling won't bring you understanding.

196 posted on 07/06/2002 9:44:53 AM PDT by philomath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Dark Mirage
Yes. I contradicted all-knowing, all-powerful, should-control-everything men. That's hateful. I should just self-destruct.

Sounds to me like you already have.

197 posted on 07/06/2002 9:45:41 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
Heartfelt bump bro.....40K per year in total for CS and add ons like summer camp, medical, dental, extras and plane tickets....all to a woman who remarried a much older fellow who makes several million per year and she has about a 10K/month expense account, servants, weekend trips to Paris for "shopping" ...you name it. My pittance to her which is punitive for me is simply extra spending money for her. They got married the day our divorce was final. I went thru the immediate restraining order crap and all sorts of other pleasantries.

Now 8 years later, she acts like the children are a bother but of course would never give them up because that would mean capitulating to me.

My life now with wife #2 is a wonder and very nice and easy and we have a 2 year old Tasmanian Devil and another in the oven. I'll be 50 when the next one enters grade school. Scary in a way. I'm very blessed now but God forbid should something happen to my current wife, I doubt seriously I would ever remarry. I have now almost 4 children and can't afford anymore hence, marriage beyond this current very satisfying one is holds little allure for me. Women will always hold an allure for me but marriage...no.

198 posted on 07/06/2002 9:46:00 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Wondervixen
to be brainless and fall for a brute with muscles BECAUSE he's a "Bad Boy"

Ever dated a 'bad boy'? Ever liked a 'bad boy'?

Answer yes, I am am over an out. First date, second, or whenever, I am over and out. If she lies and waits until later to fess up, I will leave her for lying and for liking 'bad boys'.

199 posted on 07/06/2002 9:47:36 AM PDT by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Billy_bob_bob
They will cost about as much as a luxury car, with some models being cheaper and some having more options.

Over the long term, that is much cheaper than losing all of your money and possessions to a money grubbing, scheming, untrustworthy woman.

And who knows, maybe Sony will invent a robot-woman that genuinely has the ability to love and that you can actually trust.

This may be a totally new invention, because the women I've seen just don't have the ability to love or to be trusted.

Maybe it's like the saying "All the good ones are taken," but maybe the truth is that there were not any good ones to begin with.

Anyway, I'm wishing the scientists and engineers at Sony the best of luck in their endeavours.

200 posted on 07/06/2002 9:49:24 AM PDT by Jedi Master Yoda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 751-798 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson