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

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0amanreapswhathesews; 0bedroomkgb; 0godwillnotbemocked; 1aslimmeyslope; 1scrotus; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antirelgiontrolls; antireligion; antireligionbigots; antireligiontroll; aregayapparel; arroganceofscotus; ascrotus; assthumpingidiots; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bluenose; blueoyster; bohica; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; bugger; buggered; buggerer; buggery; busybodieslose; buttpirate; buyvaselinestock; catsdogsmice; celebratesin; chickenlollipoppers; christianbashing; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; davidsouterisafaggot; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; degeneracy; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; donwenow; downourthroats; downwenoware; druglaws; endofcivilization; evilinactivistcourts; evilinrighttoprivacy; falalafalalalalala; falalalalalalalala; farkinqueers; fecalcontact; fools; fudgepackersdelight; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaybashing; gaycheese; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaykeywords; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaymoose; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gayrights; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvote; getoutofmyroom; goawaymrsgrundy; godless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; himom; hitlerywins; homeschoolnow; homoapologists; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihavearighttosin; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; itsunatural; jeebuslovesgays; keywordwarsaregay; kitcheneducation; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinksys4all; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertariansareevil; libertines; lotsdaughters; lpcausesbo; makejeebuscry; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; manholeinspectorjoy; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; msgrundypatrol; mycousinknowsclay; nambla; namblawillwinnext; onepercentrulesusa; oralsex; ourgayapparel; paulwellstone; pcdecision; pederasty; peepingtomgovt; perversion; perverts; preverts; prisoners; privacyprotection; prostitutionlaws; publichealthhazard; puritanslose; readtheconstitution; relgionbashing; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sexpolice; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; snitchonyourneighbor; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaw; sodomylaws; spyinthebushes; statesrights; stronginthesouth; supremecourt; swalloworspit; talibanintheusa; talibannedtrolls; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; tisseasontobeunhappy; tistheseason; tobejolly; usathirdworldcountry; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; weakinthehead; whatstatesright; womenwithwomen; zscrotus; zslimmeyslope; zzgoodruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 851-900901-950951-1,000 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: VRWC_minion
Sorry to burst your bubble, but our society lives with all sorts of seemingly arbitrary and philosophically inconsistent rules. Why can a person who's one hour shy of their 18th birthday not legally drink, but get plastered starting an hour later? Why can you drive 70 on the interstate but not 80, or why can't you drive 70 through a residential area?

Sorry, but most of us live with this seemingly indefensible arbitrariness without the slightest tinge of cognitive dissonance.

901 posted on 06/26/2003 11:54:45 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: scripter
This is a big big loss for our side.

The homosexuals and liberals on the Supreme Court who were appointed by Republicans lost this one for us.

902 posted on 06/26/2003 11:54:48 AM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Sorry about the multiples - sticky keyboard here.

LQ
903 posted on 06/26/2003 11:54:52 AM PDT by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 893 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Is any lie, anytime, a violation of the rights of others?

If it results in an individual acting as he otherwise would not have, and the ultimate result is damaging... then I'd say yes.

Otherwise, not.

904 posted on 06/26/2003 11:55:07 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 896 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
Rehnquist is also a conservative, and Stevens and Souter are diehard liberals. The power in the court really lies in Kennedy and O'Connor, both Republican Reagan appointees.

Kennedy oftimes will vote with the conservatives (today is one notable exception) and O'Connor is a true wild card...though she has tended more towards the liberal bent.

I believe a conservative court is better than a liberal one.

905 posted on 06/26/2003 11:55:45 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
200 years ago there was no term for an adolescent- people went from childhood to an adult as soon as they could. Nowadays we have extended adolescence to about 35!
906 posted on 06/26/2003 11:55:53 AM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 880 | View Replies]

To: kegler4; Remedy
REMEDY, oh where's REMEDY? We need some long lists of irrelevant links.
907 posted on 06/26/2003 11:56:43 AM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
You have a firm grasp on reality. Don't let go.
908 posted on 06/26/2003 11:57:24 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 900 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
Re: rights

" a question: then how is it created and how does it exist? just as an idea in your mind?"

Yes, it starts out as an idea, then it's pondered. The question that needs to be answered is, "does it infringe on the rights of others". If the answer to that is no, then it's a valid right. Whether the right is substantial, or not, depends on the magnitude of the consequences to the individual. The right to life is certainly more substantial than the right to dust off your shoes.

Some argue there are animal rights. Can't be, animals can't exert their rights. There is a right to engage in commerce, but not to coerce the benefits from the commerce of others. Hence no right to health care, handouts, or any other service as an entitlement. They have a right to buy it, or recieve it as charity from willing sources.

909 posted on 06/26/2003 11:58:10 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
The Advocate, a homosexual magazine had Souter on the cover saying "Is there a homosexual on the Supreme Court" and offered evidence inside the magazine.

910 posted on 06/26/2003 11:58:29 AM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 897 | View Replies]

To: dead
Taking care of that child should fall under the provence of charity

Exactly. And if you lived in a society that had the kind of moral rectitude that people would care enough about each other to engage in that kind of private charity, you would be living in a Christian society.

Also, a society that had very little government would have to have some other method of social control to stop anti-social behaviors other than governmental force. That is called shunning, social pressure, and standards. People who didn't live up to the standards would find it very difficult to function in society. Homosexuals would be naturally shunned because their behavior is unnatural and represents huge costs to society because of disease, child molestation and the public representation of sexual profligacy.

A society in which all charity was private would have heavy taboos on homosexuality. Count on it.

911 posted on 06/26/2003 11:58:57 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion; Thorondir
You probably want to see post #900. Wouldn't want to leave anyone out of all the wacky Fundamentalism.
912 posted on 06/26/2003 11:59:05 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 887 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Well, Texas doesn't criminalize bestiality anyhow (go figure) so I guess it won't matter one way or another..

For the first time ever I understand the "steers and queers" line. I wish that I did not, now.
913 posted on 06/26/2003 11:59:52 AM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
That doesn't mean they're right. As I noted in my post.

And a law against two guys buggering each other in their apartment in no way harms you which completely fries YOUR argument. You were the one trying to draw the connection between morality and legality.

For the record, yer' still wrong.

914 posted on 06/26/2003 11:59:58 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 890 | View Replies]

To: scripter
See above for the is David Souter a homosexual. I will see if The Advocate has it archived.
915 posted on 06/26/2003 12:00:01 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 910 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
But, that brings up an interesting point. Is any lie, anytime, a violation of the rights of others?

It's certainly immoral if done intentionally, but not a violation of anyone's rights. The recipient is responsible to believ or dis-believe the claims of others in non-commercial situations. This does not apply to subjective truths, such as I am hungry, which can not be independently verified.
916 posted on 06/26/2003 12:00:22 PM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 896 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
All those of majority age who are of sound mind have legal capacity to consent and enter into legal contracts..... Wrong.

Exactly what is incorrect about that statement?

But now you want to change the age of consent because of this new privacy right.

I do? That's news to me.

Your addmission that its a problem is proof of what we we are talking years.

What admission?

917 posted on 06/26/2003 12:00:23 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 892 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
Look at the growth curve of government in the late '50s and '60s. It takes off. Match that up with out-of-wedlock birth rates, crime, drug use, STD's and so on. The libertarian party didn't cause that. Moral libertarianism did.
918 posted on 06/26/2003 12:00:41 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
What were you doing on a "gay gossip board"? Does your husband know about your perversion?
919 posted on 06/26/2003 12:01:05 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 894 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian; Thorondir
When the opposing argument posts stuff like that, my job just gets that much easier. I wish all liberals were foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics like some on this thread - ridiculing their ideas would be even easier than it already is.
920 posted on 06/26/2003 12:01:13 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
Shhhh! He'll hear you!
921 posted on 06/26/2003 12:01:22 PM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 907 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
"That's pretty vile. How about explaining why you want to?"

I asked the same question. What kind of person wants to have sex with his daughter, of any age? I know it happens a lot, but it's obviously wrong. I see few arrests and prosecutions, however, when incest is done between adults. I don't believe a 16 year old is an adult, in any case.
922 posted on 06/26/2003 12:01:25 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 899 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
which is used to support abortion
923 posted on 06/26/2003 12:02:01 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I like gossip and knowing who's gay.

Yes my Catholic husband knows.
924 posted on 06/26/2003 12:02:24 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 919 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
"Why can a person who's one hour shy of their 18th birthday not legally drink, but get plastered starting an hour later? "

In what state is the legal drinking age 18? I know it used to be in Louisiana and New York, but I thought they all changed it to 21.
925 posted on 06/26/2003 12:02:24 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
They have already found many of the items they had previously described. As for where the rest are, or what happened to them, time will tell. As for whether the adminitration lied about them, I suppose it is possible. But if so, then we were also lied to by Clinton, Gore, virtually every member of Congress, the UN, the French, the Russians, and virtually every serious intelligence agency in the world; all of whom are on the record that he had them.
926 posted on 06/26/2003 12:02:29 PM PDT by bk1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
That is the issue. Rules are arbitray. Having privacy rights trump arbitrary rules is the danger in this ruling.
927 posted on 06/26/2003 12:02:52 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Regardless of the type of person that wants to have sex with their daughter, is there really any serious consideration being given to overturning the Incest laws in this country?
928 posted on 06/26/2003 12:03:39 PM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
"The Advocate, a homosexual magazine had Souter on the cover saying "Is there a homosexual on the Supreme Court" and offered evidence inside the magazine.
"

Funny...I never read The Advocate. It's a publication with an agenda, and much that is written there is false. I prefer more neutral publications. Using articles in that publication is specious.
929 posted on 06/26/2003 12:03:58 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 910 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
One question: Is morality good or bad?
930 posted on 06/26/2003 12:04:14 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 885 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
" I can claim a 'right' to free association and thus the right not to be affected by their behavior. The 'rights' thing works both ways, chief.

that's correct.

"It's a losing argument.

It's a winning argument. That's what Freedom's about.

931 posted on 06/26/2003 12:04:23 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 882 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir

932 posted on 06/26/2003 12:04:46 PM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 862 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"Wrong. They can consent to sex. They are therefore consenting adults as far as sex is concerned. Keep in mind that in 1800's consent was about 12. Why not go back to that ?"

Back then you could probably have been lynched for buggery.
You really wanna go there?


933 posted on 06/26/2003 12:05:37 PM PDT by bk1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 880 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Do you really think a single person who wouldn't have had oral or anal sex when it was illegal will change their behavior because of this ruling?

No. But I'm sure you'd agree as a libertarian that people have the right not to associate with people they don't like or of whose behavior they do not approve. Unfortunately, a society is made up of people who share common resources. Court systems, the military, roads and so on. People form societies to do collectively what they cannot do alone. Therefore, aberrant behaviors by small groups of people affect the whole. If someone is a serious heroin addict, and blows through their money and ends up at the door of the county hospital with a severe OD and can't pay for it, the hospital will treat that person and society will have to pick up the tab.

Libertarians are all for secession. What if I want to secede from homosexuals? In other words, I live in society A, and homosexuals live in society B. That way, all of the huge costs related to homosexuality are isolated in society B, and don't touch me in society A.

What about that freeee? Don't I have a right to free association? To not be affected by homosexuals? If homosexuals are going to claim a "right" to engage in their destructive behavior, can't I claim a right to not be affected by it?

Chew on that one, dearie.

934 posted on 06/26/2003 12:06:09 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
The real danger lies in the arbitrary rules trumping our rights. Our right to keep and bear arms is routinely trumped by BATF regulations, our right to property is routinely trumped by EPA administrative law, and etc. Arbitrary rules make up a government of men, not a government of laws.
935 posted on 06/26/2003 12:06:09 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 927 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Look at the growth curve of government in the late '50s and '60s. It takes off. Match that up with out-of-wedlock birth rates, crime, drug use, STD's and so on.

Stunning. I'm curious, are you familiar with statistics and how to interpret them?

The libertarian party didn't cause that. Moral libertarianism did.

Oh, I see.

So are you claiming that 'moral libertarianism' and 'libertarian social ideas' are the same thing? Is so, please detail exactly how they are equivalent and how 'libertarian social ideas' have were in any way in effect in the 1950s and 60s.

If not, please clarify the differences and why first it was one and now it is the other.

936 posted on 06/26/2003 12:06:23 PM PDT by Pahuanui (when A Foolish Man Hears The tao, He Laughs Out Loud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I hope we get those two retirements and they are liberals or one liberal and O'Connor.

I am disappointed, but I expected this.

So quite frankly, I am having a hard time getting mad about it.

It isn't a vital issue, so I am going to reserve anger for other things even though I am not pleased with this.
937 posted on 06/26/2003 12:06:26 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Funny. Since you're pro-homos I'd think it'd be right UP your alley.

You're a libertarian, I'm sure.

Dull.
938 posted on 06/26/2003 12:06:53 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 929 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
"Shhhh! He'll hear you!"

I kinda missed the inanity. But I see he hasn't posted since June 4. Must have moved on.

BTW, somebody on NPR (yes, I know it's liberal, but it's the only radio station with something resembling news in the morning and late afternoon) predicted this outcome Monday. I think she even figured it would be 6-3 or 5-4.
939 posted on 06/26/2003 12:06:55 PM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
"I like gossip and knowing who's gay.
"

Really? And why do you want to know who is supposedly gay? Why is that of interest to you?

Gossip is very often incorrect, and may lead you to draw incorrect conclusions. It's a pretty unseemly thing, and I'm sure the Bible cautions against gossip.
940 posted on 06/26/2003 12:07:38 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Please explain why my 16 year old daughter and I cannot have sex.

'Cause in Texas your wife would shoot you and be no-billed by the grand jury?

Because your neighbors would shun you and businesses refuse to serve you were it to become known?

Because you'd be excommunicated by your church?

Seriously, if under the age of consent, it violates the child's rights as they're not capable of consenting, if over the age of consent, because the state has a compelling interest in preventing the types of disabilities prevalent in births from incestual sexual contacts.

941 posted on 06/26/2003 12:07:39 PM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
NPR has some decent programs- like engines of ingenuity. Plus sometimes I like to listen in on the other camp to get a head of steam before I post.

942 posted on 06/26/2003 12:09:18 PM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 939 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Godless atheist HOMOSEXUAL? Is that you?
943 posted on 06/26/2003 12:09:24 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 940 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
"Regardless of the type of person that wants to have sex with their daughter, is there really any serious consideration being given to overturning the Incest laws in this country?"

No, none. The rules against first cousins marrying have changed over the years, though. While that was once considered to be incest, it is no longer in a lot of states, where first cousins can marry if they wish. Other states prohibit such marriages, and there is an active effort to reform those laws, particularly since current research shows very little increased risk of birth defects in first cousin matings.

But other incest? Nah...nobody's working on changing that legislation. It's still not enforced, except when a child is involved, though.
944 posted on 06/26/2003 12:10:44 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Thanks for the correction. I get frustrated when these fake quotes get tossed around.
945 posted on 06/26/2003 12:10:44 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
but I thought they all changed it to 21.

There is a federal law that states you must be 21 to drink.

946 posted on 06/26/2003 12:10:47 PM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Lke I said, the "sickness is good" crowd is here and all jazzed up. Good to see the list is not changed except for a few recent additions.

I'll wave and smile as I drive in perfect health past the AIDS clinic.

8o)

BTW: A biological malfunction is not an "orientation". It's a sickness and a DISorientation. Sick people cannot be reasoned with.
947 posted on 06/26/2003 12:10:50 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Actually, its "compassionate conservatives"

Ginsburg, Souter, Browne.

948 posted on 06/26/2003 12:11:06 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Public shame is a great restraint on some folks. I say bring back the pillory for certain crimes, such as Drunk Driving, shoplifting and so on.
949 posted on 06/26/2003 12:11:24 PM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 941 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The problem with your "two guys having poop-sex in their own appartment doesn't harm anyone" argument is that they leave that appartment frequently with diseases and social behaviors that we all have to finance. Now, if they lived on their own island maybe you would have an argument.

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." -Patrick Henry

950 posted on 06/26/2003 12:11:30 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 914 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 851-900901-950951-1,000 ... 1,701-1,734 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