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.
As poster Big Steve had an emotional outburst yesterday in defence of his candidate W, I though I'd take some time to explain the reasons - There's that dirty word again - that some of us do not like W. These reasons are taken from his own website, from his own official positions on the issues. So if you can't handle the truth, don't blame me, you're just better off not reading any further.
Taxes
Governor Bush believes that roughly one-quarter of the surplus should be returned to the people who earned it through broad tax cuts .
The largest percentage cuts will go to the lowest income earners
Problem : There is no surplus. That is a lie. Not a great way to start an issue paper.
Next we have an inconsistency. Since the richest in this nation pay the most taxes, they are the ones who have 'earned' a return of the (nonexistant) surplus. Yet W uses a class warfare argument and pretends that the poor pay the most in taxes.
Technology and the New Economy
Strengthen R&D: To encourage increased investment in research and development, Governor Bush will: enact a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit, increase the military R&D budget by $20 billion, and double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health.
Some libertartians may object to the defense spending. I don't, because defense is a Constitutional expenditure and we do have a military in decline. But can you defend this NIH Spending? Blatently Unconstitutional.
Governor Bush has proposed creating a new, flexible $3 billion fund to integrate technology in schools and libraries, and $400 million in new money to help ensure that technology is boosting student achievement
Here we go again. Unconstitutional. IF I wanted a tax and spend democrat, I'd vote for one.
Governor Bush will invest $400 million to create and maintain more than 2,000 community technology centers every year.
Not counting the NIH Spending we're up to 3.8 Billion in new Unconstitutional Government Expansion.
Strengthen Federal Investment in Assistive Technology: To improve research in, and access to, assistive technology, Governor Bush will:
Triple funding for Rehabilitative Engineering Research Centers.
Increase tenfold the funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase assistive technology;nel
Lovely. No idea how much this one will cost, but again Government has absolutely no place doing it.
E-Government Governor Bush will accelerate e-government by appointing a government-wide Chief Information Officer, and by creating a $100 million fund to support interagency e-government initiatives.
What's this? A precursor to a new Federal Department of Information?
Say it with me. Unconstitutional.
Education
Governor Bush will reform the nation’s public schools....He will close the achievement gap, set high standards, promote character education, and ensure school safety. States will be offered freedom from federal regulation, but will be held accountable for results.
The Federal Government has no Constitutional role in education. Even if W is doing it. And how is going to do this laundry list of things while "States will be offered freedom from federal regulation". I guess it's not thaqt big of a deal if contradiction in the same paragraph doesn't bother you.
Establish a $1 billion Math and Science Partnership fund for states, colleges and universities to strengthen K-12 math and science education. Establish a $3 billion Education Technology Fund to ensure technology boosts achievement.
One billion, two billion, three little billion.... (and also unconstitutional).
Establish the “Reading First” program by investing $5 billion over five years to ensure that every disadvantaged child can read by third grade.
Make that NINE billion. Way to CONSERVE money, W. That's great Conservative principles you've got there.
.......Establish a $500 million fund to reward states and schools that improve student performance: ..........
Double the number of charter schools through a “Charter School Homestead Fund” to provide $3 billion of loan guarantees for start-up and construction costs
Combine new and existing funding into a $2.4 billion fund for states to train and recruit teachers and enact teacher accountability systems.
Expand loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,500 for math and science majors who commit to teach in high-need schools for five years.
What's this come to? 14 billion or so total? And this restores our freedom how exactly?
Why isn't the Conservative W ending the DOE?
Health Care and the Uninsured
Offer a Refundable Health Credit: Families that don’t qualify for Medicaid and other government assistance and who don’t get insurance through their employer, will be offered a $2,000 health credit ($1000 for individuals) to assist in purchasing a basic health insurance plan
More spending. It's not a tax credit, see the proposal.
For example, if a family earning $30,000 purchases a health insurance plan costing $2,222, the government will contribute $2,000 (90 percent), and the family will pay just $18.50 per month ($222 annually, or 10 percent).
Boys and Girls, can you say Unconstitutional? I know it's a big word... like Compassionate Conservatism...but give it a try. Come on, try really hard. I knew you could.
Environment and Natural Resources
I didn't bother to list the proposals here. The only Constitutional role the Federal Government would have in Environmental policy would be using courts to settle disputes between the States, or cleaning up military pollution. The Federal Government has no Constitutional right to own 50% of the land of the Western US.
Gun Laws
Supports stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, would provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement programs such as Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia.
Supports requiring instant background checks at gun shows by allowing gun show promoters to access the instant check system on behalf of vendors
Supports increasing the minimum age for possession of a handgun from 18 to 21
Supports banning the importation of foreign made, "high-capacity" ammunition clips
Ah yes. More Conservatism. Good to know that W doesn't think young families 18 - 21 or individuals should be able to protect themselves. I think there's some large word that starts with the letter U that applies to all of these proposals. But for some reason it's escaping me.
I'm sure my fellow liberty oriented individuals (that doesn't mean anti-trade Patskis), can come up with additions, or cover the void on what W should be doing that he isn't.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | Top | Last ]
I have one other Important Question in addition to my post to you on Thread One:
To: The_RepublicanNo, if you little bitches did not run away because of few spending bills, libcoms will not win and thus liberalism will not spread as fast. Because you quitter bitches are such proud losers, you blame us for fighting libcoms and losing. Hah. Lose and be happy moron.
Well said. I think you capture the essence of the GOP's appeal this year for many conservatives.
It's a mystery why folks fail to cotton to your way of thinking (so to speak).
Speaking of Whore and fighting the Libcombs ... I'd love your thoughts on the Schumer Amendment vote. You remember that, don't you? In addition to RICO prosecution of abortion protestors, Schumer wanted to remove the possibility of declaring bankruptcy as a standard measure of self-defense for pro-life defendants being prosecuted.
Word was that the vote would be close. For maximum dramatic effect, they even brought Gore in off the campaign trail in case he could TAKE FULL CREDIT FOR THIS ABOMINATION by breaking the anticipated "tie" and getting some good press.
Our "fighters" weren't having that ... instead, they ripped out their hearts and voted 80-17 to PASS the bill and wrest from Whore the culpability for same.
Can YOU please explain that to me? (Standard English is preferred.)
203 Posted on 08/22/2000 10:27:16 PDT by Askel5
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | Top | Last ]
Now that Clinton has issued a fullblown apology for Waco, do you think it's possible Bush -- when on the trail and not on retreat at his 1,500 ranch near Waco, of course -- could address the carnage without fear of "politicizing" the campaign?
While I'm hopeful Bush's constant yammering at Gore to "distance himself" from Clinton will prove fruitful ... I guess I'm more interested in Bush's ability to distance himself likewise.
Regards.
You have made continuous references to "running away" in terms of Libertarians. I asked you what you were talking about in my posts #134 and #180 on Thread One. Could you please clarify?
We are quoting Bush's own positions and the 'accomplishments' of the GOP Congress. These aren't opinions, they are facts.
These are folks who believe SB-30 somehow abrogated a minor's constitutional right to judicial bypass and required minors to inform their parents before having an abortion. They even believed the Dallas Morning News when it said the bill "called for prison time" of offending abortionists. (Capped penalties, perhaps, as it reiterated the veil of complete confidentiality but no prison time.)
Unless I missed it, I didn't see Global Warming on your list of issues. I'll see if I can't dig up that statement for you. As GrandmaC and the Shovel Brigade can attest, the environment's a certain stalking horse and we can afford mixed "smoke signals" on same.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]
Thanks.
And I want to add OWK's laundry list of GOP Congressional Accomplishments. Incremental Conservatism in Action !!
National ID Cards
Expanded (no warrant) wiretap authority for FBI
A national database for “employed people”
Asset seizure for Americans who establish foreign citizenship
The power to declare ANY group as “terrorist” without possibility of appeal (and subsequent monitoring of said groups)
Authorization of “secret trials” for “terrorists”
A national medical database with federal access
100 pages of new “health care crimes” and authorization of asset seizure for said crimes
Funding for the war in Kosovo without Constitutional authority
Continued funding for troops in Bosnia without Constitutional authority
Renewed funding for the NEA
Renewed funding for the NEH
Legislation harassing tobacco companies
Tobacco subsidies
Sugar subsidies
Ethanol subsidies
Agriculture subsidies
The largest Pork legislation in the history of the republic (highways)
IRS reform voted down
IMF bailout with taxpayer money
Russian bailout with taxpayer money
Forgiveness of debt of Billions in third world loans
Expanded federal involvement in education
Sham investigation of China money
Sham investigation of Waco
Restriction of Executive orders voted down
Mandatory restrictions on firearms transactions
Banning of high-capacity magazines
Like I said, not aware of that issue's details but if all protesters can be prosecuted, then obviously it is shameful and disgusting. Does that mean I should punish those cowards by handing over everything to Whore and company, no way.
Interestingly enough, you and other GOP are asking that we "lockstep" like the Democrats do so that the better (but a certain) best of two evils will win.
Quite frankly, I see the Schumer Amendment (if not the GOP's passage of the deformed baby database, the fine print in the Transportation bill, trebling and quadrupling of Clinton's request for cash for his Black Book operations in Colombia and clearly illegal and undeclared "war" in Kosovo ... etc. etc. etc.) as proof positive that the "fighters" of the GOP and indeed our leadership
namely our last TWO presidential candidates who BOTH spoke up in public to plea for a pass on impeachment to preserve the "decorum of the office"
DO NOT IN ANY WAY respect a "lockstep" mentality or expect ANYONE to vote, act or speak with the faith of their true convictions.
I'll be darned ... FINALLY I get the coveted "Laundry List" back in my hot little hands.
Thread II
I was hoping you'd be the one to do that. You do such fine work.
As you know ... my heart still belongs to Dr. Keyes.
I would have gladly voted for Dr. Keyes.
The few issues we differ on are not as important as the many, many gains we would have made toward the restoration of liberty.
W I will not vote for, because I'm losing a lot more than I'm gaining. Assuming he's honest about his intentions.
I never doubted Keyes.
As an aside from a card carrying Libertarian:
Bush's positions on many isuues suck.
Gore's position on every issue sucks worse.
This, I think is the crux of the matter.
I would have gladly voted for Dr. Keyes.
I never doubted Keyes.
Welcome home!
...believing that the "rights and mores" of society outweigh the right of consenting adult individuals to engage in private behavior or contracts, if those adults happen to be "butt-pirates."
Because they believe that same sex marriage is as bizarre as wanting to marry one's grandmother, or because even a few want to selectively enforce archaic sodomy laws that are presently rarely (thank goodness) enforced, you liken social conservatives and gays to Nazis and Jews?
You try to make it sound as if there's a movement afoot to strip gays of the right to vote, or the right to own property or run a business. That's silly.
The crux of the matter is that most issues are no longer open to discussion. When both sides are sufficientally polarized by Fear-Mongering, the outcome is practically inevitable. Given Gore's perpetual missteps, I think the outcome is a given.
I'm just very sorry that loyal GOP and "Bushies" find it necessary to so degrade those who merely are sticking to their guns on clearly valid issues of federal power vs. individual rights and the Constitution. I think those who refuse to adopt a "bygones" posture with regard to the last eight years of wholesale death and destruction at home and abroad also are the more rational (if not always calm) in debate.
Gradeschool-level responses ("What, are you for GORE?") are clearly counter-productive and only serve to underscore the feeling of some that the vast majority -- both left and right -- have become smooth-brained, security-conscious, "It's the Economy, Stupid" sheep to the slaughter.
"The gay lobby has, through incrementalism and sticking with the democrats, advanced their agenda to the point it is now! Don't you think we could maybe learn something here?"
From the first thread
Funny you should mention incrementalism and the gay agenda and where it is now. It has now infiltrated the Republican party. And yes, we could learn something from that.
The Pro choice agenda has infiltrated the Republicans too, and the pro life plank will get yanked just as soon as the pro choicers out number the pro lifers. Almost got yanked this time, but got saved by a couple of people changing their minds after the vote!
All this rhetoric on 'commpassionate conservatism' and 'inclusion' is going to get us incrementally compromised. JMO
Given Gore's perpetual missteps ... and Bush's all too apparent pandering.
It's one thing to stoop to conquer ... it's quite another to call it "smart" or savvy.
And I am tired of Bush-bashing-bashing-bashing.
As you know ... my heart still belongs to Dr. Keyes.
I know, as does mine and many other Christian Libertarians and Constitutional Conservatives.
Dr. Keyes has a way of bringing us all together.
I have taken the liberty of stocking this thread -- Global Warming Might Burn Bush with some links of interest.
I did get a little grin at the ideological difficulties posed for you on this thread. Let's see, who can you support, the libertarians or the bushies, each of which you have scorned so eloquently in the past? Hmmmmmm......
P.S. For the record, I give MUCH better kisses than AlBore... ;)
It shouldn't be. Allow me an allegory. Let's say that tyranny knows no bounds, so as x (time) increases we can measure our path to tyranny by the results of our votes...our function.
Mathmatically speaking x^2 (x squared) reaches infinity a lot faster than x^1/2 (the square root of x), but they both reach infinity, tyranny in this case, inevitably as time goes on.
More simply, you can *never* achieve GOOD by voting EVIL, even if it's the lesser of two evils. Harry Browne gets my vote.
Was that not disgusting?
No ideological vaporlock as yet ... just another upside to never quite "fitting in".
Warm regards from the Lunatic Fringe ... =)
Because they believe that same sex marriage is as bizarre as wanting to marry one's grandmother
I find prayer a far more bizarre ritual. But neither is reason to deny someone their individual rights.
or because even a few want to selectively enforce archaic sodomy laws that are presently rarely (thank goodness) enforced, you liken social conservatives and gays to Nazis and Jews?
No – I didn’t. Dingaling brought up the reducto ad Hitler, and I pointed out his position was more closely likened to those he decried than libertarians. I did not liken principled opposition to the "special gay rights" to persecution of Jews.
You try to make it sound as if there's a movement afoot to strip gays of the right to vote, or the right to own property or run a business. That's silly.
Some would, actually. And if you don’t see the calls for it here on FR, you’re being blind.
But no need to go that far. Social conservatives already oppose the idea of allowing two consenting adults to enter contracts of their own choosing – simply because of who they wet their willies with.
There are no such things as "gay rights" – but gay people have the same individual rights – including to enter contracts – as you and I.
As far as I am concerned, government has no place in social contracts at all.
How the heck are you?
Regards
J.R.
OWK's list is outstanding. It is never seriously challenged by the gopers.
Regards
J.R.
As an aside from a card carrying Libertarian:
Bush's positions on many isuues suck.
Gore's position on every issue sucks worse.
This, I think is the crux of the matter.
So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, could be paraphrased like this:
Everything that can be accomplished by electing Bush can be accomplished faster and more efficiently by electing Gore.
Would you say that's about the size of it?
I find prayer a far more bizarre ritual. But neither is reason to deny someone their individual rights.
Well - I find them equally strange - I'm not a believer. There are churches all over the nation willing to marry same sex couples, none of my business. What - you say The State must recognize these unions? Not until it recognizes my right to marry my son or brother.
Some would, actually. And if you don’t see the calls for it here on FR, you’re being blind.
I've seen many vile calls for death by AIDS, but I have yet to see anyone here call for removing the right to vote or curbing economic freedoms like owning a business for gays. Please link these posts for me - I'd appreciate it.
There are no such things as "gay rights"...
There are, and you oppose them as much as I do. One is forced to engage in contracts with those who engage in what many consider to be kinky sex in many parts of this country.
I'm tired of homosexuality being politicized by The Left and The Right - because all it is is kinky sex. Just like group sex - it's a person's business to do it whenever he/she can get it, and it does not make a person evil if they believe such activities are tacky.
I don't disagree with anything you said, except there seems to be a "separate but unequal" thing happening.
Either the state should stay the hell out of ALL contracts ('cept those that stipulate the initiation of force or fraud) or else it should recognize all.
Right now, us married heteros get certain privileges (and tax penalties) that neither single people nor married homosexuals have.
Turns out, ironically, it's us heterosexuals with "special rights."
Either recognize all adult marriages in any combo (yes, including incest, for those that stupid), or stay the hell out of it.
That's all I ask. Equal protection under the law.
You are right, of course. My vote is for the government to stay out - period.
Turns out, ironically, it's us heterosexuals with "special rights."
OK - but to make that statement really ring true, you should have typed "...it's ...(married) heterosexuals (with children) with 'special rights'" It's not just gays who are treated unfairly by the Taxman.
Cheers - this was funner that group sex!
Everything that can be accomplished by electing Bush can be accomplished faster and more efficiently by electing Gore.
No, I'd say that while things will not go the way we like if we elect Bush, more things will go bad much faster if we elect Gore.
The fact of the matter is, Harry ain't gonna win. I'll continue to donate money, change out my still posted 4 year old yard sign, go to fundraisers....but it won't get Harry elected.
But if the crook Gore gets elected, the Klinton crime machine will accelerate in trampling our rights and liberties. Faggot Beano (or her ilk) will break into more homes and burn more churchgoers alive. More stupid interventions like Kosovo will happen. And we'll see vast increases in the redistribution of money stolen from the working folks to those who enjoy being parasites.
No, Bush certainly isn't my ideal, but here in Texas we like him a whale of a lot better than Ann Richards.
Let's put the brakes on rampant statism, slow its progress to zero, before we try to reverse course. There's some social interia to be overcome.
Cheers - this was funner that group sex!
Not really. That's a different kind of fun. ;^)
But if the crook Gore gets elected, the Klinton crime machine will accelerate in trampling our rights and liberties. Faggot Beano (or her ilk) will break into more homes and burn more churchgoers alive. More stupid interventions like Kosovo will happen. And we'll see vast increases in the redistribution of money stolen from the working folks to those who enjoy being parasites.
I'd have to say that I think you're pretty much exactly right--which is why I'm going to vote for Howard Phillips. You see, if Bush gets elected, the trampling of our rights and liberties won't accelerate: we'll keep losing them at the steady rate to which we have by long experience become accustomed. By the time we realize that we have none left, we won't have the wherewithal to do anything about it.
But if the statism and tyranny is so blatant that folks can actually _feel_ it, then maybe there's a chance we can do something about it. Possibly even without the shedding of blood.
But the business about slowing the country's slide before turning it around is pure fantasy, I'm afraid. First of all, it's been tried before and it didn't work, even under the likes of Reagan, who was probably the greatest President in my lifetime; secondly, there's no mechanism in place by which it can be slowed down.
If it's going to stop, it's going to have to be stopped--in one of two ways.
If tens of millions of people--say fifty to seventy-five million--got royally honked off and were willing to put their comfy jobs and their comfy lives on the line to stand together and say they're not going to take it anymore, something could probably be done. Corruption in Washington could be cleaned up significantly; voter fraud could be greatly reduced for an election or two; enough judges and DAs and other politicians could be investigated to set up a few key Constitutional decisions on which a bunch of others could be hung, and also to tear down a few key unconstitutional decisions that are presently supporting a bunch of others; and so on. But it'd take a force of honked-off people much larger than the government they were honked off at, or else there's no intimidation factor and no motivation for change.
The other way, of course, is for a couple of hundred thousand folks, or maybe even just a few dozen thousand, to just start shooting people.
Which way do you want to do it? I want to do it the first way. But to do it the first way, we need millions of angry people, and all we've got now are thousands. Unless we can find some way to outrage a whole lot more people in not very long (we've got to have outrage after outrage piled up very quickly--obviously even more quickly than Clinton could manage it), our only option is for those few thousands to gradually get angry enough to start shooting.
Can you think of a better (achievable) way to generate the necessary outrage than having Gore at the helm of the country--perhaps followed after four or eight years, if necesary, by Hillary!? Clinton is mostly interested in grabbing power in order to benefit himself, but Gore and Hillary! both have starry-eyed socialist utopian visions for the country, and are much more likely to issue decrees that materially affect (i.e., outrage) millions of people than Clinton is.
I can't think of a better way. Bush isn't it. After Bush, we're going to have fewer freedoms, but we won't have any outrage to show for it, and the liberals will be waiting again, armed with whatever boneheaded stunts Bush pulls while he's in office. Maybe we'll get the outrage then, but it takes awhile to build, and we've got eight years of Clinton to build on right now. I don't want to throw away those eight years and start all over with our liberties in the further-reduced state in which Bush will leave them.
I say bring Gore on now, if necessary followed by Hillary!. They're the best chance this nation has of avoiding another revolutionary war.
(Please--don't nobody whine about how having Gore and Hillary! in the White House won't be comfortable. It was comfort that brought us to this pass in the first place; if this nation is to survive in recognizable form, we're all going to have to be uncomfortable to get it there, no matter which path is chosen. Some of us may well even have to die, or watch our children die. We won't be the first.)
"And I want to add OWK's laundry list of GOP Congressional Accomplishments. Incremental Conservatism in Action !!
National ID Cards
Expanded (no warrant) wiretap authority for FBI
A national database for 'employed people'
Asset seizure for Americans who establish foreign citizenship
The power to declare ANY group as 'terrorist' without possibility of appeal (and subsequent monitoring
of said groups)
Authorization of 'secret trials' for 'terrorists'
(continued ad nauseum...)"
And people wonder why I voted for Harry Browne and would do so again (even if I lived in Florida). I don't trust Dubya any more than I trust those Republicans who gave us the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, that allows for the confiscation of any wealth that expatriate Americans should leave behind, when they leave (Yes. It was a Republican introduced amendment that created that abomination). I hope that Dubya proves me wrong, but I won't be holding my breath.
"Like the GOP cares about executive orders. They're too busy with their 'conservative' agenda ..."
As far as EO's are concerned, here is the straight poop.
Herbert Hoover - 1011 EO's issued over 4 years including the Depression
Franklin Roosevelt - 3728 EO's issued over 12 years including the Depression and W.W.II
Harry S. Truman - 896 EO's issued over 8 years including post-W.W.II
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 486 EO's issued over 8 years
John F. Kennedy - 214 EO's issued over 2 years
Lyndon B. Johnson - 324 EO's issued over 6 years
Richard Nixon - 346 EO's issued over 5 years
Gerald R. Ford - 169 EO's issued over 3 years
Jimmy Carter - 320 EO's issued over 4 years
Ronald Reagan - 381 EO's issued over 8 years
George Bush - 166 EO's issued over 4 years
William J. Klinton - 347 EO's issued over 8 years (and still counting)
The winners in the EO's issued per year category are Kennedy, followed closely by Carter and Nixon. The problem with klinton's EO's are not so much the number, but the horrendous effect that many of his EO's have.
Libertarians are excellent list makers.
Thank GOD that you've provided another opportunity for badmouthing Republicans here at Free Republic. THIS FORUM NEEDS MORE of these kinds of posts!!! It is good that you show the differences between Libertarians (or (l)ibertarians) and Republicans, the party that will soon govern from the Presidency, down. If you keep this up, all the dumb Republicans will MOVE ON. They are no friends to conservatives-everybody knows that Bush = Gore and Republicans = Democrats. Republicans should start their own site, or take one over like the Libertarians have done here at Free Republic. Maybe this will shut them up for good.
But the Republicans and Democrats are better at making lists. Especially enemies lists.
In fact all Libertarians make those enemies lists.
Bash Bush? Why Not?
Libertarians get bashed all the time and I say tit for tat. You want to bash Libertarians,
then don't be surprised when you get bashed right back.
I have tried to make peace and I have been told to stuff it. So therefore I will bash right back.
You want peace, then you need to talk to your fellow Republicans.
CATO
It is good that you show the differences between Libertarians (or (l)ibertarians) and Republicans
Quite true. But I wrote this, not Askel5... although I'm sure she's less than thrilled with RINOs.
Thrilled enough to become one of us???? heheheheh.
Oh really? Well, then I do apologize for not reading more carefully. I see clearly now that it is YOUR name as author. Still, minor credit should be given to askel for reposting it.
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |