Posted on 02/15/2008 8:13:24 PM PST by 2findtheway
Denial ain't a river in Egypt.
1)Because he has zero appeal to anyone other than evangelical Christians.
2) Because he's a fundamentalist nut who rejects much of modern geology and biology, resulting in him getting trounced in the general election. Can you imagine the fodder he would provide to those accusing our party of waging a war on science? If the Huckster turned out to be our nominee, they would actually be right.
3) His socialist record as governor turns off economic conservatives and would divide the party if he were nominated.
4) But most importantly, McCain at this point has an insurrmountable delegate lead. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's a fact. While it is a mathematical possibility that Huckabee might still win, statistically it is so improbable that it might as well be considered impossible.
The man has lost and refuses to admit it. That in and of itself should disqualify him in the eyes of any reasonable person. There's nothing worse than a sore loser.
They why did he give in-state tuition to illegal aliens residing in Arkansas?
He's absolutely correct.
Which is why Romney, like Thompson and Tancredo, instead supports a policy of attrition through enforcement. His plan is to make it impossible for illegals to get jobs and welfare, thereby forcing them to gradually deport themselves.
What is stupid is comparing anything to do with this primary and the candidates that have dropped out so far, with Reagan’s race in 1976.
No, the South sold us out long before the race was down to Huck and McCain. Rudy was first in the polls until a few months before the vote. Then they went with McCain and Huck over the more conservative Thompson, Romney and Hunter. Huck is conservative on life but that is about it. He repeatedly lied about Romney and other candidates during the Primary saying he (Huck) was the only one who supported a Federal Marraige Amendment. The problem when you start selling your Christianity on your sleeve is that when you start lying it makes all of us who follow Jesus look bad.
Huck went out of his way to insult Mormons. It is the same thing McCain did to Evangelicals in 2000. Most Evangelicals didn't vote for McCain in 2000 b/c he dissed them openly. Huck did the same thing to Mormons more than once this go around. Rush excoriated him for it. Just as Rush excoriated McCain for it in 2000.
>>Look at Utah results - 90% for Mitt, and 5% for McCain, 1% for Huckabee??? Gee, I wonder why that happened
Most Utahn's didn't know who Romney was until he came in to save them from the debt and scandal ridden Olympics. Mo Udall didn't get any traction in Utah when he ran for President.
Now on to the tired cult charges...
>>>1. They basically believe in a prophetic era in North America that cannot be substantiated by any historical facts, no findings, no nothing, etc...
You mean you are going to believe the same scientists that gave us "Global Warming" as some kind of authority on Book of Mormon evidences? That's rich. Google "Izapa stela 5" or "Olmecs" and "Iron ore" or "Chiasmus". Though I don't expect evidentiary support to convince you. The same scientists tried to say the Bible was false b/c it mentions lions in Israel which was unsupported by the archeological evidence. Finally, in 1947 someone found Lion bones in Israel. Of course it didn't convert any of the scientists they just move on to another topic. Like, "where is the Ark?".
>>>>Polygamy was practiced by Joseph Smith when it was clearly forbidden by God in Old and New Testament
Try googling the Prophet Nathan and "Thus saith the Lord".... aww forget it here is the reference. Notice how it says "thus saith the Lord" when Nathan gave David extra wives but condemned him for adultery outside of marraige and killing Uriah.
2 Sam. 12:7-9 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
Martin Luther and St. Augustine admitted the OT polygamy was sanctioned by God. It's fine with me if you choose not believe in it's modern day practice, as I don't either, but the OT biblical pronouncements on the subject don't fit your agenda.
>>>There was a war in Mexico, and when all of the men had to go and fight, Joseph Smith
As Romney once said in the debate to Huckabee in reference to his economic policies. "Facts are stubborn things." And "You Make up Facts faster than you talk." Joseph Smith was killed before the Mormon Battalion was called up to March for the War on Mexico. BTW, the Mormon Battallion has the US military record for longest overland march. It's something I'm proud of.
>>>3. Joseph Smith brought a message to the people that the Mormons are God’s preserved priesthood that he is restoring for our day - a time like no other.
Yup. I agree you don't have any Priesthood authority. It's pretty simple really. Catholics claim the "original" authority. Protestants claim Catholics lost it on the way and we got the "reformation". Mormons claim a reformation couldn't get it back but God had to with a "restoration". So we are a restorationsist church. (Incidentally, Thompson belongs to a restorationist Christian church which rejects the post apostolic creeds as well).
>>Cast a vote the American Way
My Mormon ancestors (as well as Romney's) converted in the 1840's here in America, and before the Restoration of 1830 some family lines go back to the Founding Fathers in the 1700's and 1600's. So a vote for Romney would have been a very American thing to do.
But anyway. Romney is out of the race so this discussion we are having is beating a dead horse a bit. I won't vote for Huck just as Evangelicals wouldn't vote for McCain in 2000. He could apologize for lying about my faith I suppose, which would be the "Christian" thing to do. An apology would help me see him more favorably but I still wouldn't vote for him based on his liberalism.
I don’t know where to begin, but I’ll try.
>> Then they went with McCain and Huck over the more conservative Thompson, Romney and Hunter.
Read all the Romney quotes in this article here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/12/09/romneys_record_on_gays_questioned_after_1994_letter_re_emerges/
Now he supports it -
Here’s the big flipflop again:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Aug31/0,4670,2008CandidatesGayMarriage,00.html
Your theory of the whole South thing needs some fine tuning. And Mitt isn’t a liar? I could spend the time and list at least 10 or 15 Mitt flip-flops - can you do the same for Huckabee? Whether you agree or disagree with him, he is firm in his position. I don’t know how you see Romney as some sort of “man of integrity, a real conservative”??? I guess some people want to believe something bad enough ...
>> selling your Christianity on your sleeve is that when you start lying it makes all of us who follow Jesus look bad.
Who’s “selling Christianity”? Huckabee doesn’t “hide” his faith, and neither did those who set this country up. How come you have so much to write, but no sources for your slander?
I believe Mormon’s are good people, just mislead. Romney is a skilled politician and illusionist - just like the crystal rubbing (forbidden in the Old Testament), treasure hunting, “you can rub the plates I found while wrapped in a blanket, but you can’t see them” Joseph Smith. Can’t you see the con, my friend?
>> Huck insulted Mormons
Huck made a true statement about Mormon belief. He stated fact - how is that an insult? (Please explain this.)
>> Most Utahn’s didn’t know who Romney was
Since when does the Mormon capitol of the world not know a Mormon is not running for President? You really are in denial!
>> You mean you are going to believe the same scientists
I don’t look to science or else I would be a scientologist ... but rather I define myself as a biblical Christian, not to be defined by Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, or whoever. My faith is defined by in whom I believe (Christ), and the fruits of my walk with him. When I said history, I meant that the Old and New Testament has a million verifiable facts lending to its authenticity. Not so with the Book of Mormon.
>> Martin Luther and St. Augustine admitted the OT polygamy was sanctioned by God.
Where’s the source? (you know, it makes your points much more effective) And if they did, so what? That’s just 2 human beings, they don’t think for me. I would ask them to prove their case as well! It’s indisputably forbidden in the New Testament - which would apply to Joseph Smith. However, you didn’t seem to explain why he did it?
>> As Romney once said in the debate to Huckabee in reference to his economic policies. “Facts are stubborn things.” And “You Make up Facts faster than you talk.”
What facts? You just give Mormon defense talking points.
“Faster than you talk” - You may want to slow down on this one yourself because you apparently are taking issue with the wrong person - the two mid-twenty missionaries who came to my house (that have been Mormon their whole lives), and well trained I am sure, told me these things. (By the way, I treated them well and asked them if they wanted to stay for dinner...)
>> So we are a restorationsist church. (Incidentally, Thompson belongs to a restorationist Christian church which rejects the post apostolic creeds as well).
How did Thompson get in this? I could care less about the McCain-Feingold supporter and “actor”.
I think we finally agree on a point! I agree that I don’t have any Priesthood authority - and neither do you or your Mormon church. You can take up this issue with Jesus, because he fulfilled the priesthood. So if you guys want to take the priesthood from Christ - you deny his sacrifice and I am sure he would take issue with that. However, this is precisely my point - Mormon’s (as well as Catholics) are trying to claim intercessory rights between God and man (Hallmark of a cult). Jesus came as the eternal high priest, the curtain in the Holy of Holies was torn in half when he was crucified, and we now have access to God through this “eternal high priest” in Christ. If you want to bring back the priesthood, good luck - because you bring back with it the Law. Live by the Law, and be judged it. Make sure you are observing all of it!
>> My Mormon ancestors ... So a vote for Romney would have been a very American thing to do.
Boy that’s a real stretch ... can you name one Founding Father who was a Mormon?
>> “He could apologize for lying about my faith I suppose”
And where was the lie about your faith? I don’t believe you mentioned it...
In all good will, please try to look at the facts objectively. After the emotion subsides, explore Mormonism from an objective viewpoint, especially Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith did not bear the same “fruits” for Mormonism as did Jesus for Christianity. I know it is hard to really look at something you have been trained to believe your whole life. I will pray for you.
Thank you for listening.
There is a difference between a candidate supporting and promoting gay things and not actively discriminating against them. Romney has made clear he does not support their cause but will not openly discriminate against them (ie fire someone from a job if they are gay.)
Ann Coulter explained the difference pressty well. But I see in a previous email you already wrote her (as well as Rush Limbaugh's opinions off) (BTW, what are your conservative credentials so we can objectively compare and constrast whether we should trust you over Ann and Rush?)
Coulter also touted Romney's position on gay rights, saying:
COULTER: And of course, if you're working for a Republican candidate, you'll meet some nice heterosexual guys. By the way, before I let that slide, I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media, how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being "pro-gays, and that's going to upset right-wingers." Well, you know, screw you, I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against. I mean, I think we have, in addition to blacks, I don't know why all gays aren't Republicans. I think we have the pro-gay position, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money, and they're victims of crime. I mean, the way -- no, they are. They should be with us. But the media portrays us. If they could get away with it, they would start saying, you know, "Mitt Romney, he's pro-civil rights, and that's going to upset conservatives." No. OK. Sorry, go ahead."
Romney from an interview about the matter in 2006.
Lopez: As you know, in recent days the Boston Globe and the New York Times, as well as the Boston newspaper, Bay Windows, have run pieces about your 1994 race against Ted Kennedy and your run for governor that appear to be in conflict with your current position against gay marriage. Are they?
Gov. Romney: These old interviews and stories have frequently been circulated by my opponents ever since I took a stand against the Massachusetts supreme-court ruling on same-sex marriage. This being the political season, it is not surprising this old news has appeared again. But I have made clear since 2003, when the supreme court of Massachusetts redefined marriage by fiat, that my unwavering advocacy for traditional marriage stands side by side with a tolerance and respect for all Americans.
Like the vast majority of Americans, I’ve opposed same-sex marriage, but I’ve also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference. Americans are a tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage and it is a debate about activist judges who make up the law rather than interpret the law.
I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and I have been rock solid in my support of traditional marriage. Marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. It’s unfortunate that those who choose to defend the institution of marriage are often demonized.
Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?
Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.
As for military policy and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same.
Lopez: Congressman Harold Ford and 33 other Democrat House members voted for a federal marriage amendment this year; you don’t hear a whole lot of coverage of facts like that — or criticisms that they might be as mean and hateful as Republicans who vote similarly are regularly characterized. Does the mainstream media have double standards for Republicans?
Gov. Romney: Well, they do tend to ignore a lot of facts on this issue. How many people have heard that marriage amendments or referendums this year passed by large margins including by 84 percent in Tennessee; 84 percent in South Carolina, 58 percent in Virginia, and by 59 percent in Wisconsin? In 2004 similar measures passed by wide margins in 13 states. California passed a referendum by 61 percent opposing same-sex marriage in 2000. This is a mainstream issue on which most Americans are fairly united but coverage often doesn’t reflect that.
Try Googling the Urim and Thummim (seer stone) in the OT. There are quite a few referencs to them and a few to the stone in Book of Revelations. Instead of admitting your previous error (about polygamy in the OT) and learning more about the OT you are just throwing up more smoke to slander Joseph Smith. Read the Bible some more then get back to slandering Joseph. It will save us both some time.
>>Huck made a true statement about Mormon belief.
It's called a canard. Canard ( ) n. An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.
The liberal MSM does this all the time. Let me ask you honestly. Have you ever heard canards about Evanglicals from the MSM? How about the one about the "Christian Terrorist in OKC". It was also a lie, a canard. Huck engaged in liberal style lies against Mormons.
>>>Martin Luther and St. Augustine admitted the OT polygamy was sanctioned by God. Where’s the source?
Google can be your friend. The quotes are only about 10 seconds away if you are really interested. They both have well know quotes on the matter.
>>Boy that’s a real stretch ... can you name one Founding Father who was a Mormon?
You misread what I wrote suprise. The Mormon church was founded in 1830. The Founders of the Mormon church are related (as in ancestry) to the founding fathers. John Winthrop being a prime example who has many Mormon descendants. (Oh and a guy name George Washington has Mormon decendants who joinee the church as well)
>>the two mid-twenty missionaries who came to my house (that have been Mormon their whole lives), and well trained I am sure, told me these things. (By the way, I treated them well and asked them if they wanted to stay for dinner...)
Missionaries are great and well intentioned but lets be honest. Most are young and barely out of their momma's houses. They have faith but what is really amazing is they really aren't trained much at all and go out into the world and deal with Ministers and others who have been training for longer than they have been alive.
I am glad you invited them to dinner. Very gracious of you. Look I am getting a little more contentious than I intend to be. We are jst going to have to agree to disagree about Huckabee. As a Mormon I would vote for an Evangelical like JC Watts or Duncan Hunter for President in a second but I am just not going to do it for Huck.
Things are getting a little thick around here.
I'd say it's getting a little "deep" in here. LOL
By your reasoning Rams, my ancestors who joined the LDS Church in 1834 and were descendants of the Mayflower and also of two early American Presidents named “Adams,” give me credibility and you should vote for me, even though I think your LDS religion is a Satanic delusion.
Okay? Do I have your vote? ,-)
If you don’t mind, I am going to depart from the faith discussion for a moment -
I fully respect your decision to not support Huckabee, but I think you are gravely mistaken that he is less of a conservative than Romney. There was nothing noble about, or difficult for Romney to endorse McCain - because in exchange for a future with the GOP establishment its an easy transition for Romney to support McCain politics and views.
My point from the very beginning of this topic, is why isn’t Huckabee a viable Conservative alternative?
1. He has a “Jeffersonian” view of government - power to the states, learning from each other in terms of policy and governing, and smaller Federal government.
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE
- 100% Pro-life
- National life amendment
- Marriage amendment
- Overturn Row v. Wade
FISCAL/ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE
- Fair Tax. (let people keep more of their own money) You may want to read up on the beautiful advantages of the Fair Tax. I don’t know why any other candidate doesn’t support this.
- HealthCare. A free-market (pro economy) solution which includes preventative care
- Lower taxes. In all the time he was governor in 10 1/2 years, the state income tax remained the same. Only after 9/11 did they temporarily raise it by some 1/8 % or something like that, then in 2 years ( after making the legislature promise from the beginning ), lowered it back to the original rate. Cut taxes almost 100 times. (We can debate this, his opponents like to move the math around). Keep in mind that the Arkansas legislature demands a balanced budget (no deficit). Unlike our Federal government which can have deficit spending???)
- Conservative on selecting judges
- Conservative on 2nd Amendment as spelled out in its original intent
- Conservative on our military in that he supports a large, well-equipped military; also to create mandatory legislation to compensate and support our veterans. Believes in the Surge as the right strategy, and believes in letting the Generals run military ops - not politically correct politicians.
- Conservative on national security Supports a 9-point plan on real border security detailed for everyone to see on website.
- Conservative on education - recognized parents the right to homeschool their own children and called it a “viable” alternative, instead of simply recognizing “government institutional schooling” as the only alternative.
- TIME magazine honored him as one of the five best governors in America.
- Recognized by his peers for leadership, the National Governor’s Association selected governor Huckabee as it’s Chairman.
- Romney admitted himself during one of the debates that a governor (himself) is much more qualified than a senator (McCain, who simply sits on committees and votes). So who would be the obvious, remaining, Conservative governor choice for the Republican party?
Need I go on? I don’t think you could even know this much stuff about the other candidates because they shroud their true positions in a cloud of rhetoric - so that they can flip-flop anytime according to whichever way the political winds are blowing. Governor Huckabee is completely transparent where he stands on the Conservative issues, and writes it in detail on his website for all of American to hold him to his words!
I believe the point was made here. I also believe that the reality is that in all of my posts made here, so many of my points or issues are ignored. That’s because, even though Huckabee is Conservative on point after point, the truth is that many individuals still cannot articulate why they won’t vote for him - they bring up some frivolous nonsense as if in light of all the things I mentioned above, that the one little dopey anecdote makes a huge difference.
That’s because the one thing that holds them back is the Baptist minister thing. There exists a bias in your heart, whether you want to admit it or not, and you grasp on straws with the whole “Jesus is Satan’s brother” statement. (Even though this is an official position on the LDS website)
It might surprise you to know, that I even considered Romney as my choice at one time. I am not voting for a “pastor in chief”, or a “Mormon in chief” - I am voting for a nominee for President of the United States.
I believe Huckabee is the last chance to reform this party that is ever slipping further to the left. McCain is another way of saying to the GOP leadership, “Even though you guys selected a candidate McCain before the country had a chance to vote and violated my Constitutional right, and even though you force down my throat your candidate choice, and even though you want to blame me if he doesn’t get elected, and even though McCain is splitting the Republican Party (and you try to blame Huckabee), and even though McCain will lose us the election in November - I will still support you like the gullible American you guys all know that we are!
This election has flushed out the cockroaches from our Republican party. Who are they? Look at the endorsement line-up. All these corrupt politicians support the Washington insider, let’s stay in Iraq for a 100 years (McCain) simply to make sure that Bush’s legacy is preserved and that business continues as usual.
I went door-to-door for Bush in the last election. Now he disgusts me. I guess it sometimes takes a polarizing election to show where people really stand. The supposed honest, conservative and straight shooter Republican George Bush has shown his true colors by his dishonest endorsement of McCain (along with all of the other hacks), as a man that can unite this Party. I don’t what Party Bush is referring to because it sure looks a lot like the Democratic Party anymore.
P.S. McCain’s campaign is called the “Straight Talk Express”. Are you guys going to fall for this “marketing of McCain” again? When you get 24/7 media coverage, endorsements galore, a well-funded campaign, even liberals saying nice things about you, negative coverage for your opponents - and almost 50% of your Party is still voting for Huckabee despite all of this - don’t you think that maybe the “Straight Talk” doesn’t match “The Walk”?
|
Bruce R. McConkie, in his work The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, Pg.407-408 under the heading " Lucifer and the Law of Temptation" has the following to say;
.
"The devil knows the Father much better than we. Lucifer, the son of the morning, knows Jesus Christ, the Son of God, much better than we; but in him it is not and will not redound to eternal life; for knowing, he yet rebels; knowing, he is yet disobedient; he will not receive the truth; he will not abide in the truth; hence he is perdition, and there is no salvation for him." Bruce R. McConkie, in his definitive work, Mormon Doctrine, on page 744, says;
To plainly state that Jesus (Jehovah) and Lucifer (Satan) are brothers the writings of Spencer W. Kimball, the LDS prophet, must be considered;
Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, April 1964, Pg.95
The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Pg.33
|
The Book of Mormon states categorically that plural marriage is an abomination in the sight of God.
I know you've seen this verse before. So why are you misrepresenting the textual record?
Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was cabominable before me, saith the Lord. 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
The clause I responded to implied a vote for Romney was Un-American. I just showed that Mormons have long been Americans thus disqualifying the clause presented.
Your virulent obsession with bashing Mormonism based on your own polygamous past and abuse experiences would lead me to question whether you have really moved on and forgiven your ex-husband. It's time to forgive and move on and get rid of this obsession of yours. If someone is abused by a Catholic priest it does not invalidate the faith of millions of Catholics though the victim is greatly harmed. The Catholic Priest will burn in hell but it does not make the Catholic religion any more or less true. It is the same if a Baptist minister, for example, killed a baby through his mob action of tarring and feathering the parent while the baby died of exposure to the winter cold (bonus points if you can figure out this reference). It would not invalidate the faith of other Baptists. Just b/c you had a rotten expereince with an abusive ex does not invalidate the Faith of Mormons. Though I do feel sorry for you as you obviously have not moved on from the experience.
COMMAND them to do WHAT??
It is NOT specified.
OBVIOUSLY, the 'command' would be to NOT practice polygamy.
What part of "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things" do the LDS members fail to understand??
I was never a polygamist.
If we are bandying about attacks over scandalous pasts, perhaps you are looking for a father figure to protect you against sexual abuse? No?
Perhaps you should move on and forget your sexual obsession with Joseph Smith. He liked women.
Joseph Smith Translation Gen. 50: 27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.
Joseph Smith Translation Gen. 50: 31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of thy loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins of Judah, shall grow together
2 Nephi 3:12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins write; and the fruit of thy loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins of Judah, shall grow together,
2 Nephi 3:18 And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare 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.