Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 10, 2025

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

NEW: Supreme Court rejects long-shot effort to overturn ruling that legalized gay marriage: www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup ...

[image or embed]

-- Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley.bsky.social) Nov 10, 2025 at 9:33 AM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I am glad to see this decision. America is the one place on earth who should set an example supporting homosexual relationships. Too often gay couples find themselves in limbo when it comes to legal rights when one passes away or dealing with other problems straight married couples take for granted.

#1 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 01:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

Kim Davis is going to have the big sads now. Awwwwwwwwww the poor thing.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-11-10 01:59 PM | Reply

I'm amazed at what I've seen in my lifetime. I honestly never thought I'd live to witness some of these changes.

To begin with, gays in the military. In the 1970s, I saw firsthand the fear gay people lived under. The risk of losing not just their careers but their dignity and even their rights as veterans.

Leonard Matlovich would be so proud today. His case didn't change a great deal, but it proved something profound. Gay people could serve honorably and be a credit to the Armed Forces.

It was during the Obama administration that Congress repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," paving the way for the Pentagon to certify open service.

And now, gay marriage. I'm overjoyed that two men can marry and build a relationship that society can no longer tear apart.

Kudos to all who made it possible. I'll admit, I still have some concern that the secular use of the word "marriage" might someday conflict with the church's definition and perhaps lead to lawsuits that test the boundaries of religious freedom.

#3 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 02:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

A (somewhat arbitrary) victory for stare decises.

#4 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-11-10 02:21 PM | Reply

stare decises => stare decisis

I had to look it up...
"Stare decisis" is a Latin legal term meaning "to stand by things decided." It's the doctrine that courts should generally follow precedent " in other words, respect past rulings instead of overturning them.

#5 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 02:29 PM | Reply

Bill: You had to look up stare decisis? You keep up with current events? You've read newspapers for many years? You're how old?

#6 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2025-11-10 04:12 PM | Reply

"I saw firsthand the fear gay people lived under."

^
Wants immigrants to live that way.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-10 04:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am glad to see this decision.
#1 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

I speak for the entire LGBTQ+ community when I wholeheartedly say, Fuck You.

You demonized and posted nothing but hate when we were fighting for marriage equality.

You don't believe we deserve equality.

You kept saying we would regret pushing for marriage equality.

We should be happy with unions.

That America would turn on us.

You just recently argued we had no right to marriage.

Do fuck off.

You stupid fucking bigot.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 04:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Db,

My wife is one of the most well read, educated people I've ever known.

Reads constantly smart stuff. Currents events, spent years doing all sorts of research and she's never seen "stare decisis".

Not much into legal terminology.

#9 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 05:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Clown,

If you're going to accuse me of saying things, at least get it right. Understand what I mean.

What I said was in reference to the Christian bakers who did not want to participate in a gay marriage for religious reasons. Not the gays but the product and service they wanted.

What I said was, if the intent is to have a gay wedding in a religious context, it would be a mockery for some Christians. Me included.

A gay marriage in a secular setting is different.

My main concern has been insuring the word "marriage" has no religious meaning when performing the wedding for a gay couple.

Leave churches alone and not sue for discrimination or believe gay couples have any rights in churches that do not believe gays can marry with the same religious meaning.

My concern is the eventual law suit brought by a gay couple claiming those churches are discriminating against them when the issue is the type of ceremony, not gay people.

The courts got it wrong with the bakers and I am concerned the courts will get it wrong again.

How's that. Is that clearer now.

#10 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 06:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"What I said was, if the intent is to have a gay wedding in a religious context, it would be a mockery for some Christians."

Here's the part that doesn't add up for me.
Do you have some kind of right to not be mocked?
Why is it the government's problem if someone makes a mockery of your religion?

Does this make a mockery of your religion?
Should government stop this?
"he Episcopal Church in the United States adopted canonical and liturgical changes in 2015 to allow same-sex marriage, with new marriage rites available under the discretion of local bishops."
en.wikipedia.org

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-10 06:36 PM | Reply

My main concern has been insuring the word "marriage" has no religious meaning when performing the wedding for a gay couple.

Your main concern is making sure homosexuals aren't allowed to consider their marriage sacred based on the teachings of your religion?

Then don't indoctrinate children into Christianity before they have had time to determine whether they're attracted to the same gender or opposite gender.

I'm sure by then no one will care whether your book club accepts them or not.

Deal?

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 06:41 PM | Reply

Can we still get rid of interracial marriage though?
--Clarence Thomas, probably

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-10 07:04 PM | Reply

Clown,

"Your main concern is making sure homosexuals aren't allowed to consider their marriage sacred based on the teachings of your religion?"

Religious freedom means you can consider your marriage sacred till the cows come home.

There's no shortage of more liberal churches that will participate in the facade.

And, some churches might even regard it blasphemy.

No one is telling you what you must believe. Just don't believe it in my church.

You went on the offensive with me so I'm making it perfectly clear lest there be any doubt what I believe.

#14 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 07:09 PM | Reply

Clown,

"Then don't indoctrinate children into Christianity"

Religious freedom means I can teach the faith to anyone willing to listen. Thats how freedom works.

I could even try to "indoctrinate" you, but you seem too smart to risk hearing the Good Word.

So just keep your kids away from places they might encounter it like churches, Christmas, or anyone who still believes in God.

#15 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 07:19 PM | Reply

Religious freedom means I can teach the faith to anyone willing to listen.

By the same token, religious freedom means if a homosexual couple was raised Christian and wants to be wed by their religious beliefs, they are free to do so and no one can prevent them from doing so.

#16 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 07:25 PM | Reply

Clown,

You got it.

Just not expect the church they grew up in to marry them if that church doesn't condone it.

#17 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 07:29 PM | Reply

I'm amazed at what I've seen in my lifetime. I honestly never thought I'd live to witness some of these changes.
#3 | Posted by BillJohnson

Me too. I never thought the nation that defeated the nazis would decided to embrace fascism not even a century later.

I never thought I'd see so many "christians" passionately embrace a leader who is the literal opposite of everything their religion teaches.

I never thought I'd see so many broke morons electing a billionaire con man to make them MORE broke and shoveling their money into the pockets of the rich.

I never thought I'd see someone attempt a coup in the USA and then go totally unpunished.

I never thought I'd see the return of diseases like measels, but this is how stupid your party has become.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-11-10 07:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

if that church doesn't condone it.

What gives that church the right to deny the homosexual couple their religious beliefs?

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 07:30 PM | Reply

Clown,

"What gives that church the right to deny the homosexual couple their religious beliefs?"

If you have to ask that question, everything I just wrote went over your head. I won't bother explaining it.

You're much denser than I thought.

#20 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 07:44 PM | Reply

You haven't explained why one person's religious beliefs should trump another's.

Go for it.

#21 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 07:47 PM | Reply

Clown,

"You haven't explained why one person's religious beliefs should trump another's. Go for it."

It would take all night and I don't have that much energy.

#22 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 07:53 PM | Reply

Whoever put "funny" flags on post #1 should turn in their membership to this site.

You are a disgrace to anyone who professes to believe in gay rights.

#23 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 08:24 PM | Reply

"Whoever put "funny" flags on post #1 should turn in their membership to this site.
You are a disgrace to anyone who professes to believe in gay rights.
"

At first I didn't, but then I read your #23 so I went back and did so.
Read the parable of the Frog and the Scorpion to understand.

#24 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2025-11-10 08:45 PM | Reply

Just not expect the church they grew up in to marry them if that church doesn't condone it.
#17 | Posted by BillJohnson

Nobody is expecting that.
The thought of that happening by government force exists only in your head.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-10 08:52 PM | Reply

Just not expect the church they grew up in to marry them if that church doesn't condone it.
#17 | Posted by BillJohnson

Great. The Churches can exclude people but they have to pay taxes.

Why should I subsidize your religion?

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-11-10 08:56 PM | Reply

"What I said was in reference to the Christian bakers who did not want to participate in a gay marriage for religious reasons."

Does my Jehovah's Witness postal carrier have to deliver my medical prescriptions, or does he get an exemption for religious reasons?

How about my desire to hire Canadians: do I have to pay minimum wage if I promise not to rule over them ruthlessly?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-11-10 08:58 PM | Reply

"The Churches can exclude people but they have to pay taxes."

Fair deal.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-11-10 08:59 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

"The thought of that happening by government force exists only in your head."

You underestimate how far ideology can go once the groundwork's laid. The hostility toward organized religion, Christianity in particular, and the eagerness of a well-funded, highly motivated activist couple could absolutely drive such a lawsuit out of principle.

As liberals run out of new battles to fight, don't be surprised when a church ends up in court defending its right to believe, teach and operate as its always done.

Never underestimate how far vitriol, anger, and resentment can drive people when they believe they're on a crusade or seeking revenge for perceived wrongs. There's no shortage of reasons some in the gay community harbor deep anger toward "the Church," and if they ever sense a real chance to strong-arm it through the courts, someone will eventually try.

You have Sy and Dan already building a framework.

#29 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 09:18 PM | Reply

Pump,

Ok...I read it.

I've read similar.

"What were you expecting? I'm a scorpion"

Ok...let's extrapolate.

My opinion about gays in society(s) goes like this.

Throughout history, cultures with no social contact, seperated by geography and time, have had similar attitudes toward same sex sexual activity. Anywhere from you're killed to ostracized. Cultures that appeared more tolerate still shunned older gays who were receptive when meeting the needs of straight men when they're younger.

My point is, it seems to me "homophobia" is the natural result of tribal instinct for survival. Just look at history. Unlike what people believe, we're not taught to dislike, distrust and even hate gay people.

In fact, the truth is a civilized society has to teach tolerance. Its instinct vs tolerance.

Going back to your parable.

Prejudice towards homosexuality is from all appearances "normal". So when discriminating against gay people, one could say, "What do you expect? I'm a straight human being".

What separates scorpions from humans today? Law and social contracts.

Law is what mostly protects gays today.

#30 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 09:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

As liberals run out of new battles to fight

Conservatives will create newer battles to fight?

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 10:02 PM | Reply

Pump,

So...would you like to explain how that parable prompted you to give post #1 a funny flag?

I won't challenge your opinion. I'll just read it.

#32 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 10:06 PM | Reply

Prejudice towards homosexuality is from all appearances "normal". So when discriminating against gay people, one could say, "What do you expect? I'm a straight human being".
#30 | POSTED BY BULLJOHNSON

Prejudice towards Jews is from all appearances "normal". So when discriminating against Jewish people, one could say, "What do you expect? I'm a loyal German citizen."

Prejudice towards Black people is from all appearances "normal". So when discriminating against Black people, one could say, "What do you expect? I'm a proud confederate."

Prejudice towards Native Americans is from all appearances "normal". So when discriminating against Native people, one could say, "What do you expect? I'm an American."

Prejudice towards immigrants is from all appearances "normal". So when discriminating against undocumented people, one could say, "What do you expect? I'm MAGA."

#33 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 10:11 PM | Reply

Whoever put "funny" flags on post #1

I'm proud to say I started that snowball.

Read number #24 and #8 as many times as it takes you to get it.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-10 10:16 PM | Reply

Clown,

"Conservatives will create newer battles to fight?"

You don't see it and I don't expect you ever would but, some of what you're seeing today coming from conservatives is defensive, not offensive.

Liberals have been on the offense about many worthy good causes, they fought and won.

That's a good thing.

But, I think they're running out worthy causes.

Immigration and handling the border was poorly thought out.

Transgender stuff was really botched.

And ACA, they are severely screwing the pooch.

ACA wasn't planned well and in fact was pushed through by Democrats.

Now, they're really in a mess.

They're scraping bottom and their ship is headed for the rocks.

Thankfully there are some level headed Democrats, who might be the future of the Democratic Party, grabbing hold of the wheel.

Maybe they can steer the ship back to sanity.

#35 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 10:22 PM | Reply

Clown,

"I'm proud to say I started that snowball."

Good for you.

Everyone should take note.

The moderator should list their posting names.

#36 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 10:25 PM | Reply

Clown,

"Prejudice towards Jews..."

That's all I read.

.

#37 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 10:28 PM | Reply

The moderator should list their posting names.

You can just look them up yourself.

#38 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-11-10 10:28 PM | Reply

Redial,

Hmmm...I'll have to figure it out.

#39 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 10:32 PM | Reply

I'll have to figure it out.

"Recently Flagged" page.

#40 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-11-10 10:42 PM | Reply

Redial,

I figured it out.

#41 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 10:43 PM | Reply

Good night all..
Yea..for real

#42 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-10 10:52 PM | Reply

"Reads constantly smart stuff. Currents events, spent years doing all sorts of research and she's never seen "stare decisis"."

The only reason I remember the term is because Justice Kennedy used it in previous cases when he voted against overturning Roe vs Wade.

#43 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-11-10 10:53 PM | Reply

"So...would you like to explain how that parable prompted you to give post #1 a funny flag?"

Everyone who comes to this site does so, in part, to troll others. Like the scorpion and his sting, it is part of their nature to troll. Half the time, a funny flag is used to troll someone else. And apparently it gets a rise out of you more than half the time, so there it is.

Would you expect anything else from someone who, in an inspired moment of inebriated frat house snark oh-so many years ago, decided to call himself... PUMPKINHEAD?

#44 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2025-11-10 10:55 PM | Reply

"You have Sy and Dan already building a framework."

All we're saying is if you want to treat certain people unequally, you don't deserve public money (i.e., tax exemptions) to do it. At that point, you're not serving "the public", you're serving your self-chosen subset. Tax law NEVER allows restricted advantage..

Discriminate on your own dime.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-11-10 11:28 PM | Reply

"ACA wasn't planned well and in fact was pushed through by Democrats. Now, they're really in a mess."

Every honest broker has admitted plans like the ACA won't work without a mandate. The Heritage Foundation, what the ACA was based on, always underscored a mandate as the central key.

Republicans unilaterally repealed the mandate.

That turns the resultant ACA into Trumpcare.

The Unaffordable Care Act.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-11-10 11:38 PM | Reply

#42 Apparently, BJ boi feels safe now to continue to castigate the lowly non-incel gays, like him (see: self-loathing).

Let us all rejoice.

#47 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-11-10 11:47 PM | Reply

Danforth,

Please stop with the Heritage talking point.

It was one person within the foundation with many of whom disagreed with the base proposal.

There was never any meaningful push for ACA or within the GOP. A few here and there throw some props to the concept of an individual mandate? Yeah. But only on a small scale.

#48 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-11-10 11:55 PM | Reply

#35, #36, etc ...

Here's a convenient checklist to ascertain to which BJ boi you're reading/responding to:


[ ] BJ "I'm a sensitive gay incel married in a sexless marriage to a "woman" boi

[ ] BJ "I have an Internet connection and a browser so I do 'research'" boi

[ ] BJ "I'm just pulling your leg" boi

[ ] BJ "_______________" boi

.....

........

Provided as a community service as dictated by the Trump administration (or the DeSantis administration) ...

Your milage may vary.

#49 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-11-11 12:02 AM | Reply

www.npr.org

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s " when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system " "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

#50 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-11-11 12:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There was never any meaningful push for ACA or within the GOP.

Mitt Romney.

#51 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-11-11 12:10 AM | Reply

theconversation.com

With EMTALA in place, conservatives began to embrace the goal of getting everyone into the insurance system. Conservatives viewed having insurance as a matter of personal responsibility, to avoid passing health care costs on to others.

One great link every day or two
Get our texts
Conservatives also turned to the Gingrich model, because they long feared the alternative of a single-payer system. What we now call Medicare for All would leave out insurance companies and instead rely on the federal government as the single insurer. Indeed, Reagan got his start in national politics during the 1960s campaigning against the enactment of Medicare. He claimed it would lead to a socialist dictatorship that would "invade every area of freedom we have known in this country." So, with single-payer off the table, an individual mandate for private health insurance was the conservative solution.

#52 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-11-11 12:11 AM | Reply

www.forbes.com

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate
The Apothecary
ByAvik Roy,Senior Contributor. Commentary from Forbes' Senior Contributor, Policy
for The Apothecary

Before we get to Stuart's piece, let's first step back and discuss the history of the individual mandate. It all started with a piece of legislation passed in 1986 by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and signed by Ronald Reagan, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA. (EMTALA was passed as part of a larger budget bill called the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, which is best known for allowing those who have lost their jobs to continue buying health insurance through their old employer's group plan.)

#53 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-11-11 12:15 AM | Reply

It would take all night and I don't have that much energy.

#22 | Posted by BillJohnson

You play this game every time your choices are indefensible.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-11-11 12:33 AM | Reply

#49 is fake quotes

#55 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-11 12:37 AM | Reply

That's all I read.
#37 | POSTED BY BULLJOHNSON

Of course.

Because you want it considered "normal" to discriminate against homosexual people.

You are a bigot and hateful person.

A garbage human being.

#56 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-11-11 12:41 AM | Reply

49 is fake quotes

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-11 12:37 AM | Reply

I thought you were going to bed. Hmmmmmmm

#57 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-11-11 12:42 AM | Reply

Dan,

"Every honest broker has admitted plans like the ACA won't work without a mandate."

A mandate without offsetting cost controls, nothing is solved.

Costs will rise to match and you'll be right back here again asking for more money to feed the greedy system.

#58 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-11 12:59 AM | Reply

Laura,

"I thought you were going to bed. Hmmmmmmm"

What makes you think I'm not in bed?

Some of my best work is in bed.

#59 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-11 01:05 AM | Reply

"Costs will rise to match and you'll be right back here again asking for more money to feed the greedy system."

Americans need health insurance.
If you don't like the system, then come up with a better system.

You can't do that.
All you can do is complain.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-11 01:19 AM | Reply

"There was never any meaningful push for ACA or within the GOP."

You just make things up and don't even realize you're lying, BillJohnson.

Fact is, Newt Gingrich himself suggested the Personal Mandate, when Hillary Clinton tried to push health care reform as First Lady.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-11 01:22 AM | Reply

"Throughout history, cultures with no social contact, seperated by geography and time, have had similar attitudes toward same sex sexual activity. Anywhere from you're killed to ostracized"

This is completely false. You just make things up and don't even realize you're lying, BillJohnson.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-11 01:23 AM | Reply

Snoofy,

"If you don't like the system, then come up with a better system."

I think they're working on it now.

Hopefully money will be opening up at least thru end of Jan.

Trump said he wants to "fix" Healthcare, which would be a LOT more than just ACA if done right.

#63 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-11 01:43 AM | Reply

"Trump said he wants to "fix" Healthcare"

Then why hasn't he had a single meeting with lawmakers on the subject?

Even in the best of situations, plans like that take months.

Trump can SAY all he wants; his actions show he doesn't have a CONCEPT of a plan. The last time he said he wanted to "fix" healthcare, he ended up by saying No one knew how complicated it was.

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-11-11 01:56 AM | Reply

"A mandate without offsetting cost controls, nothing is solved."

What part of "They rebated excess profits, until Republicans repealed it" didn't you understand?

Do you blame Republicans for repealing it, or Democrats?

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-11-11 01:59 AM | Reply

I think they're working on it now.
Hopefully money will be opening up at least thru end of Jan.
Trump said he wants to "fix" Healthcare, which would be a LOT more than just ACA if done right.

#63 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-11-11 01:43 AM | Reply

No they aren't. They don't give a $_it about the healthcare system. Nor do they care about covering the American people. Full stop

#66 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-11-11 02:01 AM | Reply

"Please stop with the Heritage talking point. It was one person within the foundation with many of whom disagreed with the base proposal."

WTF are you talking about? It was RomneyCare. And, frankly, every other prior Republican think tank faced with the challenge.

NO ONE ever left without admitting the need for a mandate.

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-11-11 02:11 AM | Reply

"I think they're working on it now."

Really? When did they start...

...tomorrow?

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-11-11 02:14 AM | Reply

"I think they're working on it now."

You're delusional. They're on recess.

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-11-11 02:16 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort