Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California`s illegitimate 55 electoral college votes!
9/23/2012 | johnwk

Posted on 09/23/2012 1:57:55 PM PDT by JOHN W K

Just for the record and to get down to some upsetting facts regarding California‘s 55 electoral college votes, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the state of California has an overwhelming 55 electoral college votes compared to any of these states!

For example, and according to 2007 figures the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. And Wyoming is allotted 3 electoral college votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 electoral college votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why is this something for the people of Wyoming and 18 other States to be upset over? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:

State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.

State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
U.S. Pop

In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 electoral college votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California. And the fair share formula for direct taxation mandated by our Constitution turns out to be an equal per capita tax. In 2007 if the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California was compensated by its larger electoral college vote in 2007 which is also part of the rule of apportionment. But as things are now, and in choosing our next president, California gets to exercise 55 votes, but has not contributed a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive voting strength as our Constitution requires. This is a direct assault upon the very purposes for which the rule of apportionment was adopted. But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak for themselves regarding the very intentions for the rule of apportionment:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“__ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot`s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot‘s, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that representation is proportionately equal to each State’s contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with. And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to raise and pay their respective quotas in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

JWK

Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay income taxes so he can spread their wealth and buy votes, but he does not force his beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: apportionment; ca2012; california; college; electoral
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

1 posted on 09/23/2012 1:58:02 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Isn’t the electoral college based on population ?


2 posted on 09/23/2012 2:10:24 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

And West Virginia only pays in $3599.24 per capita and has 5 Electoral Votes and Mississippi only pays in $3723.71 per capita and has 6 Electoral Votes.


3 posted on 09/23/2012 2:11:58 PM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Isn’t the electoral college based on population ?

Only indirectly. he number of members of the college from a state equals the number of congressional districts plus two (for the Senate spots). So the minimum number is three.
4 posted on 09/23/2012 2:13:19 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("I have a new zest for life!"--Calvin from Las Vegas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
So, that IS, sort'a .. population.

What's this article about ?

5 posted on 09/23/2012 2:14:36 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I had no idea that the Constitution dictated that electoral votes be apportioned among the states on the basis of per capita federal taxes. Who knew?


6 posted on 09/23/2012 2:16:03 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Electoral college is based on the sum of number of representatives and Senators. Congress representatives are based on population.

Of course the constitution was amended to permit an income tax. Of course the constitutional government before that never collected direct taxes (taxes from states) in a meaningful way, funding most of the government by tariff income or from sales of land, neither of which was related to population


7 posted on 09/23/2012 2:21:37 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I thought California and the other solidly Leftist states had pledged to stop assigning electoral votes on an all or nothing basis.


8 posted on 09/23/2012 2:22:41 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

My household paid over $50,000 in taxes last year, that works out to be over $16,000 per capita. I don’t have any Electoral Votes.


9 posted on 09/23/2012 2:25:05 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Task 1: Accomplished, Task 2: Hold them Accountable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Assuming there are 30 million illegals in America, that’s enough to create some 50 congressional districts and they don’t even need to vote to do it. If they do vote, you can pretty much count on those districts being almost exclusively democrat. As it is we don’t know how many districts exist almost wholly due to the presence of illegals.

The costs of administering a single district must run into the millions. How much pork can a district seek? How many earmarks? What will all those new democrat congressmen vote for?

If you think Obamacare is bad, you haven’t seen squat. Wait till the day all those democrats start dictating how many cars a family can have, what job you can have, or where you can live. Wait till they dictate that all paychecks come from government and you get a small cut of what is left over.

Illegals are nothing but government growth hormone and amnesty today is nothing short of treason.


10 posted on 09/23/2012 2:25:40 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
By your numbers, California pays 66.5 times more in federal taxes than Wyoming.

Why then shouldn't California have 66.5 times more weight in elections than Wyoming, rather than the 18.3 times more it presently has?

<sarcasm>
I, for one, am tired of pulling more than my fair share of the weight so that a bunch of freeloading cowboys can have more representation in federal elections than I do.
</sarcasm>

11 posted on 09/23/2012 2:28:16 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I always thought electoral college votes were related to the number of house members plus two (senators).

ECV have nothing to do with taxes paid.

I had though many states were going to proportional vote percentage to votes cast to decide ECVs.

California has been discussing doing this, but who knows the progress.


12 posted on 09/23/2012 2:34:10 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Assuming there are 30 million illegals in America...

Let's compromise; count each illegal as 3/5 of a person.

13 posted on 09/23/2012 2:36:27 PM PDT by TexasKamaAina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Well, it did until the income tax, a direct form of taxation was classified as an indirect tax by the language of the 16th amendment.


14 posted on 09/23/2012 2:46:41 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

http://stonesoup.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/federal-funding-received-by-state-per-dollar-sent/

I am not sure where there data come from but this is about what I seen other places.

State Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes
New Mexico $2.03
Mississippi $2.02
Alaska $1.84
Louisiana $1.78
West Virginia $1.76
North Dakota $1.68
Alabama $1.66
South Dakota $1.53
Kentucky $1.51
Virginia $1.51
Montana $1.47
Hawaii $1.44
Maine $1.41
Arkansas $1.41
Oklahoma $1.36
South Carolina $1.35
Missouri $1.32
Maryland $1.30
Tennessee $1.27
Idaho $1.21
Arizona $1.19
Kansas $1.12
Wyoming $1.11
Iowa $1.10
Nebraska $1.10
Vermont $1.08
North Carolina $1.08
Pennsylvania $1.07
Utah $1.07
Indiana $1.05
Ohio $1.05
Georgia $1.01
Rhode Island $1.00
Florida $0.97
Texas $0.94
Oregon $0.93
Michigan $0.92
Washington $0.88
Wisconsin $0.86
Massachusetts $0.82
Colorado $0.81
New York $0.79
California $0.78
Delaware $0.77
Illinois $0.75
Minnesota $0.72
New Hampshire $0.71
Connecticut $0.69
Nevada $0.65
New Jersey $0.61

Should the states that receive less back than they get back back get more votes too.


15 posted on 09/23/2012 2:51:56 PM PDT by ThomasThomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

If you are referring to the poll tax, that was never a federal tax. Representation in Congress and constitution of the electoral college has always been by enumeration of persons in the federal census with free persons counting as one and slaves counting as 3/5. This, of course changed with the abolition of slavery. Taxes never figured into the calculus.


16 posted on 09/23/2012 2:51:56 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: knarf
The electoral votes are based on the combined number of representatives and senators. Representation is based on the number of legal American residents ~ so no illegals in there, no foreign military personnel in training, no diplomats, no tourists ~

Which means the voting is a bit more democratic than the US Senate.

17 posted on 09/23/2012 2:57:49 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: svcw

There’s always talk and then someone will realize that the state would be foolish to agree to do something other states aren’t doing.


18 posted on 09/23/2012 3:00:20 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

No, I’m just making the futile case that the income tax is a direct tax, that was made constitutional by the 16th amendment, which placed it in the class of indirect taxes which need not be apportioned, ‘from which it never should have been removed’, or something like that.


19 posted on 09/23/2012 3:05:36 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Apples? Meet oranges.


20 posted on 09/23/2012 3:07:28 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

This is going to blow up in your face when you see how low the per capita is in the Southern states.


21 posted on 09/23/2012 3:19:34 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

who cares.. won’t the winner of the popular vote them anyways?

If Zero wins the pop vote CA won’t matter.

If Mitt wins the pop vote CA will only help until Zero runs to the courts to fight over it.


22 posted on 09/23/2012 3:25:03 PM PDT by cableguymn (peace through strength. if they don't like you at least they will fear you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

apparently you don’t like our Constitution which specifies how the electoral college works. ANy effort to move to popular vote or weaken the EC will no doubt end in a democracy rather than a republic. You can rant all you want but the Constitution is clear. Get over it


23 posted on 09/23/2012 3:25:54 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

and house reps are based on population....


24 posted on 09/23/2012 3:27:08 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
and house reps are based on population....

Yup. That's why I said indirectly. The system does give a slight edge to less populated states.
25 posted on 09/23/2012 3:47:42 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("I have a new zest for life!"--Calvin from Las Vegas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: knarf
The electoral college is based on the number of Congressmen plus the two senators of each state. The number of Congressmen is based on population. Taxes have nothing to do with the electoral college.
26 posted on 09/23/2012 4:22:55 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Who knew?

Nobody knew, because it is false. Read Article II Section 1.

27 posted on 09/23/2012 4:25:02 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
What I’m pointing out is Wyoming citizens paid $1,574,892,667 per electoral college vote. And since California gets 17 times Wyoming`s electoral college vote, by the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted it is required to pay a total of 17 times what Wyoming paid in federal taxes which turns out to be a little less than $5 TRILLION which California has not paid, but rather, has only paid $313,998,874,000.

JWK

The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE‘S nightmare and not the American Dream

28 posted on 09/23/2012 4:53:13 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Unfortunately USCB doesn’t ask respondents whether they’re here legally or not.


29 posted on 09/23/2012 4:54:20 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
The 16th Amendment has nothing to do with “direct taxes” nor repeals the constitutional command that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

I might add, our very own Supreme Court has confirmed direct taxes are still required to be apportioned! See EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), decided after the 16th Amendment’s adoption. The Court states with regard to the 16th Amendment and apportionment:

‘a proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal, this limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

And nine years after the above case, the court again pointed out “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.” ___ BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

JWK

They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the profits, gains and income which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

30 posted on 09/23/2012 4:58:30 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
What I’m pointing out is Wyoming citizens paid $1,574,892,667 per electoral college vote

I understand what you are pointing out, but you are quite wrong to claim that per capita taxation was the intention of apportionment. It's a wacko notion, but there are many such wacko arguments put forward on this forum, it's part of the fun of it.

To take your argument one step further, taxes paid could be converted into shares with more shares going to those who paid the most taxes and zero shares to those who pay no taxes. Each voter would then get the number of votes corresponding to his or her number of shares. It would do away with the whole notion of "one man, one vote", but what the hey!

31 posted on 09/23/2012 5:07:18 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Add to everything else the fact that Congressional seats are assigned by *total* population...US citizens,Green Card holders *and* wetbacks.And given that at least a third of the states total population are wetbacks....


32 posted on 09/23/2012 5:26:12 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

But Tariffs are not direct taxes, nor are income taxes. Nor are fees, nor are excise taxes.


33 posted on 09/23/2012 5:34:31 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Go back to grammer school, you didn’t pay attention!


34 posted on 09/23/2012 5:39:05 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Income tax is not a direct tax. Only taxes on per head basis, on real property, or on personal property are direct taxes.

Income tax is on the transaction of gaining income, and so can be avoided.


35 posted on 09/23/2012 5:39:10 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

that’s what I thought.


36 posted on 09/23/2012 5:56:48 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
See APPORTIONMENT OF A DIRECT TAX TO RAISE A TOTAL OF $ 2 MILLION TREASURY DEPARTMENT MAY 25TH 1798 the state totals are given. JWK
37 posted on 09/23/2012 7:09:54 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

but this idiots blog is clearly an anti constitution screed


38 posted on 09/23/2012 7:10:27 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
BTW, let me correct my above error about the $5 TRILLION figure.

WY paid per capita $9036.74

CA paid per capita $8590.18

CA paid $ 446.56 less per capita than WY

Dropping the change and multiplying the $ 446.00 to CA’s population size gives us a $22,902,733,890 short fall per capita

CA should have paid $ 336,901,607,890, but only paid $313,998,874,000

JWK

39 posted on 09/23/2012 10:48:01 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
It is a direct tax. Can it be avoided other than not pursuing the natural right to work?

It's the 16th amendment that makes it an indirect tax. Hard to believe that an exchange of time and labor results in a gain of income, as you submit.
40 posted on 09/24/2012 12:08:05 AM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
but this idiots blog is clearly an anti constitution screed

I would classify it under the category Tantrum Delirium.
41 posted on 09/24/2012 3:32:28 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("I have a new zest for life!"--Calvin from Las Vegas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
CA should have paid $ 336,901,607,890, but only paid $313,998,874,000. That is almost a $23 BILLION deficiency under the rule of apportionment. And yet California gets to exercise 55 electoral college votes to elect the president which is not what the founders intended under the rule of apportionment!

The pinko politicians out in California have not only bankrupted their own state’s treasury, they are not paying their state’s FAIR APPORTIONED SHARE into the federal treasury relative to their massive pinko electoral college vote.

JWK

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

42 posted on 09/24/2012 10:20:40 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Of course exchanges can be conducted to mutual advantage. People are better at some things than others. Taxing the transaction “income” makes it not an indirect tax.

Feel free to barter. In that case there is no money income, and no income tax. Historically Coins never had the full weight of metal in them. The difference between the face value and precious metal weight was a tax, but not a direct one.


43 posted on 09/24/2012 5:53:21 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

California has not. Colorado has, but only when some number of other states also agree, so in practice, Colorado also has not.

I recall Nebraska passed a proportional representation law. That has the effect of encouraging campaigners to go elsewhere, rather than spend statewide electioneering money to get a 2 ECV advantage.


44 posted on 09/24/2012 5:56:54 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Taxes on property were a direct tax. Taxes on income were not a direct tax.

The interesting case was Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, which held that tax on income derived from property was ‘like’ a tax on property and thus direct, while taxes on wages were not direct.

The 16th Amendment changed that, for income derived from property. Tax on income derived from labor was unchanged!

I know a fellow (slightly) who owns a ‘Section’ and derives much of his income from its rent. Good work if you can get it.


45 posted on 09/24/2012 6:08:02 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Hey John, the electoral college are not based on taxes.

((wow))


46 posted on 09/24/2012 6:11:39 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Except that no state can have less than 1 representative. Alaska is a pretty small state in population.


47 posted on 09/24/2012 6:12:13 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

No. Taxes on wage income were considered indirect, even before the 16th Amendment, as were taxes from Excise (liquor taxes are an example) or tariff.

Property income was treated as a direct tax, per Pollock v.Farmers Loan and Trust Company. After that the source of the income had to be considered, with things ‘like’ income from property being direct and things ‘like’ income from wages being indirect.

Until the 16th Amendment, permitted tax on income from what ever sources. The 16th amendment had no effect on wage income, oddly enough.


48 posted on 09/24/2012 6:32:10 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
And?

JWK

49 posted on 09/24/2012 7:45:59 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
I'm not sure what you point is in reference to what I have posted.

JWK

50 posted on 09/24/2012 7:49:15 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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