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

Skip to comments.

Tonight we are no longer a free country (vanity)
6/23/05 | Self

Posted on 06/23/2005 8:06:55 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants

Everybody knows about the shot that was heard around the world as the birthing pains of this once great nation. Today, sadly, we may have heard it's death knell.

It did not come with violence or shots fired. It came with the virtual elimination of personal property rights.

Our founding fathers knew how important the ownership of property was and sought to protect the right to be secure in the ownership of property to the extent that they enshrined the guarantee that property would not be taken for public use without due process and just compensation.

For over 200 years it was understood that "public use" meant that the ownership would transfer from the private owner to the local, state, or federal government for things such as military bases, roads, schools, prisons, etc. Now, the meaning of "public use" has been altered by 5 people who were never elected to office and in all reality, are completely unaccountable to anyone, to mean privately owned condos, shopping centers, and business parks under the thin guise that those enterprises would contribute more tax money to the coffers, thus increasing the "public good"

Justice Stevens, writing for the majority said that judges should give city councils and state legislatures "broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power," he added. To make sure that he wasn't misunderstood he added, "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue," and just destroyed any pretence that you have any recourse whatsoever if the government or county decides that they want your property for any reason at all.

Sandra Day O'Connor writing a scathing dissent correctly said that now rich and politically land developers and businesses could basically take your land away from you with the help from the local government. Yes, you could fight it in court, but it is now fruitless as you are guaranteed to lose in a fixed fight.

For years the people have for the most party sat quietly as the government stole more and more freedoms from us. Prior to 1914 and fool could take any drug he or she wanted and kill themselves, thus increasing the quality of the gene pool for the rest of us. Before 1918, the government had no claim to your wages and could not tax them. Prior to 1934, Sears sold machine guns from their catalog and nobody thought anything about it. Prior to the 1950's preachers could freely endorse or denigrate any political candidate they wanted, just as had been done since the very first town government was formed in this country almost 350 years prior. Since 1986 it has been illegal to manufacture and sell a machine gun to a civilian despite the fact that in the past several decades the number of people int he US murdered by a person with a machine gun has been exactly one, and the person doing the shooting was a police officer using a gun issued to the police department.

But hope is not lost however, ownership of real property does a funny thing to people. It is a spot that a person can say, "This land is MINE!" with a dedication and a fierceness that is somewhat scary. Religion and politics and abortion and the WOT all take a back seat when two neighbors are faced with having their property stolen by the government.

Maybe that bell sounding isn't the death knell but the alarm.

Maybe this will awake the sheeple to realize that the socialist have gone too far.

Maybe the bell is just signalling round two of the Revolutionary War.

Will this war be fought with bullets or ballots?

We shall see.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: court; crime; domain; eminent; kelo; landgrab; property; rights; supreme
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-342 next last
To: oceanview
"I certainly don't want my neighbor to be able to claim zoning laws are unconstitutional and turn his house into an adult bookstore"

Do you want private property rights ?

Or do you want government granted privileges to your property ?

You seem to be part of the problem.
151 posted on 06/23/2005 9:42:04 PM PDT by Tobor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal
benefits to the community,

Note that the benefits are to the "community", not the individual.

152 posted on 06/23/2005 9:43:26 PM PDT by Lijahsbubbe (Give Durban a turban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: TheSpottedOwl
I think this is great that we've found common ground finally.

If there's ANYTHING to be optimistic about, it's that when we survive this crisis, we MIGHT have found an issue to get through to some of the other side on. They KNOW this court decision is wrong ... we just need them to see and understand WHY it's wrong, and what we need to do to prevent this from happening again.

I think we'll survive this, but it does bother me as it means I'll be wasting time dealing with this issue and not spending it with my family.

153 posted on 06/23/2005 9:44:14 PM PDT by bobhoskins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Lijahsbubbe

Exactly. It takes a village to seize your property.


154 posted on 06/23/2005 9:45:28 PM PDT by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Mulder

Sadly, my money is on Fear Factor. For the majority of Americans. Unless it happens to them, or someone close to them, they won't give a diddly-damn.

Where has been the outrage over local government's willy-nilly seizures of "properties used in the commission of a crime"? Screw all that, man - there's a Jerry Springer rerun comin' on!


155 posted on 06/23/2005 9:45:29 PM PDT by sbelew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

'For over 200 years it was understood that "public use" meant that the ownership would transfer from the private owner to the local, state, or federal government for things such as military bases, roads, schools, prisons, etc. Now, the meaning of "public use" has been altered by 5 people who were never elected to office and in all reality, are completely unaccountable to anyone, to mean privately owned condos, shopping centers, and business parks under the thin guise that those enterprises would contribute more tax money to the coffers, thus increasing the "public good" '

Why do people invest in the US rather than banana republics? Because they know their investment is theirs, that the government will not nationalize their business.

Why do people work? Because they will keep the fruits of their labors. As a corollary, they work less when taxes are high.

The justices err when they contend this policy increases the "public good". Without property rights, individuals have no incentive to build, own or maintain property.


156 posted on 06/23/2005 9:45:49 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

"Did you see the thread on DU? Talking about a truce with FR over this..."

You've GOT to be kidding, right?

If they are upset, too, then maybe we could start a petition to congress and invite those at DU to sign with us.

One of our legal eagle FReepers, (one that has plenty of Constitutional and legislative legal experience), should write the petition (even without DU support, still needs to be done).  IMHO, it should include:

  1. Demand for impeachment of the 5 anti-American Justices.
  2. Demand for restating (redefining and limiting) the power of the SC to strict construction of the Constitution.
  3. Supporting property rights of citizens.
  4. Outlawing ALL eminent domain laws, federal and state, except where extraordinary circumstances exist to protect public health and safety (but not EPA type situations) and then only very limited and narrowly defined.
  5. Outlawing all forfeiture, seizure, and confiscation laws.
  6. Demand to change Senate rules to prevent filibusters of Presidential appointments and make it LAW.

If I've left out anything, add your own thoughts, or offer changes and explanation if you've got good reasons.  Keep it specific to property rights and the SC - don't want to chase off any DU support - that is, if they have finally started to wake up.

157 posted on 06/23/2005 9:46:59 PM PDT by RebelTex (Freedom is everyone's right - and everyone's responsibility!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RoseD

This was actually the first story on NBC nightly news tonight. Also heard it many time on NPR in the car with my dad on the way home from Boston. They need to show people ready to riot and march for this to get any more attention. Such a sad day.


158 posted on 06/23/2005 9:47:08 PM PDT by to_zion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: RoseD

There are sevral threads running on this subject, one with over 600 replies.


159 posted on 06/23/2005 9:47:18 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Pray for us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: pax_et_bonum

What if those people in Conn. partnered up with the Native Americans? Kinda be hard for the "other" government to take over.......What do ya think about that???


160 posted on 06/23/2005 9:48:17 PM PDT by RoseD (Oklahoma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tobor

not at all, and if you mix that issue with this ruling today, you are going to play right into the hands of the people who support this ruling.

private property rights doesn't mean my neighbor can tear down their single family house and build a 50 story skyscraper there, or a porno movie theatre, or a garbage dump. if that's what you believe "property rights" means, you are way off base. zoning laws are zoning laws, eminent domain is eminent domain.


161 posted on 06/23/2005 9:50:25 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: to_zion



To Hillarys Gate Cult and to-zion
Thank you for the Info! Saw this first thing this morning but just got home.........Was really worried, will try to find the other links and news!


162 posted on 06/23/2005 9:51:56 PM PDT by RoseD (Oklahoma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: RoseD

I know most people I know are still unaware of the ramifications of this, and word is sloooooly getting out. Will people care? Sadly, I doubt it.

Well, it was nice here, while it lasted. The country I was born in no longer exists.

I was planning on buying a home in the next few years, but if this stands, I don't see the point, unless I research it to death and find a patch of land somewhere with 0% commercial value.

Nah, why bother. The state and Feds will just tax me to death more.


163 posted on 06/23/2005 9:53:54 PM PDT by ByDesign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
"Then the Second Amendment already trumps today's ruling."

Yeah; and just try exercising your second amendment rights to defend your property when the greedy bureaucrats want it and see who comes out on top in that fight. Hint: it will be under color of law enforcement.

164 posted on 06/23/2005 9:55:58 PM PDT by sweetliberty (Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ByDesign

Well I'm a real estate agent I could help you out! Buttttttt now that I think about it what if somewhere in the future there is a commercial possibility what are my ramifications???? Never mind I can't help you!


165 posted on 06/23/2005 9:56:15 PM PDT by RoseD (Oklahoma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: texaslil

Don't wait around for those who would take your property from you. Hunt down the ones who sent them. That's precisely what I will do.


166 posted on 06/23/2005 9:56:46 PM PDT by Noumenon (Activist judges - out of touch, out of tune, but not out of reach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ByDesign
I was planning on buying a home in the next few years, but if this stands, I don't see the point, unless I research it to death and find a patch of land somewhere with 0% commercial value.

Any New Zealand Freepers out there that can recommend it? Would you mind a bunch of hard-working conservative people moving there? Are you still overrun by orcs?

*Sigh*. It's a nice idea, and if I were older, I'd consider it. Unfortunately, I'll probably feel the need to stay and fight for freedon (wherever there's trouble).

167 posted on 06/23/2005 9:57:55 PM PDT by bobhoskins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Tobor
zoning laws _are_ unconstitutional

We should fight them also.

Todays atrocity by the court is only the latest in a long line of attacks on the Constitution and American individual sovereignty.

Today's decision was just so outrageous that some have awakened from their sheep-hood.
168 posted on 06/23/2005 9:58:15 PM PDT by Tobor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: IGOTMINE
Donald Scott owned some land abutting a national park in California. The Feds coveted his land...even had it appraised. They raided his house, and he was shot dead.

Thank you! Thank you! I have been trying to remember this one all day. You forgot one little detail, though. This was a drug raid. Remember, if they want your land, all they have to do is accuse you of selling or using dope.

There are MANY cases here in CA where this has happened. I just wonder what takes them so long to go after run down crack houses? /sarcasm

169 posted on 06/23/2005 10:00:28 PM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (Free Mexico!...End Black Collar Crime)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church

hillary will probably use this against the republicans in '08.


170 posted on 06/23/2005 10:00:48 PM PDT by ampat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

bump


171 posted on 06/23/2005 10:01:45 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tobor

no they are not. how about building codes, are they unconstitutiuonal too?

you are nuts, with all due respect. there is no constitutional right for my neighbor turning their house into a garbage dump or porno theater, and I don't want them to be able to conduct construction that causes their home to blow up or catch on fire. however, that does not mean I think the government can exercise eminent domain against my neighbor home just because they want to. these are two totally different issues.


172 posted on 06/23/2005 10:03:09 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
oops

My #168 post was to you.

We Americans grant privileges to our government, not the other way, and some things are forbidden to government.

Or at least they were till this court came to town.
173 posted on 06/23/2005 10:05:01 PM PDT by Tobor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: RoseD

The thread is now almost 1700 replies.

We have only one recourse. Use every legal means to remove every public official from office who participates in one of these land grab deals. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.


174 posted on 06/23/2005 10:05:49 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Pray for us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: RebelTex; cyborg
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." -Sandra Day O'Connor

"I have no reason to suppose that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away everything else." -John Locke

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." -Sam Adams

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can" -Sam Adams

"Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty." -John Adams

"Property is more than the thing which a person owns. It is elementary that it includes the right to acquire, use, and dispose of it. The Constitution protects these essential attributes of property .... There can be conception of property aside from its control and use, and upon its use depends its value." -Supreme Court decision, 1917

"They have erected a system of national land-use regulation that brings minimal ecological benefits and substantial harm to the liberties of Americans." -Richard Miniter

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." -Thomas Jefferson

175 posted on 06/23/2005 10:06:12 PM PDT by to_zion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

agree! where is the other thread?


176 posted on 06/23/2005 10:06:53 PM PDT by RoseD (Oklahoma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
So, instead of paying a fair market price Wal-Mart can bribe the local politicos and save money. I hope they pass that savings on to the customers.

My first thought, after hearing this verdict, was how soon will local governments use this to punish those they don't like. If you complain about anything at all they'll put a Starbucks where your house should be.

This will get people killed. It just won't be the right ones.
177 posted on 06/23/2005 10:07:53 PM PDT by Razz Barry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: to_zion

bttt


178 posted on 06/23/2005 10:08:25 PM PDT by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: RoseD

Here's one;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428902/posts


179 posted on 06/23/2005 10:09:36 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Pray for us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: to_zion

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." -Sam Adams

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can" -Sam Adams



IT WAS WORTH REPEATING TWICE!


180 posted on 06/23/2005 10:09:41 PM PDT by TheOtherOne (I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
"you are nuts"

You are rude and insulting, no problem, dude.

You are also wrong.

Where in the Constitution is your 'zoning' granted to the government ?

It's just as fluky as today's ruling.
181 posted on 06/23/2005 10:10:50 PM PDT by Tobor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Tobor

elected governments enact zoning laws and building codes. this SCOTUS issue is about eminent domain and the specific constitutional protection that applies to that. there is nothing in the constitution giving you the right to install substandard wiring in your home, government can regulate that, the same way they can regulate where porno theaters are built.


182 posted on 06/23/2005 10:10:51 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: to_zion
This is an issue which all Freepers (left or right) and americans can agree with I'm sure. Who in their right mind would be for this?

This is also the first day i've heard right- and left-wing radio commentators vehemently agreeing on an issue. At first I was surprised that the left would react to this - haven't they always believed that property belomngs to the government?

The key to energizing the public is that when you talk to the left about this issue, always use the magic W word - Wal-Mart. Today's decision means the left's most hated icon can build a store wherever they want to. We may be able to get the nation's first bipartisan lynching out of this.

183 posted on 06/23/2005 10:11:25 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All
Good night, everyone, please get this issue all sorted out and fixed by tomorrow, so I don't have to worry about it anymore.

I really don't need my ulcer to get any bigger.

Thanks ... and I'd like to apologize for wishing on that monkey's paw I found that people would see how far we've departed from the Constitution.

184 posted on 06/23/2005 10:12:46 PM PDT by bobhoskins (This post was just a wordy ping, really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: mylife
even the Libs at DU are angry about this

Oh please. The left is angry about this ruling not because private property is being taken but because of *who* that property is being taken from and given to. If this land were being given to some conservation group to protect a spotted owl or some cave bugs, they wouldn't blink an eye. And if it were being taken from some Big Evil Corporation, they'd be doing cartwheels in the street. They've been taking people's stuff and giving it to others for decades. Now suddenly they're shocked, shocked! that the government is taking someone's stuff, even though they've spent years begging the government to do so. "But nooooo, we don't want to give it to *those* people; we want to give it to some *other* people." Oh well, too late. As long as they have no respect for property rights, they have no principled leg to stand on with their complaints. All they object to is the End, not the Means.

185 posted on 06/23/2005 10:13:32 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

BINGO! Well put and completely accurate.


186 posted on 06/23/2005 10:14:21 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Compassion is a great thing. Just quit making me pay for YOURS with MY money!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
O'Conner was standing with the conservatives against the fascist five.

She started this with the sodomy case in Texas and the affirmative action case dealing with the University of Michigan.

187 posted on 06/23/2005 10:16:56 PM PDT by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
"there is nothing in the constitution giving you the right to install substandard wiring in your home, government can regulate that"

Must be a Commerce Clause thing. It's not "your" home anyway, since it's simply a rented communal asset.

188 posted on 06/23/2005 10:18:18 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: clee1
Consider this a public notice: If the State comes for my property, they had best send a SWAT team first.

Unfortunately, by the time the Feds come for your property, the taking of property will have become so common that no one will pay any attention.

189 posted on 06/23/2005 10:20:41 PM PDT by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tobor

its not granted to anyone, which means the legislative body can regulate it.


190 posted on 06/23/2005 10:21:54 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: to_zion
Hmm, facinating. You cited the BUCHANAN v. WARLEY case from 1917. It dealt with whether the city could prohibit black people from owning a home due to the alleged decrease in value to neighborhing whites or positive racial benefits of segregation to the city as a whole.

Looks like we just took way too many steps backwards into history.

The case presented does not deal with an attempt to prohibit the amalgamation of the races. The right which the ordinance annulled was the civil right of a white man to dispose of his property if he saw fit to do so to a person of color and of a colored person to make such disposition to a white person. It is urged that this proposed segregation will promote the public peace by preventing race conflicts. Desirable as this is, and important as is the preservation of the public peace, this aim cannot be accomplished by laws or ordinances which deny rights created or protected by the federal Constitution. [245 U.S. 60, 82] It is said that such acquisitions by colored persons depreciate property owned in the neighborhood by white persons. But property may be acquired by undesirable white neighbors or put to disagreeable though lawful uses with like results. We think this attempt to prevent the alienation of the property in question to a person of color was not a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state, and is in direct violation of the fundamental law enacted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution preventing state interference with property rights except by due process of law. That being the case, the ordinance cannot stand. Booth v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425, 429 , 22 S. Sup. Ct. 425; Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606, 609 , 23 S. Sup. Ct. 168.

Here is the full opinion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=245&invol=60

191 posted on 06/23/2005 10:22:02 PM PDT by TheOtherOne (I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Dubya Bush had better come up BIG.

Don't count on him. He just wants to get along.

192 posted on 06/23/2005 10:23:16 PM PDT by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

you libertarians are "out there", you want to turn opposition of this ruling today into some "you can do anything you want with your property" right. so if I want to turn my home into a nuclear waste repository, its OK?

take that approach, you will lose 99% of the people opposing this ruling today.


193 posted on 06/23/2005 10:25:37 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: lmr
The Home Depot is now defunct, a great ironic twist if you ask me.

Now it is safe for the Home Depot to return.

194 posted on 06/23/2005 10:26:33 PM PDT by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen; Blood of Tyrants
"Must you refer to the American people as sheep? Kind of works against your premise that the right of private property should be kept for all Americans."

No doubt there is a large segment of unintelligent people in America. The premise is that even if millions of people ignorantly surrender any particular right, understanding that it's our collective rights that fade, and desperately deserve preserving.

195 posted on 06/23/2005 10:28:20 PM PDT by endthematrix (Thank you US armed forces, for everything you give and have given!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lmr
the liquor store still thrives on that corner, The Home Depot is now defunct, a great ironic twist if you ask me.

Irony or Justice?

196 posted on 06/23/2005 10:28:37 PM PDT by TheOtherOne (I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: montag813

I am so amazed at this decision I have no words. God bless.


197 posted on 06/23/2005 10:29:12 PM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear tipped ICBMs: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: bobhoskins

True. America is too important to be given up on. As long as there is hope there is, well, hope. This nation cannot be let to fade.


198 posted on 06/23/2005 10:30:37 PM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear tipped ICBMs: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
If this land were being given to some conservation group to protect a spotted owl or some cave bugs, they wouldn't blink an eye.

I also have less problem with that than with the taking of our land to give to a corporation.

199 posted on 06/23/2005 10:30:42 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden

If you are going to capitalize Freepers, you should at least capitalize Americans.


200 posted on 06/23/2005 10:30:43 PM PDT by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-342 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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

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