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

Skip to comments.

Krauthammer: Why We Should Let O.J. Speak
Time Magazine ^ | November 22, 2006 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 11/21/2006 9:29:15 PM PST by RWR8189

Rupert Murdoch has just canceled the O.J. Simpson book and TV special in which Simpson (presumably) describes how he would have half-decapitated Nicole Simpson and stabbed Ron Goldman had "the real killers" not done it first. The cancellation is certainly justified on grounds of decency, sensitivity and, given the universal public revulsion, commercial good sense. But I would have done differently. I would have let O.J. speak.

I thought the outrage was misdirected and misplaced. The attention and money Simpson (and Fox) would have garnered from the deal are not half as outrageous as the fact that every day he walks free. The real outrage is the trial that declared him not guilty: the judge, a fool and incompetent whose love of publicity turned the trial into a circus; the defense lawyers, not one of whom could have doubted the man's guilt yet who cynically played on the jury's ignorance and latent racism to win a disgraceful verdict; the prosecutors, total incompetents who bungled a gimmie, then shamelessly cashed in afterwards; the media that turned the brutal deaths of two innocents into TV's first reality-show soap opera.

Worst of all was the jury, whose perverse verdict was the most brazen and lawless act of nullification since the heyday of Strom Thurmond. Sworn to uphold law, they decided instead to hold a private referendum on racism in the L.A. Police Department.

The result was a grotesque miscarriage of justice. And there it rested, frozen and irreversible. I wanted to hear O.J. speak because that was the one way to, in effect, reopen the case, unfreeze the travesty and get us some way back to justice. Not tangible throw-the-thug-in-jail justice. But the psychological justice of establishing Simpson's guilt with perfect finality.

This is especially important because so many people believed — or perhaps more accurately, made themselves believe — in O.J.'s innocence. Everyone remembers gathering around the television at work to watch the verdict, and then the endless national self-searching over the shocking climax: not the verdict, but the visceral response to the verdict — the white employees gasping while the black employees burst into spontaneous applause.

Pollsters found that nearly 90% of African-Americans agreed with the verdict. Almost a third of whites did too. What better way to eliminate this lingering and widespread doubt about Simpson's guilt than to have the man himself admit it. But for that you need his confession. The fact that he prefaced his "I did it" with the word "if" is irrelevant. Simpson will always avoid unqualified admission if only to avoid further legal jeopardy for, say, perjury.

But has there ever been someone who responds to the murder of an ex-wife — a death he publicly mourned and pretended to be so aggrieved by that he would spend the rest of his days looking for "the real killers" — to engage in the exercise of telling how he would have cut her throat?

No survivor of a murdered spouse who is innocent could do anything so grotesque. Can you imagine Daniel Pearl's widow writing a book about how she would have conducted the beheading of her husband? Or Jehan Sadat going on television to describe how she would have engineered her husband's assassination? Such things are impossible. The mere act of engaging in so unimaginably repulsive an exercise is the ultimate proof of Simpson's guilt.

Who cares if O.J. profits financially? There is nothing in that injustice — and a further injustice it undeniably is — that compares to the supreme injustice of the verdict. And exposing the verdict's falsity — from the killer's mouth no less — is worth whatever price we as a society would have paid in the sordidness of the TV spectacle and the book.

After such an event, anyone persisting in maintaining Simpson's innocence would have been exposed as a fool or a knave. The interview and book would have been valuable public assets to rub in the face of those who carried out the original travesty — Simpson's lawyers, his defenders and, above all, the jury — and those who continue to believe it.

Here's the television I really will miss now: the cameras taken into the homes of every one of those twelve willful jurists who sprung O.J. free 12 years ago and made a mockery of the law by trying to turn a brutal murderer of two into a racial victim/hero. I wanted to see their faces as the man they declared innocent described to the world how he would have taken—nonsense: how he did take—the knife to Nicole's throat.

Full disclosure: Charles Krauthammer is a Fox News contributor, among other affiliations.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: foxnews; hedidit; hemurderednicole; ifididit; krauthammer; oj; ojdidit; ojsimpson; wifekiller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last

1 posted on 11/21/2006 9:29:18 PM PST by RWR8189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
The attention and money Simpson (and Fox) would have garnered from the deal are not half as outrageous as the fact that every day he walks free.

[::Nodding::] Yup. Yup. And yup.

2 posted on 11/21/2006 9:31:25 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("On 11/07/06, 'true' conservatives and 'rat traitors joined forces to bring Sharia law to America.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Once again Charles the K has hit the nail on the head.


3 posted on 11/21/2006 9:33:26 PM PST by Utah Binger (Southern Utah, where a Ruger Auto 10/22 makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utah Binger

Thanks Charles, now, is it OK if we never hear about OJ again? One of the best things Rush ever did was "No OJ, none of the time"!


4 posted on 11/21/2006 9:36:04 PM PST by bybybill (`IF TH E RATS WIN, WE LOSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Krauthammer is probably right. The idea that we would have then been subjected to months of OJ is disturbing and tiring, but the number of people who believe he is innocent is also disturbing.


5 posted on 11/21/2006 9:36:38 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Great writing! I saw this as a crass book promotion, but maybe Charlie is right.


6 posted on 11/21/2006 9:39:05 PM PST by La Enchiladita (I will chill out when I'm dead . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Wrong, what's next, cooking with John Wayne Gacey?


7 posted on 11/21/2006 9:40:37 PM PST by John Lenin (The most dangerous place for a child in America is indeed in its mother's womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

If OJ had admitted his guilt and said he killed her because she was playing the whore with all of california in front of his kids, I would have had sympathy for him. He still would've been jailed for murder, but at least I would have understood.

He's never said that, so my guess is that it wasn't the case.

Krauthammer's right. OJ doing this "if" thing is conclusive about his guilt.


8 posted on 11/21/2006 9:40:51 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I still remember all the 'students' at GWU jumping up and cheering when the verdict was announced.


9 posted on 11/21/2006 9:42:19 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

OJ still can speak - let him put a video up on YouTube.


10 posted on 11/21/2006 9:43:31 PM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

The jurors came to the correct verdict. It's become rather obvious that the blood evidence was tainted and that establishes reasonable doubt. He could be guilty as sin but it's very hard to prove that using tampered blood.

The jury may have not have reached the correct verdict with the correct reasoning but they did, nonetheless. get the verdict right.

FWIW, the civil jury got it right too. There are separate standards for the two types of law. In the civil case, the prosecutors just needs to prove a preponderance of the evidence while a criminal trial requires guilt be on a reasonable doubt. The civil jury also heard about the Bruno Magli shoes which the criminal jury did not hear.

Don't blame the jurors. They did their jobs correctly. Instead, blame the LAPD who, in their rush to nab O.J. Simpson, planted his blood at the crime scene in order to throw the case their way and were caught (pardon the pun) red-handed.


11 posted on 11/21/2006 9:44:38 PM PST by Tall_Texan (NO McCain, Rudy, Romney, Hillary, Kerry, Obama or Gore in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

bttt


12 posted on 11/21/2006 9:45:09 PM PST by perfect stranger (Tagline tomorrow, tagline yesterday, but no tagline today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
"Cooking with Fava Beans" by Hannibal Lector

"Machete Sharpening Tips" by Jason Voorhees.

The possibilities are endless.

13 posted on 11/21/2006 9:46:50 PM PST by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

I'm getting ready to dump television, this would have made it that much faster.


14 posted on 11/21/2006 9:48:58 PM PST by John Lenin (The most dangerous place for a child in America is indeed in its mother's womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
a death he publicly mourned and pretended to be so aggrieved by that he would spend the rest of his days looking for "the real killers" — to engage in the exercise of telling how he would have cut her throat?
15 posted on 11/21/2006 9:49:17 PM PST by perfect stranger (Tagline tomorrow, tagline yesterday, but no tagline today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

Picnicking in Fort Marcy park


16 posted on 11/21/2006 9:49:32 PM PST by al baby (Hi mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins

"
Krauthammer's right. OJ doing this "if" thing is conclusive about his guilt."

The guy giving police a long chase and ending up with (iirc) holding a gun to his own head was pretty conclusive, but that was often ignored in what followed.


17 posted on 11/21/2006 9:50:41 PM PST by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan

Slam dunk without the blood.

Jury nullilfication means just that.


18 posted on 11/21/2006 9:51:11 PM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

Since O.J.'s victims were a different race (and one was also Jewish), why couldn't he be tried as a "hate crime" or denying Ron and Nicole their "civil rights"?

It worked against southern racists who killed blacks, so why not blacks who kill whites?


19 posted on 11/21/2006 9:51:19 PM PST by Tall_Texan (NO McCain, Rudy, Romney, Hillary, Kerry, Obama or Gore in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Here's the television I really will miss now: the cameras taken into the homes of every one of those twelve willful jurists who sprung O.J. free 12 years ago and made a mockery of the law by trying to turn a brutal murderer of two into a racial victim/hero. I wanted to see their faces as the man they declared innocent described to the world how he would have taken—nonsense: how he did take—the knife to Nicole's throat.

This is silly. Does Krauthammer expect them to show remorse, regret, embarrassment? Sorry to burst your bubble, Charles, but all you'd see on the faces of these "willful jurists" is a laugh-in-your-face leer. Simpson is a hero to these folks because they know he's guilty and they got him off, not because he's innocent and they protected him from an unjust conviction. The applause was for sticking it in The Man's eye, and the applause will be even louder when OJ himself tells the world it's true.

20 posted on 11/21/2006 9:51:20 PM PST by Steely Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
"The attention and money Simpson (and Fox) would have garnered from the deal are not half as outrageous as the fact that every day he walks free.

[::Nodding::] Yup. Yup. And yup.

Not strong enough for me. It's more than "the fact that every day he walks free" that is the travesty here; it's that this monster has not been EXECUTED for butchery of two human beings that offends me, society and the country! (Please excuse the "shouting".)

21 posted on 11/21/2006 9:55:09 PM PST by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

Taxidermy with Ed Geins. The person "Psycho" is based upon.


22 posted on 11/21/2006 10:01:27 PM PST by BipolarBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Slam dunk without the blood.

Just like Bush skipping out on the Air National Guard. May be true, may be not but when fake evidence is introduced, you have to give a reasonable doubt or there would be no reason to fake the evidence.

Cutting to the chase, I think he did it but I also think the jury had reasonable doubt to conclude otherwise. There was no confession, no murder weapon found, nothing (at the time) to prove Simpson was at the scene other than the blood evidence and the blood evidence was planted which we later found out was a frequent method of L.A. cops. Later the Bruno Magli shoes pretty much sealed the case but that was only established at the civil trial, not the criminal one.

23 posted on 11/21/2006 10:02:30 PM PST by Tall_Texan (NO McCain, Rudy, Romney, Hillary, Kerry, Obama or Gore in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WoofDog123

The car chase and suicide threat didn't look like innocence, did they? :>)


24 posted on 11/21/2006 10:15:25 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

I don't want to hear another word about OJ until somebody cuts his head off.


25 posted on 11/21/2006 10:19:30 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan

The prosecution was incompetent. Judge Ito a joke. Marcia Clark supposedly slept with her prosecution partner during the trial. What a California circus.


26 posted on 11/21/2006 10:20:53 PM PST by sine_nomine (No more RINO presidents. We need another Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Why are blacks so deluded? 97% think that OJ is innocent. Are they completely detached from reality?

Interestingly, nearly the same percentage of blacks vote Democrat.
27 posted on 11/21/2006 10:22:47 PM PST by TeenagedConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The car chase and suicide threat didn't look like innocence, did they? :>)

The cops actually planned and planted that video of Simpson trying to escape.

Sony executives were bribed and their studio used to film "the chase"/

28 posted on 11/21/2006 10:25:42 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (What's the one elected position Ted Kennedy has never held? Designated Driver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan

Wrong.


29 posted on 11/21/2006 10:27:24 PM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan

#11?

Delusional bullsh*t!


30 posted on 11/21/2006 10:41:13 PM PST by Brian Allen ("Moral issues are always terribly complex, for someone without principles." - G K Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Oh, please. O.J.'s guilty as sin, and I won't recount the 1001 reasons why. (I seem to recall Esquire did an excellent piece entitled 1001 Reasons Why O.J. is Guilty, and all 1001 were pretty damn convincing.) Let's just say that not least among the evidence is that O.J. can account for his whereabouts that day except for the exact moments of the double murder, and he never explained the hand injury that occured at just the unaccounted-for time and O.J. expressed the desire to kill Nicole numerous times.

The jury was doing the mirror image of what happened to Emmet Till. Sure, in Emmet Till's case the white jurors couldn't prove that the white men who came looking for the young black boy and took him out of the house at gunpoint were the same ones who beat him to death and dumped him in a river. I mean, no one saw the actual murder, so the jurors had to let the men go, because they said they let Emmet go after scaring him, so somebody else must have beaten him to death. The O.J. verdict was payback for centuries of crap like this.

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt.

O.J. is as guilty as Emmet Till's killers, and he got off for the same reason -- malignant racial solidarity -- and the verdict is just as disgraceful. I understand that African Americans have suffered in America, but two wrongs don't make a right.

A big laughline from Cedric the Entertainer in Barbershop is when he talks about things black folks know are true but can never, ever admit in front of white folks, and amongst them is "O.J. is guilty." Blacks laughed in the theater because they all knew it was true. (And the joke worked on another level, because Cedric the Entertainer knew that white folks would see the movie, ironically being let in on the gag.)

31 posted on 11/21/2006 10:43:38 PM PST by caspera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

What Krauthammer doesn't seem to realize is that the best prosecutor on Earth couldn't have won that case, not after Garcetti allowed change of venue to downtown LA. Can't have rioting over a Simpson conviction, now can we?


32 posted on 11/21/2006 10:49:53 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TeenagedConservative

Personally I don't believe that 97% of blacks think OJ is innocent. I think a number of that percentage knows he did but are just happy that he got away with it.


33 posted on 11/21/2006 10:52:54 PM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

He may be walking free, but his two kids know he murdered their mother. And he knows it.


34 posted on 11/21/2006 10:53:18 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

God what a great article.


35 posted on 11/21/2006 10:56:34 PM PST by jporcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
This is silly. Does Krauthammer expect them to show remorse, regret, embarrassment? Sorry to burst your bubble, Charles, but all you'd see on the faces of these "willful jurists" is a laugh-in-your-face leer. Simpson is a hero to these folks because they know he's guilty and they got him off, not because he's innocent and they protected him from an unjust conviction. The applause was for sticking it in The Man's eye, and the applause will be even louder when OJ himself tells the world it's true.

I found that part of Charles K's column to be silly too. They wouldn't care if they found out he did it--they already know he did it but chose to vote not guilty.

36 posted on 11/21/2006 10:58:19 PM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sine_nomine
The prosecution was incompetent. Judge Ito a joke. Marcia Clark supposedly slept with her prosecution partner during the trial. What a California circus.

Amen.

They were the real disgrace.

37 posted on 11/21/2006 11:04:39 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Gal.4:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

It depends on what's in the interview, and thats something only Fox and Judith Regan would know. I agree though, if it is in some way a 'confession', then it should have aired. If its not, and its just OJ trying to cast blame somewhere else then it shouldnt. I think its more likely that it was the later, and thats the real reason Fox caved. They knew what kind of reaction they were going to get after people realised they'd been had.

I do think thought theres a good case to be made that it should just have been aired in the interest of 'free speech' itself. I dont want moral arbiters like Bill O'Reilly deciding what should or shouldnt be shown on television. I dont mind a boycott, but Id like to be able to decide for myself whether I watch it or not. I think there may be a backlash against the 'culture warriors' over this.


38 posted on 11/21/2006 11:09:57 PM PST by OmegaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
What Krauthammer doesn't seem to realize is that the best prosecutor on Earth couldn't have won that case, not after Garcetti allowed change of venue to downtown LA.

That's correct. It was over from that point.

39 posted on 11/21/2006 11:16:51 PM PST by Types_with_Fist (I'm on FReep so often that when I read an article at another site I scroll down for the comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TeenagedConservative
Why are blacks so deluded? 97% think that OJ is innocent. Are they completely detached from reality? Interestingly, nearly the same percentage of blacks vote Democrat.

I don't believe that most blacks necessarily thought that Simpson was "innocent", per se, as much as he was legally "not guilty". At the time of the trial I had two black co-workers who were spinning all manner of conspiracy theories about how someone other than O.J. might have committed the crime. One of the guys, however, finally admitted to me that the real "bottom line" for him was that O.J. had just as much right to hire an expensive mouthpiece to get him off as any white murder suspect (e.g. the notorious T.Cullen Davis in Texas, Klaus Von Bulow, the Menendez Twins, etc).

Personally, I'm still waiting for the Federal Civil Rights trial of Simpson (after all, that's how the Feds handled white "jury nullification" back in the Civil Rights Era). I'm waiting and waiting and waiting.

40 posted on 11/21/2006 11:20:18 PM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
O.J. is a narcissist and he wouldn't have admitted a darn thing in the interview. He needs the publicity, he needs to know people are still interested in seeing him. He's been out of the lime light too long & it eats him up.

Remember, he still has kids and he wouldn't have admitted a thing!

41 posted on 11/21/2006 11:21:23 PM PST by blondee123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

I cannot bear to see O.J's face for more than a few seconds. I could not watch it. But Krauthammer once again brings a unique perspective to current events.


42 posted on 11/21/2006 11:23:24 PM PST by Northern Alliance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaversmom
Personally I don't believe that 97% of blacks think OJ is innocent. I think a number of that percentage knows he did but are just happy that he got away with it.

I think you are exactly right.

43 posted on 11/21/2006 11:49:51 PM PST by Eagle9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

I was thinking the same thing myself.


44 posted on 11/21/2006 11:54:33 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Vincent Bugliosi's book "Outrage" laid out the slam-dunk case that could have been made against Simpson by competent prosecutors. Anyone who looked at that evidence with an open mind already knows that he is guilty. People who haven't looked at the evidence but still insist that Simpson is innocent are fools.

He will be a pariah until he dies, and that is at least some punishment.

I don't want to hear any more from him or about him.

45 posted on 11/22/2006 12:01:22 AM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
but the number of people who believe he is innocent is also disturbing.

More disturbing still is the number of people who simply think it should be legal to kill white people.

46 posted on 11/22/2006 12:02:19 AM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
The jurors came to the correct verdict. It's become rather obvious that the blood evidence was tainted and that establishes reasonable doubt. He could be guilty as sin but it's very hard to prove that using tampered blood.

There is never any shortage of morons whose understanding of "reasonable doubt" is based on watching too many television shows. There was not reasonable doubt, and the jurors did not reach the correct verdict. O.J.'s guilt was proven beyond dispute, but the brazenly racist jury let their hatred of white folks carry the day.

47 posted on 11/22/2006 12:08:14 AM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie
I don't believe that most blacks necessarily thought that Simpson was "innocent", per se, as much as he was legally "not guilty". At the time of the trial I had two black co-workers who were spinning all manner of conspiracy theories about how someone other than O.J. might have committed the crime. One of the guys, however, finally admitted to me that the real "bottom line" for him was that O.J. had just as much right to hire an expensive mouthpiece to get him off as any white murder suspect (e.g. the notorious T.Cullen Davis in Texas, Klaus Von Bulow, the Menendez Twins, etc).

Great post. That has got to be the feeling of lots of blacks but what immedidately strikes me is I never read it in the MSM - only here.

48 posted on 11/22/2006 12:10:04 AM PST by Northern Alliance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Agreed.

I wanted to see their faces as the man they declared innocent described to the world how he would have taken—nonsense: how he did take—the knife to Nicole's throat.

I believe that a number of those jurors would maintain that their verdict was right even if OJ is truly the murderer because, well, it works out to white people have more money than black people.

49 posted on 11/22/2006 3:17:58 AM PST by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

He doesn't get 3.5 mil for YouTube


50 posted on 11/22/2006 3:18:37 AM PST by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 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