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

Skip to comments.

Dissenters in GOP rethink Electoral College [Fred Thompson joins those trying to destroy it]
The Washington Times ^ | June 2, 2011 | Valerie Richardson

Posted on 06/03/2011 7:25:02 PM PDT by EternalVigilance

Popular-vote pact picks up steam

A once-sleepy movement that would upend the Electoral College, reverse two centuries of constitutional practice and elect presidents by direct popular vote has quietly picked up momentum in recent days, with Republican Party leaders scrambling to stanch a steady stream of defections by GOP state lawmakers to the plan.

*snip*

Under the idea introduced in 2006 by Stanford University consulting professor John Koza, states that join the NPV compact pledge to give all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote - even if a majority of the state’s voters supported another candidate. If a group of states with an accumulated tally of 270 electoral votes - the bare majority - sign on, the practical effect would be that the popular-vote winner instantly becomes the Electoral College winner as well.

*snip*

A rash of Republican state legislators have signed on as co-sponsors and even sponsors of this year’s spate of NPV bills. At a May 12 news conference, two prominent Republicans — former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former Gov. Jim Edgar of Illinois — endorsed the compact.

“We’re perpetually kind of rolling the dice in presidential elections in this country and risking electing someone who didn’t get the most votes,” Mr. Thompson said at the event. “It’s an unnecessary risk.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; US: Illinois; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: ec; elections; electoral; electoralcollege; fred; fredthompson; illinois; jimedgar; nationalpopularvote; tennessee; thompson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last
To: hellbender
You dont need to piss me off any more than I already am... I am steaming about my $2500.00 wasted and my support of him... ... **** fred thompson... the rat bastard.

LLS

51 posted on 06/03/2011 8:23:32 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("If you lie hard enough and sell your soul... you can scam your way to the top" barack obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; pissant; Impy; Clintonfatigued
I remember during the Doug Hoffman/Dede Scozzafava battle, a bunch of Fredheads were on FR gloating about what an awesome TRUE CONSERVATIVE LEADER "The Fred" was due to his early Doug Hoffman endorsement, and how he's soooooooo better than ANY other Republican presidential candidate in recent memory when it comes to "federalist principles" (ONLY Fred UNDERSTANDS federalism! Sorta like how "ONLY Ron Paul" UNDERSTANDS the Constitution)

As I noted at the time, Fred deserved due credit for endorsing Hoffman before it was popular to do so, but ONE decent conservative endorsement in his life didn't make Fred into a great conservative role model overall. In fact, the Hoffman endorsement was rather unusual for Fred, in the past he nearly always supported the GOP establishment choice over a conservative underdog in primaries. Let's wait and see if Fred has truly turned over a new leaf, I argued. But Fred's fans would have none of it, laughing about how all the prominent Republicans who got aboard the Hoffman express afterwards were nothing compared to Fred's kick ass conservative leadership.

Fast forward two years later, and where all those Fredheads now? After swearing during the 2008 campaign that Fred's past endorsement of McCain would NEVER happen again cuz Fred's such a principled conservative now, they were pretty silent when he did radios ads promoting McCain over J.D. Hayworth in the 2010 U.S. Senate primary. Sarah Palin got racked over the coals for it on FR, and unlike Fred, she had an excuse for endorsing McCain (the old "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" rule in politics), whereas Fred Thompson owed McCain nothing and was retired, making his endorsement even worse.

Now Fred's working with the left to dismantle the electoral college? Do the Fredheads still think he's soooooooooo much more a consistent, principled conservative than Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, etc.? Fred Thompson was to the right of his pal McCain in the Senate, but the number of degrees to the right can be measured in milimeters. He's certainly better than a RINO, but I think it's time to admire he's no 'southern fried Reagan" as his fanclub continually claimed.

52 posted on 06/03/2011 8:24:15 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Well, I was a Fredhead.

Dayum.

53 posted on 06/03/2011 8:25:38 PM PDT by Shelayne (We need a Netanyahu! Instead we're stuck with the "yahu".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
I for one am in favor of eliminating the electoral college. I would replace it with a system where the winner in each county gets a point. Most points wins. This way you can win NYC and it counts the same as winning a small town upstate.

See my Post #30 - winner of each district wins the single electoral vote for that district. 2 electoral votes for the state are left over. Those votes go to the overall winner of the state's popular vote [as a "bonus"].

If this had been in place in 2008 in MD [where I live], Obama woulda won 7-3 instead of 10-0 ...

54 posted on 06/03/2011 8:26:03 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Another bought and paid for senile P.R.I.C.K.


55 posted on 06/03/2011 8:26:03 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (VOTE out the RATS! Go Sarah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JPG

The Second Amendment gives the lamb the ability to contest the vote of the two wolves.


56 posted on 06/03/2011 8:26:56 PM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (Palin / West in 2012 or West / Palin. Either combination will serve America well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
**** fred thompson and I suggest you refrain from trying to tie Sarah to Fred.

LLS

57 posted on 06/03/2011 8:28:23 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("If you lie hard enough and sell your soul... you can scam your way to the top" barack obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

I don’t get it. What do you mean?


58 posted on 06/03/2011 8:29:24 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
>> And yet a large contingent here at FR thought Fred Thompson was the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and ignored the real conservative in the race—Duncan Hunter. <<

They kept arguing Hunter should drop in favor of "southern fried Reagan" Fred Thompson, fantasizing about the possibility of a Thompson/Hunter ticket. However, this ignored the fact that "Federalist Fred" completely ignored Duncan Hunter and wouldn't give him the time of day. In fact, the only presidential candidate who even floated the possibility of having Hunter on his team was "nanny state socialist" Mike Huckabee.

59 posted on 06/03/2011 8:34:02 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I am glad that you do not get it... that means that I misread your post. I am so steamed at fred thompson that I would take a swing at him tonight if I was face to face with him. I was pissed at his lazy arsed political campaign but now I feel as if I had been raped and beaten.

LLS

60 posted on 06/03/2011 8:35:03 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("If you lie hard enough and sell your soul... you can scam your way to the top" barack obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

WTF?

What “risk?”

The system works as the Founders intended.

What is it with these idiots that they cannot abide to live under the restrictions of the Constitution?


61 posted on 06/03/2011 8:38:31 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Outlaw Woman

I have a better idea:

Let’s say a state has 10 electoral votes.

If Candidate A wins the statewide vote, then 2 votes go to A.
If Candidate B wins four of the eight congressional districts, then B gets four votes and A the other four.

Total: six to A, four to B.


62 posted on 06/03/2011 8:40:35 PM PDT by GAB-1955 (I write books, love my wife, serve my nation, and believe in the Resurrection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

“I would support a system where one candidate had to get 50% + 1 votes. If no candidate was able to, then there would be a runoff between the top two.”

NO! That system would succeed in allowing the large population centers to select our leaders. Since they are overwhelmingly Democrat, they would succeed in defeating the votes of flyover country which is overwhelmingly conservative!


63 posted on 06/03/2011 8:42:04 PM PDT by stilloftyhenight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Impy
>> Nope. In '08 he was never anything more than a stalking horse for McCain. That's it. Worked beautifully, too. <<

I don't believe any conspiracy theories that Fred Thompson deliberately entered the race to sabotage the other candidates so his buddy McCain would win the nomination. That being said, since Fred Thompson was a long time friend of McCain and refused to go say anything critical of him, he did have an indirect effect of making it easier for McCain to win the primary.

A perfect example was Fred Thompson's "must win" state of South Carolina. Up until that point, McCain hadn't won any state that he hadn't already won in his failed 2000 campaign, the race was still a tossup. The polls showed McCain in first place (by a slim plurality) in S.C., with Huckabee and Romney battling it out for second and Fred Thompson and Giuliani behind them. Fred Thompson really hadn't pushed hard yet and time was running out. The obvious stragedy would for Fred to forcefully contrast his conservative values to McCain and pry McCain voters into his camp. But he wouldn't lift a finger to campaign against McCain. Instead, he ran a bunch of attack ads against Huckabee, which didn't do anything to help Fred's numbers (they were appealing to different consituencies -- Huckabee was focused on hardcore pro-lifers and the FairTax people, neither of whom Fred was going for), but it damaged Huck enough to give McCain a clear victory. Once McCain won in "conservative" South Carolina, he had the momemtum as the strongest candidate for the rest of the primary season.

64 posted on 06/03/2011 8:42:32 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Nevermore
Back in the 1950s there was a serious discussion in Congress about the electoral college system and the conclusion was that we are better off keeping it. The present system means that every state's electoral votes can matter in a close election (as in 2000), which helps keep alive a two-party system in all of the states (or at least almost all).

A national popular vote would invite corruption on a larger scale than already exists and would the biggest urban centers to dominate everything.

65 posted on 06/03/2011 8:45:34 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Wrong, Fred! Bad decision.

Have another GJack and leave the electoral college alone.


66 posted on 06/03/2011 8:45:57 PM PDT by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The correct reform to the Electoral College, in view of the rise of political parties, would be to require all states to adopt the Maine/Nebraska system of apportioning one elector to the winner of the popular vote in each Congressional district, and two electors to the winner of the popular vote state-wide.

It would preserve the Founders intent of diluting popular enthusiasm and giving the states a voice.


67 posted on 06/03/2011 8:56:03 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

NO.

The EC is pure genius.


68 posted on 06/03/2011 8:56:11 PM PDT by fightinJAG (I am sick of people adding their comments to titles in the title box. Thank you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Here's the real story, buried near the end of the article:

Democrats “are for it because they get votes almost exclusively from major urban areas. The strategy is to eke out victories nationwide that way,” said Mr. Del Beccaro.

Such an approach is also rife for voter fraud, given the recent history of groups like ACORN manufacturing Democratic voters in urban centers, he said.

“Their constituencies are there, and it makes it easier for groups like ACORN to register voters by compliant and noncompliant means,” said Mr. Del Beccaro. “[Democrats] are also pushing for same-day voter registration. If you combine those things, there’s a huge opportunity for fraud.”

69 posted on 06/03/2011 9:00:15 PM PDT by Interesting Times (WinterSoldier.com. SwiftVets.com. ToSetTheRecordStraight.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Good Grief! Wasn’t Fred a conservative once?


70 posted on 06/03/2011 9:01:29 PM PDT by EasySt (2012... Sometimes you have to flush twice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
“We’re perpetually kind of rolling the dice in presidential elections in this country and risking electing someone who didn’t get the most votes,” Mr. Thompson said at the event. “It’s an unnecessary risk.”

Go back to full time acting and stick with it, Fred. I guess Fred is unaware that Algore got more votes than W in 2000.

71 posted on 06/03/2011 9:06:07 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

“The only group to be elected directly by popular vote was the House of Representatives.”

And even with the corruption of a ridiculously small number of “Representatives” that we have, they’re still by district, and not even the whole state (Except, of course, Wyoming, since it only has one).


72 posted on 06/03/2011 9:08:01 PM PDT by JDW11235 (I think I got it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

Obviously, if this country is going to be ruled exclusively by the large urban centers, we’re all done.


73 posted on 06/03/2011 9:09:24 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Some of us still 'hold these truths to be self-evident'..Enough to save the country? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The electoral college is a vital check on our system to prevent massive population area from creating tyranny.

If we go to a straight popular vote system, then New York and LA could dominate the elections.

Candidates could ignore small states or rural areas as statistically insignificant. They would focus on the big states and cities.

It would severely limit the possibility of getting real conservatives getting into the White House.

The Electoral College is the rules of our game to ensure that smaller regions have a say in who leads them.

It would truly be a disaster to eliminate it.

74 posted on 06/03/2011 9:10:25 PM PDT by garjog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
i am truly surprised and saddened to hear this...
75 posted on 06/03/2011 9:15:05 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
“If the Electoral College is abolished, then why not get rid of the whole “states” idea altogether? Just call them provinces of the federal government. “

Good point. I read a column that argued for a return to the system in which US Senators are appointed by state legislatures. That would enhance the power of the states, give them a direct voice in limiting the power of the feds and make who controls the state legislatures more important.

76 posted on 06/03/2011 9:16:35 PM PDT by garjog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

“Insanity.WTF is wrong with Fred?”

Is he trying to get another job in Hollywierd?


77 posted on 06/03/2011 9:29:20 PM PDT by A Strict Constructionist (Oligarchy...My theory is, college student body presidents become DEMS or RINO's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chode

He’s pullling a Ted Olson. Well, we had no great candidates who had a chance at the nomination in ‘08, as it turns out, and if Sarah doesn’t run, I’m afraid that our nominee will suck again. Romney seems even worse than Juan. Bob


78 posted on 06/03/2011 9:31:08 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Trains. Who'll remember the ones who only rode in them to die? Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
Cain/Palin-2012
79 posted on 06/03/2011 9:43:09 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

“Now this. If the Electoral College is abolished, then why not get rid of the whole “states” idea altogether? Just call them provinces of the federal government.”

Shhhhhhh!

You’re not supposed to talk about that. Yet.


80 posted on 06/03/2011 9:44:57 PM PDT by Grumplestiltskin (I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: conservativebuckeye

“That’s exactly why the left wants this. They want inner city thugs to control us.”

Absolutely.

And if ever there was an issue that could break the nation apart into pieces — with or without a new civil war too boot — this is it.


81 posted on 06/03/2011 9:47:37 PM PDT by Grumplestiltskin (I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

“The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

This is why the “popular vote” movement will eventually fail as unconstitutional.

Because when a state chooses how its electors shall vote on circumstances that have nothing to do with the [same] state’s actual voters*, that shall become the “valuing of one person’s vote over that of another”.

*Making the determination of which electors shall be chosen — based on vote totals from OUTside the state in question (and not “of the voters of that state”).

I hope that when this does reach the U.S. Supreme Court, we still hold the majority. You already know how Kagan, Sotomayor, etc., will vote....


82 posted on 06/03/2011 9:55:47 PM PDT by Grumplestiltskin (I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I saw through the FRaudster early on as well.


83 posted on 06/03/2011 9:56:57 PM PDT by RasterMaster (We the tax-payer subsidize DUh-bama's failures)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Early dementia.


84 posted on 06/03/2011 10:06:55 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

When I read “Stanford University Professor”, that was reason enough to dismiss his idea. Besides, the Founders intended that the Electoral College was a protection for states with smaller population. Otherwise California and New York could elect a President.


85 posted on 06/03/2011 10:15:42 PM PDT by pankot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Outlaw Woman

Yes, Fred Thompson is not the man you and many others thought he was. TN hasn’t a clue about the real liberal Fred. (Ditto Corker and Lamar! too)


86 posted on 06/03/2011 10:18:09 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"This is nullification and it is inherently unconstitutional. "

Absolutely not true.

States may decide to apportion their electoral votes on any basis they see fit and does not violate an individual right.

The Constitution specifies only that the Federal government will guarantee a Republican form of government.

87 posted on 06/03/2011 10:18:20 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Letting the cities decide all future POTUS=Leftist power, forever! This is the definitive problem with getting rid of the Electoral College.


88 posted on 06/03/2011 10:21:46 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunsmithkat

Palin like McPain is for open borders, something her backers seem to forget.


89 posted on 06/03/2011 10:24:31 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Something you may not be aware of: Fred Thompson is a protege of that old compromiser Howard Baker, who Nancy Reagan brought aboard to save Ronnie during Iran-Contra. Like Baker, Thompson is always jumping in support of liberal fads.


90 posted on 06/03/2011 10:27:44 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
Article II Section I Clause 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The states can choose their Electors any way they damn well please.

91 posted on 06/03/2011 10:28:56 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

I thought all of those 2008 candidates did average in the debates; none excelled, but I have to say McPain did as well as any of them. Maybe that’s why the little Republican primary voters have to go with the frontrunners.


92 posted on 06/03/2011 10:29:45 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Grumplestiltskin
"Because when a state chooses how its electors shall vote on circumstances that have nothing to do with the [same] state’s actual voters*, that shall become the “valuing of one person’s vote over that of another”."

I do not agree.

A State could vote to give the power to appoint all Electors to the Governor...or, to be nominated by "an independent, 3-judge panel" for considerations by the Legislature.

A state is not required to conduct a vote AT ALL as a means of selecting it's Electors.

93 posted on 06/03/2011 10:36:25 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You need a Constitutional Amendment to take out the Electoral College.

Anything else is just corruption on a Grand Scale....


94 posted on 06/03/2011 11:10:57 PM PDT by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
A state is not required to conduct a vote AT ALL as a means of selecting it's Electors.

No, it isn't. BUT, SCOTUS has ALSO ruled that once a state allows its citizens to vote for electors, their votes are protected by equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Their votes MUST be valued equally as EVERY other voter.

This proposed NPV compact basically states:

The citizens can vote for electors within the state. If a candidate DOES NOT win the electoral vote within the state BUT DOES win the NPV, then that candidate WILL receive the electoral votes that the citizens of the state said that he WAS NOT ENTITLED to ...

So, the voters of this state DO NOT have their votes treated FAIRLY - since voters in the majority NATIONALLY determine the selection of electors for this state.

95 posted on 06/03/2011 11:38:58 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“In ‘08 he was never anything more than a stalking horse for McCain. That’s it. Worked beautifully, too.”

Exactly — unfortunately, many conservatives fell for the con, including many here.

Result: President Obama.


96 posted on 06/03/2011 11:44:22 PM PDT by UniqueViews
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; All
To All -

In 1970, this came up as a proposed amendment in Congress. It passed the House and I think it was on the verge of getting out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Then, an obscure staffer for the Minority [GOP] wrote a dissenting brief that was sent to the Committee. The bill was tabled and NEVER brought to the Senate Floor for a vote.

He musta made a helluva argument ...

97 posted on 06/03/2011 11:46:04 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

“I am steaming about my $2500.00 wasted and my support of him... ... **** fred thompson... the rat bastard.”

Should have listened to those who tried to warn you at the time, and there were a few...

You fell for the con — maybe you learned your lesson, maybe not.


98 posted on 06/03/2011 11:46:58 PM PDT by UniqueViews
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: EasySt

“Good Grief! Wasn’t Fred a conservative once?”

NO. But as an actor, he played one in 2008.


99 posted on 06/03/2011 11:49:15 PM PDT by UniqueViews
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: UniqueViews

"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

--- Admiral Josh Painter - (Fred Dalton Thompson) Hunt for Red October - 1990

100 posted on 06/03/2011 11:49:45 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-175 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