You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #110: Think about that last statement. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Odious justice Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-05-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #97
110. Think about that last statement.
When a journalist lies to the public he or she risks his career and reputation in doing so.

Jeff Gannon and Jason Leopold. Jason Blair.

They're all doing great now, eh?

What are "laws" going to do? We already have laws. That's my whole point. Almost everything you're referring to is subjective at best. If a reporter says that "Obama killed a baby in Detroit" that would be an excellent example of a lie/slander or libel. If the same reporter says that "Obama is smug and would be a lousy president because he has a Muslim background" that would be an opinion. Not a lie. It is biased, untrue, hateful, and trite. But, it is allowed under our system. News is made for consumers. We can choose which news we want to listen to. We have to act as our own filter. It's not the governments role or job or duty.

Live free or die baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Why can't we have laws against lying? Cleita  Aug-05-08 01:37 PM   #0 
  - We wouldn't need laws against lying if journalists did their job  nxylas   Aug-05-08 01:40 PM   #1 
  - Legislation would help.  silverweb   Aug-05-08 01:42 PM   #7 
     - If we could do that, it would make a huge difference. n/t  Cleita   Aug-05-08 02:13 PM   #30 
     - Legislation would hurt. It would hurt ths site, this country, and it's constitution.  Odious justice   Aug-05-08 02:31 PM   #40 
        - It wouldn't apply to the general public, who have no authority but every  Cleita   Aug-05-08 02:50 PM   #46 
           - If you can't trust the media, and you can't trust the public, and you can't trust the government....  Odious justice   Aug-05-08 03:03 PM   #53 
              - I disagree. I think if any news outlet had to adhere to the principles set  Cleita   Aug-05-08 03:21 PM   #65 
                 - Yes.  Odious justice   Aug-05-08 04:10 PM   #95 
                    - "If a journalist outright fabricates facts they should be fired or outed.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 04:14 PM   #97 
                       - Think about that last statement.  Odious justice   Aug-05-08 04:35 PM   #110 
                          - Exactly and he must state that his opinion is just that an opinion. Obama could  Cleita   Aug-05-08 04:49 PM   #119 
                             - We all have a muslim background at some point.  Odious justice   Aug-05-08 10:11 PM   #153 
                                - Umm no we don't  Marrah_G   Aug-06-08 10:28 AM   #172 
                                   - It wouldn't be hard to trace one realative to a muslim.  Odious justice   Aug-06-08 02:15 PM   #206 
     - If  Fla_Democrat   Aug-06-08 04:57 AM   #161 
     - If you have a business license who determines when you are in violation of  Cleita   Aug-06-08 12:42 PM   #180 
     - No, that's NOT the definition of interference.  silverweb   Aug-06-08 01:44 PM   #197 
        - Thank you for articulating this so well.  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:55 PM   #202 
           - :)  silverweb   Aug-06-08 05:44 PM   #209 
     - lol  aspergris   Aug-06-08 11:40 AM   #176 
        - We are the government supposedly and we really need  Cleita   Aug-06-08 12:56 PM   #181 
        - the response to bad speech  aspergris   Aug-06-08 01:03 PM   #184 
           - Like I said, let Sean/Rush/Billo rant all they like.  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:21 PM   #188 
              - again  aspergris   Aug-06-08 01:28 PM   #191 
                 - So are you telling me you can't tell the difference?  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:38 PM   #193 
                    - the justification  aspergris   Aug-06-08 01:43 PM   #195 
                       - To tell the truth, I'm not liking your Libertarian and Republican Hell that  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:53 PM   #201 
        - lol  silverweb   Aug-06-08 01:45 PM   #198 
  - Agreed.  silverweb   Aug-05-08 01:40 PM   #2 
  - How do you enforce such laws without infringing on freedom of speech?  bryant69   Aug-05-08 01:40 PM   #3 
  - but they would have to PROVE it was a lie  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 01:42 PM   #8 
  - Ah. That's the difference i suppose. Because surely there are no judges or juries  bryant69   Aug-05-08 01:44 PM   #12 
     - you would have to make that assumption in order to dismiss such a thing  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 01:47 PM   #14 
        - Totally different, and kind of embarrasing for you.  bryant69   Aug-05-08 01:54 PM   #17 
           - you know Bryant... just be honest.. You don't want accountability  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 01:59 PM   #21 
           - Well that's to be expected, although I'm surprised to find that standing up for free speech  bryant69   Aug-05-08 02:02 PM   #25 
           - It's not progressive or liberal to silence opposition.  Odious justice   Aug-05-08 03:13 PM   #59 
           - They aren't easy to tear apart when there is no equal forum to do it.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 04:05 PM   #92 
              - What are these lies?  Odious justice   Aug-05-08 04:28 PM   #104 
                 - Have you ever been a member of Kaiser Permanente?  Cleita   Aug-05-08 04:45 PM   #116 
                 - Ok, but that doesn't mean he's a liar. He probably never used  Odious justice   Aug-05-08 10:09 PM   #152 
                 - Wikipedia is not a valid source for this topic  brentspeak   Aug-05-08 05:10 PM   #139 
                    - It links to reports that rank health systems from US news.  Odious justice   Aug-05-08 10:07 PM   #151 
           - Not the dreaded ignore.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-05-08 04:36 PM   #111 
              - lol.... puhleese... violating controlled media's freedom of speech? Lol...  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 04:47 PM   #118 
                 - I hold the media to a higher standard.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-05-08 04:54 PM   #123 
                 - In regards to the ignore.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Aug-05-08 04:56 PM   #125 
           - This is the old canard about "balanced" vs objective". Its still bunk.  arendt   Aug-05-08 02:26 PM   #37 
              - That's an intereseting response  bryant69   Aug-05-08 02:40 PM   #44 
                 - Gee, if its that impossible, then how do any trials about FACTS get done at all?  arendt   Aug-05-08 03:00 PM   #51 
                    - Ah - I was unfamiliar with the history of the FCC apparently  bryant69   Aug-05-08 03:16 PM   #62 
                       - We didn't have blatant lying in previous generations. No need to shut down what didn't exist.  arendt   Aug-05-08 03:25 PM   #68 
                          - I do enjoy being accused of being dishonest constantly  bryant69   Aug-05-08 03:31 PM   #72 
                          - You are in favor of free speech, but you "do (?n't?) enjoy being accused of being dishonest"  arendt   Aug-05-08 03:44 PM   #78 
                             - Huh? OK - perhaps I should note that at this point I don't use the sarcasm tag.  bryant69   Aug-05-08 03:46 PM   #80 
                                - I said nothing about sarcsam. I did say something about hypocrisy. n/t  arendt   Aug-05-08 04:08 PM   #94 
                                   - OK - please unpack that for me -  bryant69   Aug-06-08 07:38 AM   #163 
                                      - If I am correctly unpacking YOUR comment about not using the sarcasm tag, then...  arendt   Aug-06-08 07:48 AM   #165 
                                         - Ah - I see  bryant69   Aug-06-08 08:02 AM   #166 
                                            - Strawman. Talk about this thread, not some made up BS scenario.  arendt   Aug-06-08 09:38 AM   #167 
                                               - Interesting that all of these pro censorship people can't really handle debate  bryant69   Aug-06-08 09:44 AM   #168 
                                               - You don't debate, you just move from attack point to attack point, never answering the question...  arendt   Aug-06-08 10:17 AM   #169 
                                               - How heroic. I hope you are successful in rescuing others from me. n/t  bryant69   Aug-06-08 10:25 AM   #171 
                          - "We didn't have blatant lying in previous generations."  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 03:37 PM   #73 
                             - Its too fine a point for you. Of course we had lying. Just not the "any moron knows it" lying we now  arendt   Aug-05-08 03:40 PM   #76 
                                - Are you the least bit familiar with the history of the U.S.? There have been lying  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 03:51 PM   #84 
                                   - This is the first time since FDR gave us a government that supports the middle class that...  arendt   Aug-05-08 04:21 PM   #100 
  - Make any public statement of an elected official de facto "under oath"?  rucky   Aug-06-08 12:41 PM   #179 
     - That would work, but I think I would limit it to only a few and powerful  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:41 PM   #194 
  - It's only legal to lie ...  meegbear   Aug-05-08 01:40 PM   #4 
  - SCOTUS might reverse their decission. This could have an effect on editorial mentions.  Wizard777   Aug-05-08 02:25 PM   #35 
  - they are paid liars. nothing more.  spanone   Aug-05-08 01:41 PM   #5 
  - It's hard to do that without infringing on their First Amendment rights  bob_weaver   Aug-05-08 01:41 PM   #6 
  - How about making a condition.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 01:47 PM   #13 
     - Sure, it's great in theory  bob_weaver   Aug-05-08 02:01 PM   #23 
  - Cause we'd all be in jail.  spenbax   Aug-05-08 01:42 PM   #9 
  - I'm not talking about day to day socializing.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 01:55 PM   #18 
  - You'd still be in jail.  bdab1973   Aug-05-08 03:29 PM   #71 
     - she's obviously talking about the MSM... and not posters on the internet  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 04:40 PM   #112 
  - We are all in the Media?  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 04:41 PM   #113 
  - i agree.  sweets   Aug-05-08 01:43 PM   #10 
  - I lived in the UK for 35 years  nxylas   Aug-05-08 01:50 PM   #16 
     - it takes me 3-4 weeks  sweets   Aug-05-08 02:03 PM   #26 
  - I Agree with You... how to hold them accountable is the question  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 01:43 PM   #11 
  - That's the problem.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 01:50 PM   #15 
  - I Agree with you....  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 01:57 PM   #19 
  - Who is the "them" whose speech you think could be restricted?  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 03:09 PM   #56 
     - do you really need to ask the question  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 04:15 PM   #98 
        - How the hell do you apply a law restricting speech to the "MSM"?  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 04:55 PM   #124 
           - Fine THEM LIKE THE FCC Already DOES when Someone Swears on TV  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 05:32 PM   #143 
  - Damn ten commandments.  Fuzz   Aug-05-08 01:57 PM   #20 
  - None of the 10 Commandments prohibit lying per se  slackmaster   Aug-05-08 02:02 PM   #24 
     - I was brought up being told the 8th commandment  Fuzz   Aug-05-08 02:15 PM   #32 
        - I remember being given the example, in Sunday school, of a German family hiding Jews during WWII  slackmaster   Aug-05-08 03:15 PM   #60 
           - We all lie socially and sometimes out of necessity.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 03:26 PM   #69 
           - Oh sure. There are always exceptions. That's the nature of  Fuzz   Aug-05-08 03:54 PM   #86 
              - The line between bearing false witness and other forms of speech seems pretty clear to me  slackmaster   Aug-05-08 04:29 PM   #106 
  - There ARE laws against lying -  Ron_Green   Aug-05-08 02:00 PM   #22 
  - Alas, the laws would have to made by politicians. Not exactly the standards of honesty.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Aug-05-08 02:04 PM   #27 
  - You gave me an idea.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 02:12 PM   #29 
     - Glad to be of service. Hope it works.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Aug-05-08 02:30 PM   #39 
        - Well, I agree about the Northwest.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 02:56 PM   #50 
  - Cleita, I can't tell you how many times that same thought has crossed  SeattleGirl   Aug-05-08 02:07 PM   #28 
  - It's what brings down empires and once great countries.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 02:14 PM   #31 
     - Yes, it is.  SeattleGirl   Aug-05-08 02:19 PM   #33 
  - I know on it's face it sounds like a great idea  Marrah_G   Aug-05-08 02:23 PM   #34 
  - Watch out - bringing common sense into this discussion might get you yelled at. n/t  bryant69   Aug-05-08 02:25 PM   #36 
  - um.... we are talking about the MSM media here  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 02:27 PM   #38 
  - Not to contradict you  bryant69   Aug-05-08 02:33 PM   #41 
  - Where is the line drawn then? The government should not be in the habit of regulating news  Marrah_G   Aug-05-08 02:52 PM   #47 
     - Why should this one business not have some regulation?  Cleita   Aug-05-08 03:10 PM   #58 
        - Because it is the press. Because the found fathers realized how important this is  Marrah_G   Aug-05-08 03:46 PM   #79 
           - Wake up and smell the newsprint. We already have government run news  Cleita   Aug-05-08 03:53 PM   #85 
              - No- you think that is what you are proposing- But it is the opposite  Marrah_G   Aug-05-08 03:56 PM   #89 
                 - The smaller presses would have to keep to the truth and they wouldn't  Cleita   Aug-05-08 04:28 PM   #105 
                    - And you don't think they would be tied up in baseless litigation until bankrupted?  Marrah_G   Aug-05-08 04:33 PM   #109 
                       - Every small business runs that risk.  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:36 AM   #157 
                          - My business? My business is incredibly regulated.  Marrah_G   Aug-06-08 05:38 AM   #162 
  - Surely, such a law or laws would have to be more narrowly defined.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 02:34 PM   #42 
  - You Would Think Separation of Church and State  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 02:39 PM   #43 
  - I guess you are ignoring me.  bryant69   Aug-05-08 02:40 PM   #45 
  - Yes, but it's up to us to keep them in their place,  Cleita   Aug-05-08 02:53 PM   #48 
  - We have nothing now for a reason. Its a very important part of the Constitution.  Marrah_G   Aug-05-08 02:54 PM   #49 
     - So I guess we must accept that we don't have an honest press  Cleita   Aug-05-08 03:00 PM   #52 
        - What press are you reading?  Odious justice   Aug-05-08 03:09 PM   #55 
        - You know when I go anywhere, the gym, the hospital, the car repair and all  Cleita   Aug-05-08 03:16 PM   #61 
        - No- quite the opposite. We ensure that government can't dictate the news  Marrah_G   Aug-05-08 03:40 PM   #75 
           - We already have that system if you haven't noticed.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 03:54 PM   #88 
              - There would be no news under the legislation you propose  Marrah_G   Aug-05-08 03:57 PM   #90 
                 - We have news?  Cleita   Aug-05-08 04:23 PM   #101 
                    - Yes we do have news.  Marrah_G   Aug-05-08 04:31 PM   #108 
                       - Yes, for those of us who have the luxury of  Cleita   Aug-05-08 08:16 PM   #149 
  - I see what you're saying but I kinda like the idea of churches having to substantiate their beliefs.  thecatburgler   Aug-06-08 01:43 PM   #196 
  - Because those laws would be (1) unworkable and (2) ridiculously unconstitutional  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 03:04 PM   #54 
  - They work in the UK, is that good enough reason?  harun   Aug-05-08 03:20 PM   #64 
     - They keep Ruppert Murdoch's tabloids in line, don't they?n/t  Cleita   Aug-05-08 03:22 PM   #66 
     - First of all, the UK doesn't have that pesky First Amendment.  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 03:25 PM   #67 
     - What laws did the OP call for that go beyond the UK?  Cleita   Aug-05-08 04:11 PM   #96 
        - Read your own OP.  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 05:10 PM   #138 
           - Well, in the heat of the moment I was thinking of the most egregious lies  Cleita   Aug-05-08 08:08 PM   #148 
     - Like the 1990 McDonald's defamation case?  ThoughtCriminal   Aug-06-08 02:04 PM   #204 
  - because of freedom of speech/press and because of the potential for abuse  fishwax   Aug-05-08 03:09 PM   #57 
  - But if only the truth were allowed to be spoken  bryant69   Aug-05-08 03:17 PM   #63 
     - Belling the cat is a great idea.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 03:29 PM   #70 
  - Because liars are the ones who work the hardest (to protect their right to lie).  Peake   Aug-05-08 03:38 PM   #74 
  - Yep - and the Innocent have nothing to fear. n/t  bryant69   Aug-05-08 03:47 PM   #81 
     - Really?  Cleita   Aug-05-08 03:50 PM   #83 
        - (I believe you are arguing against your own position at this point)  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 03:54 PM   #87 
        - Drastically restrict free speech?  Cleita   Aug-05-08 04:00 PM   #91 
           - Yes. Drastically.  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 04:07 PM   #93 
              - If this were a law, the Project For a New American Century would not  Cleita   Aug-05-08 04:20 PM   #99 
                 - Oh, now you want to criminalize "unfounded ideology" and "unrealistic goals" as well?  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 04:30 PM   #107 
                    - really... they are the Mainstream Media? Stop exagerating  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 04:41 PM   #114 
                       - Please tell me how I have exaggerated your position.  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 04:46 PM   #117 
                          - You Deliberately Exaggerated her statement to include:  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 04:52 PM   #122 
                             - Please explain how you could possibly restrict the speech of a commentator from the Cato Institute  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 05:00 PM   #128 
                                - Well, that would be different since a commentator would be Invited  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 05:04 PM   #131 
                                   - That makes no sense. A "commentator" that works for NBC would have his speech  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 05:07 PM   #134 
                                      - buh bye  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 05:08 PM   #136 
                                         - Bye. Have a good evening.  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 05:14 PM   #141 
        - I feel kind of sorry for you  bryant69   Aug-06-08 10:29 AM   #173 
  - This is one of the worst policy ideas I've ever heard.  Nabeshin   Aug-05-08 03:41 PM   #77 
  - Get over it.  Cleita   Aug-05-08 03:48 PM   #82 
     - good topic Cleita  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 04:25 PM   #103 
        - It's amazing that people consider gutting the First Amendment as a desirable solution  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 04:44 PM   #115 
        - Can you or I swear on tv anytime we want? Didn't think so...  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 04:58 PM   #126 
           - Your example is a non sequitur  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 05:04 PM   #130 
              - lol.... gotcha. buh bye  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 05:05 PM   #132 
                 - Um, if by "gotcha" you mean "posted nonsense that doesn't have anything to do with the topic"  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 05:08 PM   #135 
                    - yawn  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 05:09 PM   #137 
                       - At this point it appears you've stopped even pretending you have an argument.  Raskolnik   Aug-05-08 05:12 PM   #140 
                          - Lol.... Get Over Yourself Already  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 05:26 PM   #142 
        - Yep, but they will defend to the last the right of every lying  Cleita   Aug-05-08 04:50 PM   #120 
           - They Are Conflating Freedom of Speech with Corporate Controlled Media  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 04:59 PM   #127 
  - We do have laws against lying.  DS1   Aug-05-08 04:24 PM   #102 
  - Are they being enforced?  Cleita   Aug-05-08 04:51 PM   #121 
     - Only when they can, the Bush admin slashed the budget for the anti-lying task force.  DS1   Aug-05-08 05:54 PM   #145 
  - If a lie could be connected with the loss of life, as in truth-in-labelling laws,  DailyGrind51   Aug-05-08 05:00 PM   #129 
  - That's Reasonable...  fascisthunter   Aug-05-08 05:06 PM   #133 
  - It's not about lying.  HughBeaumont   Aug-05-08 05:44 PM   #144 
  - if on air i'd end every broadcast grilling guests "does my butt look bigger in this?"  NuttyFluffers   Aug-05-08 06:19 PM   #146 
  - And if they answered it, (they don't have to) would you be able to  Cleita   Aug-05-08 07:02 PM   #147 
     - no, don't you see? they're always lying, either way. my butt is beautiful...  NuttyFluffers   Aug-06-08 03:11 AM   #158 
  - No, you see, you've got it all wrong. Lying is Good, GOod, GOOD!  SimpleTrend   Aug-05-08 09:08 PM   #150 
  - It was close to sarcasm, but it was too true.  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:26 AM   #156 
  - "It may have been so decades ago as these countries were getting their health care"  Prophet 451   Aug-06-08 12:58 AM   #154 
  - Thank you for saying this.  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:24 AM   #155 
     - I think we also have a collective head up our ass as a country  Heddi   Aug-06-08 03:43 AM   #159 
        - The problem is the insurance companies and HMOs and for any politician to even  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:32 PM   #192 
  - Amerika was built on lies...  asteroid2003QQ47   Aug-06-08 04:27 AM   #160 
  - Do you think we should abandon america  bryant69   Aug-06-08 07:40 AM   #164 
     - Since you post on DU, it's safe to say...  asteroid2003QQ47   Aug-06-08 06:00 PM   #210 
  - We'd have to jail Newt forever.  old mark   Aug-06-08 10:22 AM   #170 
  - hell, if such a law had been around in 1863, someone could've jailed Abe Lincoln  onenote   Aug-06-08 02:31 PM   #208 
  - The only real way to fix this kind of problem  treestar   Aug-06-08 10:50 AM   #174 
  - Well after we have educated the next generation I'm sure that will be  Cleita   Aug-06-08 02:06 PM   #205 
  - because it chills free speech and is inconsistent with democracy.  aspergris   Aug-06-08 11:40 AM   #175 
  - Galileo is not a good example. In that case you had the church deciding  Cleita   Aug-06-08 12:32 PM   #177 
     - the church WAS the state  aspergris   Aug-06-08 12:37 PM   #178 
        - Yes, it was and that is why we have separation of church and state today.  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:03 PM   #182 
           - get reaL  aspergris   Aug-06-08 01:06 PM   #185 
              - I'm not talking about bad ideas I am talking about lies.  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:18 PM   #186 
              - there is no difference  aspergris   Aug-06-08 01:23 PM   #190 
                 - We don't have a free press when the WH is feeding the press everything that  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:51 PM   #199 
              - Right on! n/t  bryant69   Aug-06-08 01:18 PM   #187 
  - Outlaws don't care about laws!  Hubert Flottz   Aug-06-08 01:03 PM   #183 
  - That's because they are getting away with murder.  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:23 PM   #189 
  - Because we have something called the First Amendment.  onenote   Aug-06-08 01:52 PM   #200 
     - I'm sure a news guy like Benjamin Franklin did not have  Cleita   Aug-06-08 01:59 PM   #203 
        - I suspect that the founding fathers were quite familiar with journalistic excess  onenote   Aug-06-08 02:24 PM   #207 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC