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
Google

Reply #65: It should be. But then if Reagan had merely put a (D) behind his name and done [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
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. It should be. But then if Reagan had merely put a (D) behind his name and done
everything exactly the same way nearly half the people here would have backed him 100%. Positions on the issues matter not at all anymore. The party has become little more than a sports team to the true fanatics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -I don't get it. And I never will. walldude  Aug-24-10 12:20 PM   #0 
  - Interesting  kctim   Aug-24-10 12:31 PM   #1 
  - No, those aren't rights. They are needs.  walldude   Aug-24-10 12:35 PM   #5 
  - In order to pay for those "needs"  kctim   Aug-24-10 01:07 PM   #13 
     - WHAT??? Why are you talking about health care and SS?  walldude   Aug-24-10 01:48 PM   #33 
     - I can see why you don't get it now  kctim   Aug-24-10 04:55 PM   #51 
     - No, that's the Constitution. Ever hear the phrase "general welfare"?  Scuba   Aug-24-10 02:12 PM   #44 
        - Of course I have  kctim   Aug-24-10 05:00 PM   #52 
  - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  EFerrari   Aug-24-10 01:39 PM   #29 
     - You know...  walldude   Aug-24-10 02:13 PM   #45 
     - Do "human rights"  kctim   Aug-24-10 05:03 PM   #53 
        - The United States government signed off on them  EFerrari   Aug-25-10 03:46 PM   #67 
           - In the US  kctim   Aug-26-10 08:28 AM   #68 
  - Let me ask you  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 12:33 PM   #2 
  - What does that have to do with a persons basic human rights?  walldude   Aug-24-10 12:41 PM   #6 
  - The survey is not about your rights  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 12:51 PM   #8 
     - LMAO.. so you think this post was about the survey?  walldude   Aug-24-10 01:05 PM   #11 
        - Well you linked to a post about a survey  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 01:12 PM   #18 
           - Yes as yet another example of the attitude that you hold so dear  walldude   Aug-24-10 01:42 PM   #30 
              - You find one post where I said that  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 01:52 PM   #36 
                 - Yes it's me that "doesn't understand".  walldude   Aug-24-10 02:11 PM   #43 
                 - It is not "above" human rights  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 02:21 PM   #46 
                    - Ok whatever... you don't want to talk about what the thread is about, fine.  walldude   Aug-24-10 03:01 PM   #48 
                       - Hard to debate the issue at hand  kctim   Aug-26-10 08:59 AM   #70 
                 - were legal liabilty  libmom74   Aug-26-10 09:00 AM   #71 
  - No, because once LGBT members are allowed to serve openly, it's a done deal.  Gormy Cuss   Aug-24-10 12:41 PM   #7 
  - Tell that to the wives killed by troops with PTSD  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 12:54 PM   #9 
     - maybe the teen just needed a chiffarobe chopped up.  Morning Dew   Aug-24-10 01:12 PM   #17 
     - Yeah, false accusations and death  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 01:14 PM   #19 
        - I see what you're saying and the intention is good  Morning Dew   Aug-24-10 01:17 PM   #21 
        - And we all pitch a fit about it too  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 01:20 PM   #24 
        - And the military doesn't already know that those attitudes are lurking?  foxfeet   Aug-24-10 01:19 PM   #23 
           - Who? Where? Why?  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 01:22 PM   #25 
              - Unfortunately, their methodology makes accurate data unlikely.  foxfeet   Aug-24-10 01:52 PM   #37 
                 - Is The Military Responsible For Safety?  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 01:55 PM   #40 
                    - Of course the military is responsible for safety, but absurdity enters the picture  foxfeet   Aug-24-10 02:52 PM   #47 
                    - As far as you know  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 03:02 PM   #49 
                    - Deleted message  Name removed   Aug-25-10 09:21 AM   #62 
     - That's really a stretch. n/y  Gormy Cuss   Aug-24-10 04:44 PM   #50 
     - Like there wasn't the Boogeyman of the Oversexed Black Man?  LostinVA   Aug-25-10 07:34 AM   #56 
  - So, by that logic, the military should never have been integrated, either....  BrklynLiberal   Aug-24-10 01:02 PM   #10 
  - Who said not to integrate?  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 01:11 PM   #16 
     - The military, unanimously. n/t  Greyhound   Aug-24-10 01:16 PM   #20 
     - Sounds "reasonable" except there is no practical application  TheKentuckian   Aug-24-10 01:52 PM   #35 
  - that is patently ridiculous  BillStein   Aug-24-10 01:08 PM   #14 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Aug-24-10 01:33 PM   #28 
  - Well you know, we're not INTEGRATING PEDOPHILES  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 01:53 PM   #39 
  - Seriously, that's a nutty argument.  asdjrocky   Aug-24-10 01:50 PM   #34 
  - One thing that will move DADT faster is a positive decision  napi21   Aug-24-10 12:33 PM   #3 
  - H I P O C R I S Y  DCKit   Aug-24-10 12:35 PM   #4 
  - But the last word will come from a survey that has yet to be conducted:  kenny blankenship   Aug-24-10 01:06 PM   #12 
  - Depends how you see it.  RandomThoughts   Aug-24-10 01:10 PM   #15 
  - Nor do I. Nor do I get the defense of it, when we all know if this were the Bush admin. doing this,  katandmoon   Aug-24-10 01:18 PM   #22 
  - See, the Bush Admin Wouldn't.Be.Doing.This.  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 01:27 PM   #26 
  - And I'm sad for you having to find creative ways to defend the indefensible.  katandmoon   Aug-24-10 01:45 PM   #32 
  - Article about running gays out of neighborhoods in LGBT  sandnsea   Aug-24-10 02:11 PM   #42 
     - You have apparently never known anyone who has lived on a military base  LostinVA   Aug-25-10 07:40 AM   #59 
  - I don't necessarily agree with that  LostinVA   Aug-25-10 07:36 AM   #57 
  - +1 nt  Lorien   Aug-25-10 10:43 AM   #66 
  - How would you feel about your spouse serving with a Jew?  NAO   Aug-24-10 01:28 PM   #27 
  - There's nothing to get  natrlron   Aug-24-10 01:45 PM   #31 
  - Welcome to DU....  walldude   Aug-24-10 01:53 PM   #38 
  - You don't get it because it is bullshit.  Deep13   Aug-24-10 01:59 PM   #41 
  - Moral Superiority Comes to Mind  fascisthunter   Aug-24-10 05:09 PM   #54 
  - I wouldn't mind churches making their own decision  TBF   Aug-24-10 05:28 PM   #55 
  - OMFG -- churches do NOT marry ANYONE  LostinVA   Aug-25-10 07:42 AM   #60 
  - K&R n/t  myrna minx   Aug-25-10 07:39 AM   #58 
  - there is some serious homophobia going on in this thread. nt  xchrom   Aug-25-10 08:33 AM   #61 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Aug-25-10 09:29 AM   #63 
     - It should be. But then if Reagan had merely put a (D) behind his name and done  Lorien   Aug-25-10 10:43 AM   #65 
     - What you are seeing is actually pretty typical,  QC   Aug-26-10 08:51 AM   #69 
  - This seems to be an attempt  pecwae   Aug-25-10 10:01 AM   #64 
 

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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