Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dallas Morning News: Roberts role in Bush recount team "critical"

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
AlGore-08.com Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:44 PM
Original message
Dallas Morning News: Roberts role in Bush recount team "critical"
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestne...

Appeals judge gets nod for high court

Conservative Roberts won't legislate from bench, Bush says

09:58 AM CDT on Wednesday, July 20, 2005

By ALLEN PUSEY / The Dallas Morning News

(snip)

Role in 2000 recount
In the aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential election, Judge Roberts played a key, if quiet, role in the Florida recount.

Although his name did not appear on the briefs, three sources who were personally aware of Judge Roberts' role said he gave Republican Gov. Jeb Bush critical advice on how the Florida Legislature could constitutionally name George W. Bush the winner at a time when Republicans feared that if the recount were to continue the courts might force a different choice.


Okay, everybody who says that Roberts is an acceptable choice... here is a report that he told Jeb Bush how to "constitutionally" name Bush the winner if the recount proved that Bush got fewer votes.

Not if the recount proved that the election really was too close to call. Not if the recount proved there was massive fraud. If the recount proved that the electors should go to Gore - - if the recount proved Gore won.

Now, does anybody here think Roberts' legal opinions don't have any real, meaningful impact on our lives? That fighting Roberts and fighting Bush are mutually exclusive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sniff, Sniff. Peee U.
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 03:49 PM by SpiralHawk
BushCo & Cronies fouling the public crapper, as usual.

Dems better make a stink of their own about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. kick
o-rama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buff2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah........
"You scratch my back,I'll scratch yours" comes to mind. Thieving bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Son of California Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. OK lets start compiling a list
of all the questionable decisions, arguments and statements made by this guy, lets get it out there and in the media.

Obviously, our Dem leaders in the Senator are holding back from attacking right away. But let the facts come and show what a weirdo this guy is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yuck
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patcox2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. but in fact that would have been constitutional.
The Florida legislature has the clear constitutional authority to simply decide who the Florida electors will vote for, in the case of a abllot dispute. Its absolutely true and correct. No lawyer presented with the question would even bother arguing against it. The only objection to it is political, it would be an ugly win.

In fact, the constitution says that the next step would have been the US House of Representatives. The Constitution states that any dispute over the validity of a state's electors (as would have happened if the Florida legislature acted) is to be settled by a simple majority vote in congress. The Constitution specifically provides a political, not a judicial, means to decide contested presidential elections.

The real corruption inherent in the Supreme Court's decision giving the election to Bush was that the Supreme Court actually lacked jurisdiction to hear the case at all. The conservative majority unconstitutionally took the case just to spare the Republicans the embarrassment of having to use their house majority status to elect Bush (that would really have been a stain on his legitimacy).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leafy Geneva Donating Member (52 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. I don't think it would have been constitutional
As I recall, what they were threatening to do was to have the (Republican) legislature simply directly appoint a slate Bush electors. At first glance such an atrocity may seem to be constitutional because in Article II; Section 1 it states:

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

However, that same Section also says:

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes

In fact, Congress had determined the "Time of chusing" - specifically the 1st Tuesday in November. I believe electors chosen at any other time, regardless of method, would be constitutionally illegitimate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
47. I just finished David Boies' book
He stated that it would have been unconstitutional to send up a second slate of electors because of the time frame. It could not have been done while the election was in progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlGore-08.com Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. The Dallas Morning News quotes a source who said it was constitutional
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 04:54 PM by AlGore-08.com
If it's so cut and dry, why was Roberts' input "critical"? Couldn't any yahoo with a law degree have led Jeb Bush to an obvious conclusion?

At the time, Republicans sited Article II, Section I of the Constitution, which says: "Each state will appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors..." and Title 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Code, which says: "Whenever any state has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors and has failed to make a choice on the date prescribed by law, the elector may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such state may direct."

The only questions seem to be overtly political - - how can this be spun to help Bush (benign) and how can this be accomplished before the recount proves Bush actually lost. But is assuming that Roberts' was only discussing the role of the legislature in the recount - - and that the only "critical" advice he gave was legal. There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that there were a number of illegal activities during the recount which worked to suppress Gore's growing lead - - the most provable probably being the forging of absentee ballots and the "Brooks Brothers Riot" by Republican Congressional aides and former Republican Congressional aides in the Miami Dade Courthouse. Should any lawyer involved with the Bush legal team be assumed to have been completely uninvolved in these activities? Or should it be assumed that, potentially, some lawyers may have been involved in these crimes and potentially, one of those lawyers might be John Roberts Jr.?

If Roberts had "potentially" cheated on his taxes, or "potentially" committed sexual harassment, it would be investigated by the Senate subcommittee without question, wouldn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
50. Not so fast.
While the Florida legislature was empowered under the US constitution to simply vote up electors, it was also empowered to set up a vote among its citizens as the method for chosing electors or draw the names out of a hat. Having chosen the statewide vote, as regulated by statute, and provided that Florida state courts had jurisdiction over disputes, it was obligated under Florida law to follow that procedure. In other words, Florida opted to have a judicial, not a political, means to decide contested vote counts in elections of electors.

The mere declaration by the Florida legislature that it had decided that a vote was a non-event wouldn't be a dispute over the validity of the state's electors, any more than if the Miami Lions Club decided that the vote was a non-event.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sepia_steel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Color me shocked.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. Yes
I've been pushing this side of the story since last night.

Plus he donated $1000 to the Bush Recount Team in 2000.

I have a real problem with someone who is obviously such a partisan political activist getting a life appointment to the Supreme Court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Yup. Everyone Need to Check Last Nights DU Homepage
for the links and stories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Here's my thread from this morning
This is what we've found out so far and there's more on the cooker.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Has anyone read the Bloomberg Article about this today?
This is a disgrace, and other stories are surfacing out here w/regards to this nomination. It goes deeper than a distraction.

READ THIS PLEASE:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
43. Forgot to "thank you for that link," DoYouEverWonder
You're username is where I'm at 24/7.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. This is what we needed. Thank you!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
45. I think I'm going to be sick...
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 11:16 PM by ailsagirl
Every time I think of that 2000 election debacle in Florida, my
blood boils. Now to find out that the latest chimp crony had a
hand in getting him Florida... it's too much. BASTARDS

:puke: :mad: :puke: :mad: :puke: :grr: :puke: :mad: :puke:

May they get EVERYTHING in life that they deserve. SLIMY SOBs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. that he is an extreme partisan republican is beyond doubt
but it won't disqualify him. Earl Warren is one of the Greatest and most liberal CJ in history and he was a long time Republican and infact, the 1948 VP nominee with Tom Dewey. I'm not saying that Roberts is another Warren, but while his partisanship especially on the recount issue is infuriating it won't defeat him. It is his stands on the issues that will have to be scrutinized and hope to find some kind of smoking gun that nobody has found before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. But this may make it hard for Bush to say he is not an activist judge
The law did allow the Fla legislature to pick the electors, but it was clearly not standard practice. What I wonder is whether it was a fall back measure if all the voter suppression (in black areas) and the strange ballot in Palm Beach didn't lose enough votes. (I know Theresa La Pore (?) was "Democratic" - but you wonder if she really was.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
34. You are correct, but don't forget to follow "activist judge" with...
...WHO WILL LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH!

Right now chimp's credibility is in the crapper, only the die-hard bush-bots believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

Let's throw their stupid, lying talking-points back in their face!!


:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Warren did not help a sitting President
steal an election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #10
35. the republicans of that day were very different than this
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 06:49 PM by ooglymoogly
bunch of which roberts is a card carrying member...this bunch believes religion...their religion should be an overriding issue in their decisions...with thomas,scalia, and rehnquist wingnut right and most of the rest old republicans, this will be a disaster for the america we love...there are no more swing votes to protect us from corperate gestapo religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. Sounds like a Judicial Activist!
Would this man hesitate to Legislate from the Bench???

Don't forget:
*Bush* is harboring several TRAITORS in the White House

*Bush* FIXXED FACTS to LIE the country into WAR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. But, he's been a judge for two years!
Why are you liberal commies being so ridiculous!

He *WAS* a partisan hack before, but not in his two whole years of judgery!

Geez!!

/sarcasm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. He spent $80,000 helping get Bu$h elected in 2004
Sounds like he's still pretty active.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
17. Check this out
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&...

As an American first, woman second I don't find anything about this funny, not one bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bumblebee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
18. Good. That means the 2000 disgrace will
be in the news. Cannot be helpful to B's poll numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
21. * is picked a judge for his own impeachment trial!
Stacking the deck!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
23. alarming news
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
25. He is tainted.
One must not only avoid impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety.

He clearly has had a vested interest in getting bush in power. Now, why on earth would this particular young man want something like that? Remember, in 2000 he was only 46 years old. If he and bush connected, there may have been a deal made. And bush probably looks at him and thinks, "This man is going to change the face of America forever."

Think of a one-dollar bill stamped on everyone's forehead. That will be our worth to this Supreme Court Justice, unless you happen to be one of the privileged elite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #25
36. Something I'm wondering
I thought I heard he got to know this guy through someone who he knew through S&B?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BelgianMadCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
26. .
as usual, the DU is pretty fast in nailing it down.

Married to an activist pro-lifer
corporate lawyer
instrumental in the 2000 Coup

nuff said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
27. Another fascist traitor scumbag. I'm am like, so shocked. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #27
49. maybe Fitzgerald will indict this goose-stepping jackbooted thug too
That'll cut his 30-year tenure down to size.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boo Boo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
28. Did you just fall off a turnip truck or something?
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 06:40 PM by Boo Boo
There is not going to be a nominee that is not a loyal, highly partisan Republican. This is how you get an appointment from a Bush. Rich guys that donate big bucks to Bush get to be ambassadors, and lawyers that work hard for the Party and otherwise show their loyalty to Bush get rewarded with appointments to the bench.

Better get used to it, because it has always been this way. Rehnquist used to stand out in front of polling places in Arizona and try to intimidate Black voters; that's how you earn your stripes in the Republican Party.

I'd be more concerned with his stance on Roe v. Wade, or his recent decision on Bush's power to hold prisoners in the WOT indefinitely. His opinion on these supposed war powers appears to be a whole lot worse (for civil liberties) than Justice O'Connor's. Now those are legal opinions that do have real, meaningful impact on our lives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
29. Is this enough of a conflict of interest to get Senate to filibuster?
The guy has been a judge for two years and now gets a SC nomination after clearly working for Bush. I don't see that a guy who has been a judge for a handful of years and a lobbyist for the rest of his career is qualified to be a SCJ. Should we make this point to our Senators? If we make a big enough stink, will the Sell-Out 14 have to listen to their constituents?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ignatius 2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
30. Another republican bastard with the blood of thousands of innocent
lives on his filthy,nasty hands!! The picture of him in our morning paper looked as if he is demented, the crazy eyes of a Charles Manson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
31. Oh wow!
This explains why Roberts instead of Brown. I just figured it would've been her cause of all the hype around her from the rightwingers but this makes perfect sense. I was right that he is a pure Bush loyalist. Someone should send this to all of our democratic Senators and Congress reps!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
32. Fat Tony will like this guy.
Cartoons joke about it - corporate suits owning our country. They call him The Man, Big Brother, McAmerica. Laugh all you want but it will now become a reality. 2 suits heading for lifetime appointment on the SCOTUS...

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brettdale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
33. kick
kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bejammin075 Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
37. Remember when Gore won FL but didn't??
Because they couldn't do the fucking recount until AFTER the election?

Payback will be a bitch.

Impeached and sentenced for treason for the high crime of lying to the country to take us into an optional war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
38. This is the story we need to come out about Roberts. We also
need to dig deeper into Mrs. Robert's goings on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. This could be good: Get the 2000 fix back in the news.
I like it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. stillhave to get to 2000. so many scandals and corruptions
to unfold. but you are right. to bring chat back to what happen in 2000 is a good thing and feeds into all that is happening now. saw a republican say how angry they were at plame, and if bush would lie about plame, maybe he did steal elections. people might be more receptive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. yep
bring back 2000...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bejammin075 Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
39. YO! Don't forget John Bolton in 2000 FL recount!
Also, John Bolton was involved inthe 2000 florida recount. I don't have a link, but do you guys see a pattern?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
42. AlGore-08.com, BRILLIANT POST. This is THE reason.
Roberts is totally unacceptable. Nice that LIEberman endorsed him so quickly. He was a "ringer" from the start, worst VP candidate since Perrot's pick. We'll see what the DEMs are up to. They may have pics of him with "...a dead girl or a live boy" as Edwin Edwards used to say.

The Republicans are very creative at stealing elections. 2004 was their masterpiece.

A comprehensive explanation of election fraud 2004--text and key links
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samantha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
44. I am here to present another perspective
The Florida State legislature could not have constitutionally changed the way the slate of electors were chosen after the official date of election selected by the Congress. David Bois has written about this and I have previously posted many comments about it. There is no question the day Congress sets aside the day for people to vote is also the same day the Slate of Electors from each state must be chosen, as dictated by the manner articulated in each state Constitution. Therefore, when the Florida legislature said if the recount gave the popular vote to Gore, the legislature would select, as was its constitutional right to do, a Republican State to send to the Electoral College, it was pulling a political fast one.

THIS IT COULD NOT LEGALLY HAVE DONE BECAUSE NO STATE CAN CHANGE THE METHOD BY WHICH IT SELECTS ITS SLATE UNLESS IT DOES SO BEFORE THE ELECTION.

This raises the question: if one is a Constitutional scholar and advises a governor such as Jeb Bush to coax the State Legislature into making such a threat, knowing this cannot Constitutionally be done, what does that say about the ethics of that Constitutional lawyer? Is it safe to say the average person does not know constitutional law and if one merely repeats with authority the legal action it will take, whether that action is lawful or not, the gullible public will swallow it? The answer must be yes, it's safe to say that, because that is actually what happened during the Election 2000 controversy. And if John Roberts advised Jeb Bush* to coax the Florida State Legislature into making these unconstitutional threats, shame, shame shame on him. He knew better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PartyPooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
46. I'll never forgive SCOTUS et al for what they did. They stole our country
lock, stock, and barrel!

And, if this nominee (pos) was remotely complicit, then don't give him a seat on that court!

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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