Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bennett on with Tweety NOW on Hardball MSNBC...

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
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:05 PM
Original message
Bennett on with Tweety NOW on Hardball MSNBC...
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Tweety starts by saying how horrible she had looked, how brutal
jail was ....

Bennett talked about the limits on testimony--other areas, other sources wouldn't be opened up...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Tweety questionning the whole Libby permission story...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. What did Bennett say she testified regarding? How narrow was
it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. Waste of time
You're not allowed to talk about your grand jury testimony.

Anyone watching is wasting time.

Of course, watching Tweety is always a waste of time...............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Wait a minute
I always thought you could discuss your own testimony. Am I wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Yes, you are
No comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jumpoffdaplanet Donating Member (676 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Sure you can.
Anyone can talk about their own, and only their own, testimony.

Otherwise, Matthew Cooper would be in jail today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. According to the ABA, under Rule 6(e), the only people prohibited
from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding are the prosecutor, the grand jurors and the grand jury stenographer:

Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

There is no mention of a prohibition of witnesses disclosing their testimony from what I can find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. It is not mandatory, but discretionary
There is always the informal caveat given to testifying witnesses.

Why do you think this case is so leak-proof so far? Because witnesses have been silent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. Discretionary simply means 'we would prefer you don't discuss
your testimony', any witness can legally discuss any and all of what they said which is different than your response to the poster who asked:

kingofalldems (365 posts) Fri Sep-30-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Wait a minute
I always thought you could discuss your own testimony. Am I wrong?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. You're not paying attention
It's exactly what my initial response was.

This is how Fitzgerald has managed to avoid leaks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #38
46. No, actually, I paid attention or I would not have pointed out
that there was NO prohibition against witnesses talking about their testimony. Your response to that poster did NOT say anything about discretionary so I felt it was important to point out what the actual facts were via the ABA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. You do know, don't you,
that the ABA is a membership organization?

When the late, great Marvin Mitchelson was kicked out of the ABA after his conviction on, as I recall, a tax evasion charge, his comment was priceless.

"About as bad as getting kicked out of the Book-Of-The-Month Club."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. Are you saying the factual data I posted was incorrect?
I suspect not. What I do think you are saying is: look over here instead of what the issue was,ie, the prohibition of witnesses to speak about their testimony or, rather, the lack of a prohibition. Nice try though, lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. You are correct.
The other person is simply wrong. No question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. Not at all.
I'm saying that your reading of it is quite literal and narrow, and there is always more to guidelines, laws, decisions, etc. than the printed word.

That's how we get cases like Roe v. Wade, finding a right to privacy when those precise words appear nowhere in the Constitution.

Now, I'll give you another quote, because you're very entertaining:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I really love civilians who think they're teaching law to a lawyer. Always good entertainment.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. LOL, again, nice try
You are good at quotes that are totally irrelevant to the issue, less adept at providing accurate data with regard to the issue. Oh, btw, distraction and providing red herrings in place of actual evidence IS one of those 'tricks' you claim not to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. self delete
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 10:13 PM by seabeyond
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. yes you can. we have done this before. bush and mccleland said no
cooper said yes and talked about it. mccleland changed it to, we were asked not to and we are respecting that. so yes you can talk about it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. See above
There's "talking about it," and then there's discussing your testimony.

Two very different things.

That's how Fitzgerald's managed to keep such a tight lid on all of this so far. Imagine how much more would have been made public if the people giving testimony talked about what they told the grand jury, what they were asked, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. cooper said word for word what he said to grand jury
and told us that is what he said to grand jury
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Exactly!
Here it is from truthout:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

It is available at Time, which had the exclusive, but only for a premium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Do you believe everything that people tell you?
Do you, really?

If so, come with me, and I'll show you how you can double your net worth if you just give me everything you own and sit tight until I get back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivejazz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Explain why I should believe what you tell me.
Oh, I guess because you're you, that must be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. Feel free to disbelieve me
It's only a message board, after all.

But, if you believe what public figures say, then your education must continue, and you just learn what "naive" means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. no i dont oldleftie, that is why i am challenging.... you
lol lol ol. for a lawyer you left yourself pretty open on that one, dont you think. wink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. I left myself open on what?
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 05:57 PM by OldLeftieLawyer
Hey, whatever makes you happy. I don't know what you're talking about, though.

You were challenging me?

Sorry, I didn't notice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Do you believe everything that people tell you?
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:04 PM by seabeyond
no i dont believe everything people tell me. i dont believe what you are telling me, hence me challenging you. sorry you werent able to follow that. didnt think it was that confusing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. I didn't realize
that I was the topic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. you made me the topic. if i believed everything i was told
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:55 PM by seabeyond
i was merely answering your question. no i dont believe EVERYTHING i am told, obviously
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. You weren't the topic to which I was responding
You're very literal if you think I was personally addressing you. I was merely making a point. You took it personally, I guess.

That would account for my confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. as did you, i guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #52
60. Geez,
you're hard to follow.

Anyway, all the best to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MojoXN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
31. Question: If Libby was her source, why was she protecting him?
Weren't prosecutors already aware of his involvement? Methinks something evil is afoot.

MojoXN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
56. Sure you are. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zen Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. Did anyone see Bennett on with Blitzer today?
After questioning him about Judy Miller, Wolf asked him about his brother's comments on aborting black babies ... and Bennett blew up. Claimed that Blitzer was ambushing him and had not told him in advance he would ask about his brother. Bob defended Bill by saying something stupid, like since men are more violent than women, if we aborted all male babies the crime rate would go down. These Bennetts just don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Sorry, but I'm with Bob Bennet on this one
That's a total sandbag, and it's not fair.

I have a whackjob rightwingnut sister. Suppose she does something, and I'm being asked about someone I'm representing, and then, out of nowhere, I'm asked about my sister.

Not fair. Not fair at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Bennet put him self in public on purpose. Political questions are fair...
...on a political show.

"I did not know you were going to have me discuss current events on this political news show" is not an excuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Wholly off-topic
He was there as counsel to a newsworthy figure, not as Moron Bennett's brother.

I think it was a cheap shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. Opnions on current events on a news show should be expected.
But I hear ya...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. When
did you ever hear, say, Wolf Blitzer ask a meteorologist who's talking about a hurricane what he thought about how Bush is conducting the war in Iraq?

Sorry, but that's an inaccurate comment you made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. I've heard him do the exact opposite when DEMs are on...
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 05:40 PM by Dr Fate
I've seen DEM pundits on Wolf's show try to bring in a Bush scandal and then be told "That is not the topic for today..."

So that is why I dont mind Wolf swinging things the other way for once.

I see what you are saying, but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Yeah, but,
I wish we were better than rejoicing over cheap shots. It's beneath us, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. I'd like to see more reporters play "gotcha" with Repubs.
God knows he would be doing it if it were Dean, Kerry or Micheal Moore.

I'm glad Wolf did it- we will just have to disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Who cares about fair? It's time Blitzer was unfair to THEM.
Lord knows he's been unfair enough to US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Ummm his brother is a major publiic figure
How fuckin dense is he to have thought Blitzer wouldn't ask him about it a day after his dumb ass brother made the comment?

If you and your sister are major public figures and she says or does something considered controversial and you're on a news show, you should expect questions about hher.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Sorry, but his brother wasn't the reason he was there
He was there as counsel to a public figure. The public figure was not his brother.

It's just bad journalism to pull a stunt like that. Very bush (pardon the pun) league.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zen Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
54. But if your whackjob sister was the News of the Day????
Wouldn't you expect to be asked about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #54
64. No
The show is in segments. Different topics. I've seen it more than once, when a newcaster or moderator said to a guest, "That's not what we're discussing."

At the very least, they owed him the courtesy of asking him if he wanted to discuss it. I think pulling in a family member is just a cheap shot.

As I said, I'd have been outraged, too, if they brought up something that did not involve me, but a family member. It's unfair on its face.

While I know there's lots of gloating going on about Bennett and the rightwingnuts starting (maybe) to get theirs, I would rather not sink to their level in terms of kneecapping innocent people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. So what? He's a grown man, can't he take it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Huh?
What sort of ......... oh, never mind.

I'm sure he can "take it like a man." The issue isn't his capacity; the issue is fairness, and even broaching the subject was unfair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. Did you guys hear what else he said?
"Just ask the new Chief Justice. Timing is everything." Hmmmmm...

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bernardo de La Paz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. Bob Bennett the lawyer or Bill Bennett the racist vanity moralist gambler?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Bob Bennet is Judith Miller's lawyer
(also served as Bill Clinton's lawyer), and is the brother of RW nutjob ass-hole moralist gambler, ex secEdu - Bill Bennet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
18. LOL, for one of the best lawyers in the US to claim to be
'sandbagged' on this is laughable, imo. Any lawyer worth his salt would be expect this issue to come up given the legitimate uproar over his brother's comments. His umbrage was phony, imo, and, in essence, a 'courtroom' antic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. I'm worth my salt, I believe,
and I would not expect such an amateur move to be made on me were I in Bob Bennett's place.

Sorry, but his outrage was real, and legitimate. That was bad form on the questioner's part. Very unfair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. I, respectfully, disagree
I watched Mr. Bennett during his time defending Bill Clinton and there is nothing asked of him that he hasn't already figured out an answer to before it is asked. He IS one of the best lawyers in the US for good reason ergo there is NO WAY IN HELL he didn't know this question could come up nor would he not have a response prepared in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. I know Bob Bennett
We've met in all sorts of professional capacities, and, yes, he is a most capable attorney and formidable advocate.

That said, he's also the brother of a public figure, and there's no way he should have known, or could have anticipated, that he'd be asked such a question, simply because it's unfair, bad form, irrevelent to his reason for being on the show, and completely beyond the bound of responsible journalism.

That's why these TV guys aren't journalists. They're "personalities" who are looking for the "gotcha."

Out of line, completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. LOL, a lawyer saying it is 'bad form' 'irrelevant' and beyond the bounds
is quite funny. I say that not to denigrate the legal profession but to point out the fact that, again, any lawyer worth their salt uses those same 'tricks' in their profession on a regular basis and Bennett is well known to do the same, as any good lawyer would.

I say again, his reaction was pre-planned and done to stop the question from arising again, he succeeded and that was what he wanted, a good lawyer on display.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. You're a lawyer?
No?

But, gee, you know so much about what 'tricks' lawyer use.

You must be a really good lawyer, knowing all those tricks.

No one ever told me about any tricks. I feel gypped.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. ROFL, I am as much a lawyer as you are, chew on that for a bit
I could be a lawyer as you could be, or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. You could be?
So, tell me - tell me about the "tricks."

Come on. Give.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. Is it legal for a witness to divulge their testimony to the public after
their Grand Jury appearance? If so, the debate has ended. If not, please provide evidence of that fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
36. coming on shows and explaining themselves again
Its always that way with the culture of corruption.

They feign lib media or partisan hacks attacking them.

Does anyone take these monkeys seriously anymore. The entire world looks at them with complete disgust. Liars thieves warmongers .

Their dirty reputations will not allow anymore foregivness to come their way. Nobody nelieves habitual liars
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 Fri Sep 19th 2014, 09:01 AM
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