Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can anyone explain to me how "Unitary Executive" differs from "Dictator"?

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 (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:05 AM
Original message
Can anyone explain to me how "Unitary Executive" differs from "Dictator"?
Or for that matter how does "Decider" differ from "Dictator"? Bush* claims to be both "Decider" and "Unitary Executive". Are there any definations available that demonstrate a difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. A dictator has no rules
the unitary executive twists the rules to be a dictator. No one challenges the twisted rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:13 AM
Original message
Dictators, going right back to Rome, frequently have rules.
Of course as they have great power and few constraints, the rules are not terribly important.

The Bush regime fits the proper definition of a dictatorship, and reached that point when they used their theory of a Unitary Executive to put themselves above court and legislature. In that they have further used the emergency of 9-11 to justify their actions, they have also followed the classic 20th century model of 'creeping dictatorship' to slowly erode all constitutional restraints on their exercise of power.

UE is the political theory that justifies the Bush dictatorship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sure...."Unitary Executive"


"Unitary Executive" sounds a lot nicer than "Dictator."


That's about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
20. Actually, its Urinary Dictator
One who believes in the trickle down theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Definition: "Urinary Executive"
Urinary Executive or Urinary Authoritarian Executive (slang, DCspeak)

n., (en)title -- the "newly-discovered," or "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

See also, Trickle-Down Economics

--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
53. bless you, i was hoping this would catch on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #20
43. Yeah, remember the yellow pissy rug?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
3. bush wants to be the biggest and bestest... Dictators are a dime a dozen
but bush is the onliest Unitary Executive in the universe

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. Ooohhhhh.. Good question. I'm looking forward to reading the answers! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
5. Personally, I find no difference whatsoever.
But, I've never lived under a dictator until NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
6. "Unitary Executive" is two words, not one. "Decider" is just a
stupid Bushism and a sports term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
7. This isn't really an answer but an observation.
Remember when we all figured out that Junior's residency was all lawyered up?

Well, it looks like they calculated that this See No Evil Congress would just bend over and that the only impediment to their criminality would be the courts.

That's why Torquemada and his crew was necessary. Maybe that's obvious now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
8. More letters in the title. (One has to wonder if george has learned to
spell it yet.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
9. "Unitary Executive" sounds nicer
It means W's remaining supporters don't have to explain why the dictator should be supported and it plays into American exceptionalism: "Other nations have a dictator, we just have a "unitary executive"".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
10. It sounds less offensive than "Dictator".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
11. I musta missed this quote.
When did the chimperor claim to be a Unitary Executive? :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. His Justice Department made it for him in fron of a Congressional Hearing.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Thanks, Toots.
:scared:

And how does America respond to this? :boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthboundmisfit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Good question - when did the term start appearing?
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 10:40 AM by earthboundmisfit
Think I'll see if it appears in ALL the signing statements - anybody here know?
I do know this:
B*sh and Cheney put the "DICK" in "dictator"!

Edited to add: YES * uses in all his signing statements "in a manner consistent with his constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch." I don't know (yet) if the term is used in any or all of the 322 total signing statements issued from all other Presidents.

But here's a pretty good piece on the subject from J. Van Bergen on Findlaw, Jan. 2006:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Not sure, but it was discussed during Alito's confirmation hearing.
It definitely slipped in under my radar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #16
24. the term began to be used *in the public* during
Alito's confirmation hearing, which was around the same time that the issue of the signing statements was becoming public - in which it the "authority" was being asserted.

Apparently while in the Reagan admin, Alito suggested the use of the signing statement where legislation left some "gray area" to serve as a 'marker of intent' to define the gray area, so that if/when the legislation ever appeared before the courts, the admin could 'help shape' the ruling rather than the courts solely trying to determine congressional intent behind the law.

However the use of the unprecidented use of signing statements by the Bush admin has been aggressive, egregious and seem to indicate much more than laying out a definition for interpretation for future courts. Instead this administration seems to be using signing statements as directives to the federal agencies of the executive branch as how to carry out the laws - including disregarding parts of the laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. Alito dreamed it up in 2000, used in speech
Samuel Alito, now an associate justice on the Supreme Court, succinctly expressed the basic position held by UET proponents in a November 2000 speech to the Federalist Society. Alito claimed that the Constitution gives the President, not just some executive power, but the executive powerthe whole thing (Alito qtd. in Savage n. pag.). Such a statement might at first appear relatively uncontroversial. After all, American schoolchildren are taught about the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, and, naturally, the executive power goes to the president. However, upon closer examination, several questions emerge. What is executive power? Is the understanding of executive power held by Alito and other UET proponents the same as the one held by the framers of the Constitution? And what happens if and when executive, legislative, and judicial powers intersect?

However, UET is an unsound interpretation because it is a departure from the intentions of the framers and a significant misreading of the constitutional provisions that define executive power, and furthermore, its acceptance would have dramatically harmful ramifications for the workings of government.

UET's defenders also emphasize the importance of the executive branch to the framers. As Alito stated in 2000, the framers saw the unitary executive as necessary to balance the huge power of the legislature and the factions that may gain control of it. Factionalism was indeed an important problem that the framers sought to combat. Professor Harold Krent notes other advantages the executive brings to governing: accountability to the public, and the requisite initiative to exert effective leadership in administering the federal government


http://elliot.infogami.com/thesis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
44. It has been around a while, but SCOTUS appointments crystalized
the concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. In his signing statements. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
38. Here is one example
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.<16>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlavaKreemSnak Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
12. I think it sounds better to most people.

Maybe because it is new? Or it least it was new to me the first time I heard it. They have done studies that show that if you change something's name, people will like it better as long as the new name has a good sound, and I am guessing maybe also if it is something maybe people haven't heard a lot. Also you couldn't have a dictator in America because we are a democracy, so we have a Unitary Executive. Except we don't really because I don't think they let the actual Bush decide much of anything, but he gets to announce it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
13. I think it's just a nice way to say corporate pimp or...
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 10:20 AM by Hubert Flottz
DUMMY!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
15. It's the same
unless you are republican
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
17. Unitary executive uses birds, bird flu, bird brain, bird finger.
Decider knows how to cheerlead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
23. Does "unitary executive" appear in any trade agreement?
Like GATT, NAFTA? What are the terms for national leaders in these documents?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
25. Unitary Executive gives passing reference, however dismissive & oblique,
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 11:35 AM by cryingshame
to other branches of government and seats of power.

U.E. pretty much is shoving a middle finger into the face of Congress, Judiciary and Press and yet leaves those other institutions intact as empty, impotent shells to serve as fig leaves.

A Dictator just dispenses with the fig leaves. Perhaps Dictator has a bit more integrity in that its more honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. I disagree.
Modern dictators frequently leave the shell of a representative government in place. The trappings and rituals of democracy are maintained and observed, all the better to befuddle and control the populace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
26. It doesn't differ. Apparently all power resides in the "unitary" person.
Kinda like a dictator!

If they called him a dictator they'd have to think of a different term for the enemy leaders. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
27. "Unitary executive" is used to assert that the executive branch
has a single chain of authority; all branches of the executive report to the president. The claim is that neither the Congress nor the judicial branch control any portion of the executive branch.

Nobody disputes the idea of a unitary judicial or unitary legislative: although when Congress was thinking about setting up some committee to investigate ethical breaches in the judiciary we certainly heard SCOTUS folk complaining about it.

"Unitary executive" is simply shorthand for "unitary executive branch." Within the executive branch, the president is a dictator (as delimited by contractual obligations and some legal strictures).

Abductive reasoning in language is a bitch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Well it is a bit more than that.
For example, under the UE theory one executive agency cannot sue another. This aspect cripples enforcement of regulations between different branches of the administration. More importantly UE is being used to claim that such congressional actions as the appointment of independent counsels to investigate executive branch activities are unconstitutional - and in general vastly restrict any oversight of executive activities. It is clearly being used by this administration to argue that basically congress's role is limited to simply passing legislation while the executive is free to implement, ignore, or effectively rewrite those laws as it sees fit. For example, the signing statement on the McCain torture bill states:

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.<16>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

In this statement he uses the UE to cover all actions of the military and other executive agencies on persons detained and declares that they may simply ignore the restrictions and that torture and abuse may continue regardless of what congress has legislated. It is an astounding statement in that it directly nullifies the clear intention of congressional legislation and asserts that the entire executive is not constrained in any way by this legislation. It is a statement of dictatorial powers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Thanks for the detailed explanation. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Yes. There's more to it.
But my primary quibble is that people seem to think the 'unitary executive' is a person, when it's clearly not.

The real crux is the relationship with other branches, and whether internal squabbles and outside control are acceptable or accepted. Some seem to want to say the 'unitary executive' theory subsumes all the other branches under the 'unitary executive', i.e., *.

But I'm happy with addressing my primary quibble. It seems to fall on deaf ears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Effectively UE is a person.
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 01:33 PM by Warren Stupidity
The argument is that the entire executive branch must be treated as if it is the president - that is the unitary part.

The wikki article I cited in my other post has the interesting historical view on the UE - the origination of the term came from constitution writing debates over the format of the presidency, where the unitary executive side wanted a single (unitary) president while their opposition wanted a committee. This had nothing (obviously) to do with the reformating of the term by the neofascists to mean that the entire executive branch ought to be legally considered a single entity. As usual they just take any old shit from the past and recast it to suit their needs and then claim some foundational basis for their radical reinterpretation of the constitution. They are the worst sort of fundamentalists - the cravenly dishonest kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. There's a can of worms that's been long in opening inherent it that SS.
Over time, the Executive Branch has aggregated almost all authority for ANY action undertaken outside of US boundaries, a unilateral assumption of power effectively unconstrained by either the Judicial or Legislative branches. In effect, this regime is putting the cherry on top - claiming the unconstrained Constitutional prerogative of extraterritorial authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. I see nothing in that statement that limits its actions to outside
our territory. The adminstration, over the NSA issue, has clearly asserted that in fact the same powers are applicable to domestic actions as well. They have both claimed that the WarOnTerra justifies any and all actions that they choose to commit, immunity from any oversight including telling the courts that their reasons and justifications are too secret to take to court, and proposed that their WarOnTerra is essentially a permanent state of emergency.

It is our own version of the enabling acts and we are watching our republic's demise as surely as the good citizens of Germany watched in horror as the nazis dismantled theirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. You misunderstand my post. I said nothing about 'limits'.
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 02:25 PM by TahitiNut
I'm not arguing contrary to your points. I'm pointing out another facet, one that's been morphed to apply inside as well as outside the territorial US. Remember that the courts had a problem with determining appropriate jurisdiction over Guantanimo? over abu Ghraib? over the rendition prisons? This has been a problem for some time - making the three branches coextensive in their authority. For example, what laws cover the acts of people on embassy grounds? What courts? The Executive has asserted autonomy in this for some time.

(Sorry, I'm not as articulate today as I'd like to be.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
32. Old whore, new dress. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArmchairMeme Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
36. Think Corporations
I see it as taking the concept of corporations into government. In a corporation there is one deciding factor - the bottom line. They only do what is profitable. Therefore helping the victims of natural disasters (Katrina) is not profitable ignore it. War is profitable create as many as possible. There is one person who makes decisions - the executive all people below that level are "yes men" and workers jobs are designated as expenses that are targeted for elimination. The executive decides who will get bonuses (friends and others in high places) and that is more often what the executive can skim from the business without killing it outright and possibly a few favored higher ups. If they take too many bonuses and leave the corporation with insufficient operating money - sell the business to another corporation or merge it. The executive then moves on to another corporation where they write their contract regarding pay, bonus, and other compensations (how many years pay they will receive when they choose to leave the corporation). No concept of performance requirements it is more important to market ideas to convince others that they need whatever the chose product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
39. Simple: GOD chose Bush** therefore, Bush** Is Unitary Exec
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
41. The point = to make it SOUND like Bush is our CEO, and that we are
all his employees.
You know, like most of us are USED TO experiencing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
42. Unitary Executive
sounds better than Dictator.

Did that help?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
45. Near as I can figure it.........
Dictators frequently have mustaches or scruffy beards. Unitary Executives are generally more likely to be clean shaven with little or no facial hair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TygrBright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
46. ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... No, I can't, actually. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
47. It's really pathetic.... that back when it counted
before Alito and Roberts were inflicted on the Supreme Court,
that informative, detailed OPs on the UE could not get off the ground
and nothing was done to stop those appointments
or get the Democrats to put up a real fight
and here we are wankin
on the Greatest page
too little too late
.....................

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sabien Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
48. A dictator has military might to bully people around...
...this "Unitary Executive" has the Electoral College.

two methods - same results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cobalt-60 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
49. Urinary Executive
Perhaps there was a mis print early on.
Urinary exec would translate pretty well into Piss Poor Executive.
And that describes Chimpy.
Na, I'm sure they were shooting for fuhrer. You know, like that nice man with the mustache grand pappy Bush used to deal with....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
50. "Dictator" has only three syllables?
:shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
51. It has more letters in it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ani Yun Wiya Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
52. Don't know if this will help...
Though in effect and actions there is no difference, perhaps they got government, business, and religion mixed up as well as spellings.

Executive Uniterer doesn't roll off the tongue like Unitary Executive does.

Didn't *'s old man go to a Unitarian church once or somthing?
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 Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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