Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scenario: Articles of Impeachment are introduced.

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
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 10:58 AM
Original message
Scenario: Articles of Impeachment are introduced.
Edited on Mon Oct-29-07 10:58 AM by cali
It's voted on, and decisively defeated. What are the repercussions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. We look like punks, I would imagine.
I could be wrong.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Or Courageous
It would depend on each person's own outlook!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
26. I vote courageous!
History needs to record that some folks had enough guts to hold this corrupt regime accountable for high crimes. I'm so sick of the argument - "we don't have the votes" - when sometimes the act of trying supersedes the odds of winning.

Trying alone says a lot about who we are as a country. Trying (win or not) means something!

Kudos to Dennis for re-introducing Articles of Impeachment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. no, we look like a government functioning as it should.
we already look like punks to the msm, so who cares?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. So introducing Impeachment and it being shot down decisively
is "government functioning as it should?" Interesting.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yes it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. And don't forget, some, are crybaby punks. Peter Pan Punks. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Yes. Doing what's right and best for this country is always
government functioning as it should.

Why would you even ask?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. I'm sorry to hammer a point, but even if impeachment utterly fails, it's still government
functioning as it should?

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. I guess I would rather see House of Representatives actually accomplish things.
But everybody is different, i know.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. I agree. Introducing SCHIP, when bush vowed to veto it was just a big waste of time
and money.

Why don't they just focus on stuff that bush wants so they can accomplish something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. No kidding. But they pretty much do that already, don't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. No - because forcing President Bush to veto medical funding for children
is accomplishing something - it is showing the lack of moral core in the Republican party.

And, in answer to the obvious question, if I thought a failed impeachment would nonetheless educate the American people about the moral corruption of the the Republican Party i would probably support it. But I think it would have an opposite effect.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Pursuing impeachment might expose the lack of moral core in the Democratic Party?
You might be right about that.

I've often wondered if that's why they are running away from it as fast as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Well I'm a proud Democrat so I can't say I agree with your assessment of the Democratic Party.
Presumably you'd be one of the first "Democrats" sharpening their knives when impeachment failed.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I was agreeing with your assesment that impeachment might possibly
cause the opposite of showing that the Repos have no moral core.

Since I highly doubt that impeachment would show that the Repos do have a moral core, the only thing I could imagine that would be the opposite is showing that the Dems have no moral core.

So you are the one who made this argument, and now you want to abuse me for agreeing with you?

Whatever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. ah i see the difficulty
I should have been more complete in my initial assessment. I don't believe it would show that the Democrats have no moral core because I believe they do have a moral core. I know many people don't, and many of them post at Free Republic. But I believe the Democratic Party does have a moral core.

What i meant by the opposite is rather than exposing the Republican Party it would enable them to create a larger smokescreen to cover their failed positions and programs; they would shift the conversation from being about President Bush's failed policies to being about President Bush himself. It would be an argument about personality and our hatred of Bush. Which would have the OPPOSITE effect from uncovering their moral failings. Rather it would allow them to shroud them even more than they already have.

Sorry to be unclear earlier.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #36
52. I doubt an impeachment would be about failed policies. It should be about crimes against
Edited on Mon Oct-29-07 09:10 PM by John Q. Citizen
the constitution and the country.

I would argue against bringing impeachment charges because of failure, moral or otherwise.

No, impeachment should be about the crimes committed, period.

I understand that you don't trust the people to see the crimes and to process it appropriately, that you believe the people will be suckered by the Repos into believeing that the constitution is only written like it is for one party to be able to beat up on another.

I'm not worried about that. I trust if the Dems were to present a case based on the evidence that people would be able to understand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. No, impeachment should be about the crimes committed, period.
Yes, you are 100% correct. There is no provision in our laws to impeach a president simply because of his poor policies. He has to have actually committed high crimes and misdemeanors. So what are we waiting for?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. All i can imagine is that some Dems are somehow complicit in some of the
crimes. So they don't want to proceed, because bush would use that as a defense and they too would be ensnared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. At least you have a coherent argument against proceeding.
It sucks either way, but at least you seem to have some real understanding. I, too, am of the mind that Pelosi and Reid and the "people in charge" at the DLC have plenty of dirt on them. No so-called "lawmaker" backs of off enforcing the law just because it might be messy or inconvenient, as Bryant is calling for.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. I've been an advocate for impeachment from 2000 forward. I still am.
Better late than never, I always say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. Yeah, because no one knew he was a war mongering chickenshit before that
Keepin' our powder dry. Chalkin' up them examples to show people just how much of a dick that Bush is! He's such a dick, in fact, that we won't even impeach him. He's soooooo fucking evil, we should let him stay in office to set an example of just what an evil president looks like. Because only then, after five years of illegal war and bankrupting tax cuts and illegal congressional maneuvers, no one has figured out what the GOP is about yet. But if we let them break another 15 months worth of laws, and then let them walk free, now THAT will set a stern example! Good plan.

:eyes:

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. What an incoherent response
Again, we are talking about an impeachment that goes down to humiliating defeat; how exactly does that punish Bush?

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. No, YOU are talking about an impeachment that goes down in defeat.
The people arguing against you are talking about all of the positive aspects of it, Ms. Downer. Some of us don't like to trivialize the constitution, or help to legalize law-breaking, even IF a Democratic candidate is elected president in 2008. Some of us. Others are more worried about being laughed at.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Than you disagree with the premise of this conversation - say that
Instead other supporters of impeachment seem to be arguing that even if impeachment failed it would still be worth while.

If your argument is that hte premise is flawed because obviously impeachment would be a success, than that's a whole nother discussion. One in which I would disagree with you, but obviously on different grounds (because I think the most likely conclusion to Speaker Pelosi beginning impeachment proceedings would, in fact, be a political defeat).

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Neener neener neener
I am arguing that even if impeachment failed it would still be worth while. What the hell did you think I was saying? I wasn't arguing that your premise is flawed. There is no need to argue that...a third grader can see it. I am arguing that the most important thing is to uphold the rule of law by beginning the process, and be willing to accept defeat if it comes to that, but at least be willing to fight light a mofo for victory.

You just don't want even try cuz you might soil yer knickers.

Pfft.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. The most important thing is to waste time in grandiose gestures
which make us feel good but lack any hope for success. Yeah pretty childish of me not to agree with that.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. If you feel that defending the Constitution is merely a "grandiose gesture," ...
Edited on Mon Oct-29-07 07:07 PM by Atman
...then yes, it is pretty childish of you not to agree. Childish as in "I'm going to throw the Monopoly board in the air unless you let me win" childish. Spoiled brat childish. Don't try unless you're guaranteed a win/t-ball childish. Yeah, like that.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. Laughs - I don't think there is much point in continuing this conversatin
I am pretty comfortable on my throne and you look comfortable on yours. Let's just bask in our respective intellectual and moral superiority and enjoy.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. yes, hammer on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. Yeah... it looks so much better to do nothing.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. You are one of the sharper people on the pro impeachment side
Sometimes you make some good arguments - so why resort to a straw man like this. You know I am not advocating doing nothing - rather I'm advocating effective opposition to the Bush agenda, or my definition of it. Now you might disagree with me (well, you obviously do actually), but to say I advocate doing nothing, is somewhat nonsensical.

I just don't advocate fighting the Bush administration in the same manner as you.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
58. it looks like
they are AOK with crimes at the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. Just cowards enabling cowards enabling outlaws. Nothing to see here. Typical flamebait.
Empty taunts and baseless prognistications by the effete, amoral brain-dead. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
47. We will shine like stars for trying to reclaim the Constitution!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. Headlines:
"MAJOR VICTORY FOR BUSH AS DEM IMPEACHMENT BID FAILS"
"BUSH EXONERATED"

Talking heads go on for days about how this is a decisive defeat for the Democrats, and how this proves that both parties believe that he's done a pretty good job so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
23. OMG! The Corporate media might actually smear the Democratic Party???!
Sheesh!! Well that should CERTAINLY be a key to making any decision. Yeah. Sure. ESPECIALLY since Party is far more important than the whole nation - what gets left to our children and their children. Yup.

:sarcasm: <--- for the ethically and mentally challenged

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Yep. Therefore, it's best to spend all our precious time
engaged in quixotic quests with no chance of success that are sure to bring about massive political fallout, simply because such fallout is predictable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
62. "All our precious" bodily fluids?? Poor baby!
Edited on Mon Oct-29-07 10:23 PM by TahitiNut
:eyes:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
4. There would be an asterisk in the history books and future generations
would know we at least tried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Maybe.
I think it's also possible that the headlines posited by another poster on this thread, materialize. Don't get me wrong, I still think it needs to be done, but I realize that it could serve to exonerate bush, and impede bringing him to justice after he leaves office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Nothing at all is going to happen to Shrub after he's out of office
unless a foreign entity decides to file charges. That wouldn't amount to Jack Squat either because he's not apt to travel anywhere. I, too, agree with the headlines another poster said might appear. The unknown factor is the number of Republicans who want him impeached. There might be more than we know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
6. You forgot the part about broadcast network covered gavel to gavel hearings
Where were you during the Clinton and Nixon impeachment process?

Not watching the hearings, I assume.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. I watched the hearings, and I haven't forgotten that part of
it. I'm just fast forwarding past the hearings to the vote, and presenting one possibility- that it doesn't get out of the House. Hell, we have bluedogs that won't even vote for SCHIP. I think it's entirely possible that they wouldn't vote for impeachment either, no matter what the evidence, and I certainly think that's true for almost all the repukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
27. Yes, so then the public sees the evidence, and the public sees what their Rep does.
That sounds good for democracy, if you ask me.

Do you feel the two unsuccessful (in terms of enactment) SCHIP votes in the house have irrevokably damaged the Dems? I don't.

Same with impeachment.

At some point voters are going to start asking themselves why vote for the Dems who vote with the Republicans?

And that will be a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. According to many, it doesn't matter.
"Many" are wrong, in my opinion. A failed impeachment could very likely be seen as a vendetta against Bush, and it could lead to a salvaging of his legacy where none is deserved.

To be clear, I think that he is quite deserving of impeachment. I also believe that it would be monumentally unsuccessful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
9. Good question.
If the Dems voted together on it, I think it would be a win. If too many Blue Dogs went against it, it would open them to ridicule.

It shouldn't fail decisively, though. The Dems should start a well-run campaign of bringing the crimes of this mis-administration to the average American's television sets. Night after night they should clearly document the abuses of power, war profiteering, torture, lies, etc. They need to own the frame on this, and it would go through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
14. Scenario: 1. Articles introduced, 2. Privilige no longer applies
The really important thing about articles of impeachment and the requisite accusation of crime, is that the legal landscape shifts dramatically. Once the investigation is of an alleged crime, executive privilige evaporates and all documents relevant to the charges must be produced and all witneses must testify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. That's a fair point, though I still doubt that
bushco would comply automatically. We certainly have reason to believe he wouldn't. But it would be interesting to see what happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
49. Leaving to the people to enforce it should be interesting indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
48. We can't have that!
What if someone actually reads those documents and finds out that Bush really HAS committed crimes? Why...why...he might be persuaded to step out of the Republican conga line and vote to uphold the truth as his voting constituents back home have seen it.

Right, Bryant? Oh, wait...there is no possible successful outcome, only failure. Never mind.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
34. Depends on who decisively defeated the measure.
Was it us or them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
41. We do it again.
And then we do it again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
43. ...
:banghead:

there first has to be an investigation long before the concept of a vote is proposed. This is the equivalent of having a grand jury decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute.

That's why it's call Impeachemt PROCEEDINGS!!

good god. of course impeachment is not on the table, they have to have evidence from an investigation first.

once they have the evidence, the impeachment procedure can go forward for a vote.

for christ sakes folks read the fucking constitution!!

there is overwhelming evidence, there just needs to be an investigation started!!!

demand an investigation!

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
50. It's in the H of R records n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
54. If articles don't pass in the House,
Edited on Mon Oct-29-07 09:18 PM by mmonk
that means too many democrats support abuses of power and violations of the constitution by a rogue republican party movement. If that is the case, the United States needs a viable law abiding third party to represent the people of this nation and the constitution. As a democrat, that is a hard thing to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mudesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
57. None. Except that Democrats look like they have a spine, for once. (nm)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
59. Congress still sucks?
:shrug:
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 Aug 22nd 2014, 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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