Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Seattle: Liberal yet "Conservative" city?

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
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 12:23 AM
Original message
Seattle: Liberal yet "Conservative" city?
Edited on Mon Apr-09-07 12:28 AM by Cascadian
It would seem to me like there is a movement going on within even the more progressive members of society. A movement to bring in this attitude of "We know better and what's good for you!". Case in point? Seattle. The city I had called home for 15 years. Apart from Washington State's smoking ban, you cannot even have a drink at the ever dwindling number of strip clubs. Now they are talking about limiting the amount you drink??? (I told you all this would be coming after the smoking ban!) Mayor Greg Nickels wants to target the bars now. It wasn't enough to slap laws on strip clubs! Anybody remember the Teen Dance Ordinance? Let's all not forget the ban on fliers on telephone polls. When you look at the laws they have come up or coming up in Seattle compared to say...Portland. Portland is far looser and far more liberal than Seattle could ever be. It would seem like Mayor Greg Nickels wants to make Seattle into Salt Lake City. Smoking bans are one thing and are a reality of life but I am talking about these other half-baked laws they want or had in the last several years.

Here are some articles which reinforce my argument. They are a little dated but they do make my point.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2006-01-18/news/big-nanny-...

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=17192

http://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=1016

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/290035_nightlife26....

It seems to me Greg Nickels and these "progessive puritans" in Seattle are hell bent on ruining the Seattle night life. I really hope my future hometown Portland never ends up like that. I am just glad I don't party as much as I used to. I had my fun! I think these people would serve the community better by working to improve the schools and traffic situation. Things that really matter as opposed to regulating people and their vices! Not just in Seattle but nationwide.


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's just Nanny State bullshit
I lived in Austin, TX for 8 years and while it is a very liberal city, it's also very libertarian, and you don't see that kind of nonsense going on there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Portland, Oregon is a Progressive yet Libertarian city too.
That's why I like it down there so much and I am heading down there in a week and a half. Where I live now, Spokane, Washington is conservative and puritan! The worst of both worlds!~


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. "Nanny state" is a freeper meme,
dreamed up by a conservative in England several decades ago, and picked up by people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh ever since then. It gets some of its rhetorical zing by associating an unliked quality with females. Again, that's a typical freeper strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

"Its usage varies by political context, but in general it is used in reference to policies where the state is characterized as being excessive in its desire to protect ("nanny"), govern or control particular aspects of society.

SNIP

The term "Nanny State" was probably coined by the Conservative British MP Iain Macleod who wrote "what I like to call the nanny state . . ." in his column "Quoodle" in the December 3, 1965 edition of The Spectator.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. FYI....I am no conservative.
Edited on Mon Apr-09-07 02:07 PM by Cascadian
I am a left of center with libertarian leanings. I am pro-Universal Health Care, anti-war, pro-Universal education, pro-environment, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, but I am all for gambling, prostitution, marijuana, and for letting establishments deciding if they want a smoking ban or not. I just borrowed the "Nanny" term to describe what I believe is a overreaching of government control on people's lives. Too much of anything, even political correctness and the most smallest laws of regulation, can be a bad thing.

The only thing I would rather see legislated is the use of cell phones in cars. Too many people are distracted using those things when they should be keeping their eyes and minds on the road.


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
30. based on the meaning you provided, the word seems to fit this situation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. So I guess you're fine with denigrating something
by associating it with females?

If you don't want to insult women, you would call it a "welfare state" or something to that effect. Even a "teacher state" would be better. But since 95% of nannies are women, you're insulting women when you say this. It's similar to saying that something you don't like is "so gay.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. What are you talking about? I read all of those articles, and couldn't find anything
but ranting and no actual facts about the proposed law in the first 3, and the 4th comes to the following conclusion:

Mayor Greg Nickels' latest plan to regulate nightlife in Seattle would:

# Exempt places that are primarily restaurants. Inclusion would be based on whether booze is served and on crowd size and density.

# Drop a requirement that clubs and bars "prevent" violence, weapons or drugs on their premises. Instead, owners would be expected to "take all reasonable steps to prevent" such problems.

# Widen the proposal to hold bars and taverns to the same security, noise and litter control requirements as dance and music clubs.


That's far from what you were stating about limiting the amount you're able to drink, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. The whole point is the rise of the "Nanny state".
Do you want the government telling you that cannot drink this amount or you cannot go watch a band play? It is coming to that. Safety concerns are fine and I have no trouble with that but when you go after clubs for chicken shit like not being able to drink at a strip club or kids are not allowed to watch bands play then it's a problem for me.


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. Laws that effectively limit alcohol consumption in bars exist all over
the country. Bartenders aren't supposed to be serving people who are already drunk. A law that specified how many drinks was okay would probably make it easier for them, actually. Otherwise, they're just guessing -- and could be held responsible if someone left their establishment and drove a car.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Tell you what. Here's what I want to propose!
Edited on Mon Apr-09-07 02:11 PM by Cascadian
I am going to play the Devil's advocate.

If the City of Seattle and the State of Washington are so concerned about health issues and if the people of Washington who voted for this ban care about their health then they should support this proposal. Why stop with just the smoking ban? Let's go for the whole shabangabang!

I move that in lieu to the smoking ban, the state should do the following....

1. Issue drinking permit punch cards at a cost of about $5 a week. The cards can be bought and used at any bar or tavern. The cards will allow anybody over 21 to drink a 3 drink maximum a week. After that, they can no longer be allowed anymore booze until the next week when they will have to buy another card. All bartenders would be required to ask for the card before alcohol can be served to patrons.

2. A ban on Happy Hours.

3. A mandatory "last call" at all drinking establishments in the state from 1:30 AM to 11:30 PM. All bars must be closed down at Midnight.

4. Beer should have a low alcohol content to 1.0 per cent levels.

5. Spirits bought in state stores must be smaller bottles. 1 bottle per customer only!

Trust me. I think this will considerably cut down on alcohol consumption and save lives. We'll have less drunk drivers on the roads, less fights, and save people's livers from being destroyed.

If we are going to regulate people's habits, lets not go half-cocked. I could really see some state lawmaker proposing this idea in Olympia. I even think it would pass. Don't believe me? Don't be surprised if it happens.

See with this idea, problem solved!

John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Ever been hit by a drunk driver?
>Do you want the government telling you that cannot drink this amount or you cannot go watch a band play?<

I have. My husband's brother died when their family's car was hit by a drunk driver when he was a kid. There would be no use for these laws if people did not persist in driving drunk. Period. When you or someone you know gets behind the wheel of a car legally drunk, hell, yes, it's my business, and the business of everyone else on the road. There are also host laws in Washington State. We are very vigilant to make sure everyone who visits and has alcohol at our house has a designated driver, or we take them home.

As for the insistence that you "cannot go watch a band play," I haven't heard that Seattle's now outlawing music.

Julie
Seattle native
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Teen Dance Ordinance could come back.
It may have been struck from the law books but don't think for a moment that it will not come back. Nickels and Co. are looking for any excuse to bring it back in a modified form.

I am sorry about your husband's brother. That must still be painful for such a loss. I am not advocating drinking and driving at all but I do not think we need an overstretching of laws that will dampen somebody's fun. Anyways, the laws are moot for me since I quit drinking a couple of years ago. I do believe in civil liberties though and this is why I am ranting. We do not need Singapore style shoved in our faces.


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. I think you're overreacting, frankly
>We do not need Singapore style shoved in our faces.<

Considering the fact that you admit you do not live in Seattle, why are you so concerned about this? Implying that common-sense public safety laws are "Singapore style" is nothing but hyperbole.

Furthermore, "overstretching of laws that will dampen somebody's fun"? Excuse me? I can manage to have all kinds of fun without getting behind the wheel of a car after I've been drinking.

I have to wonder about those who can't.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Read what I want to propose.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The truth is not everybody wants to go to bed at 10:30 at night to wake up at 6 am to run around Green Lake and then have herbal tea while listening to NPR and reading a Raymond Carver novel. Not everybody's definition of fun is the same as everybody else's. Frankly, I gave up drinking a couple of years ago but as long as they are not impacting my life or anyone else's I have no trouble with people getting sloshed or stoned. Of course as long as it's not behind the wheel. Those laws I can agree with. But if it's people out celebrating something and they want to have a few, I say let them do it!


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. I read your proposal
I'll let those who actually have to deal with the aftermath make the laws.

>The truth is not everybody wants to go to bed at 10:30 at night to wake up at 6 am to run around Green Lake and then have herbal tea while listening to NPR and reading a Raymond Carver novel.<

Did you mean the above to be quite as patronizing as it reads? In other words, those who work for a living or have small children in their homes could never understand the concept of "fun"? The truth is that not everyone wants to stay out till 4 AM, puke in a parking lot, and have to deal with a loud party in their neighborhood or other noise disturbance, either, and they shouldn't have to.

>But if it's people out celebrating something and they want to have a few, I say let them do it!<

There are host laws and laws preventing bartenders from serving those already drunk. Those laws are in place to protect the many from the excesses of a few -- I might also add they're there to protect those of us who'd like to get from Point A to Point B without dying at the hands of someone else who just wanted to "have a few".

Again, I fail to understand your crusade -- you don't even LIVE in the Seattle area.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Read the Seattle Weekly article again (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. I still don't see the part about limiting the amount you can drink.
I see the part about banning cheap beer in 8% of the city, but nothing about banning the amount. Could you quote the section?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. Trust me, they will find an excuse.
And they are working on the subject.



John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. I'll believe that one when i see it.
I think it's over the top, and is even too restrictive for Seattle to go for. Personally, I don't mind tightening the rules for bars to have the same standards as clubs for security, noise, and litter control. The limiting of cheap beer in parts of Seattle won't fly and will most likely be challenged in the state supreme court if it ever passes (which it won't), so I'm not really worried about that one either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. It's only quantitatively different from Pittsburgh/surrounding or Chicago/surrounding...
... Washington is basically a hick state, with Seattle thrown in for shits & giggles. And a few MS millionaires sprinkled on top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. And I am from there.
The truth is for as liberal as Seattle or Olympia comes across, Washington is a Conservative state at heart. Why do you think we have all of these military bases and government installations? Why do you think our alcohol laws are from the Victorian Era? Oregon is slightly looser in their vice laws than Washington is. Last call at the bar is an hour later than in Washington, you can smoke and gamble in a bar, and you can drink in the numerous strip clubs in Portland. I undrestand pot laws in Oregon are a little lighter than Washington's as well.

Those who think Washington is the liberal place would be in for a big surprise if they ever went outside of the Seattle area but with this current "Puritan" attitude the City of Seattle is having, that image maybe further shattered.


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
7. On behalf of the PDX DU'ers...
Welcome!

We get together every month if you'd like to join us. :)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thanks. I will consider it.
Though it won't be until the Summer of 08 when I do decide to move to down.

Looking forward to trading my Lilacs (Spokane is the Lilac City.) for Roses.


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
10. kicking it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cemaphonic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
12. It is weird considering that in the beginning of Seattle's history...
The entire city budget was funded by "fines" (actually sort of a weird hybrid bribe/tax) on the local prostitution industry rather than things like property taxes and business licenses.

Still, overall Seattle is a pretty liberal city - just one with a surprisingly prudish streak on "vice."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Yeah and I wished it would change.
It is also a part of the politics and culture of the state of Washington as well. The city of Spokane a few years ago passed a law discouraging adult video stores and books from operating on busy parts of the city and making them do their business in side streets and neighborhoods without and big signs or anything. It didn't work! I wished the idea of "red light districts" would return. Cities would benefit greatly from having a part of town that would store all of the vices without the neighbors bitching and complaining. Legalize prostitution and regulate and regulate the adult shop and stuff. It's all very simple but NOOOOOO! Sex is dirty! Sex is wrong!
:sarcasm:


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mntleo2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
15. Native Seattleite Here!
Edited on Mon Apr-09-07 07:20 AM by mntleo2
...and I would say that our most recent mayor is also basically unavailable to any citizen except for the developers. It is well known he will not even meet with progressives or activists trying to work on social justice issues. All he wants is to give the go ahead to build cheaply made but over priced row houses and condos that are being sold by the thousands every month to struggling families who are "semi-professionals." I am not kidding to tell you most of these homes are built to last a maximum of 10 years, yet will carry a debt that will never go away for the buyers. Most of these buyers are families who could never afford anything else, yet they are on the edge of the upper middle class that should afford them better. They will be stuck for life or flee later from these shabbily built "instant slums", which our dear Seattle leaders like to call "affordable housing" that few can afford. None of these so-called "civil leaders" will even consider the terrible burden on single family neighborhoods they create while adding thousands more people to the electric, plumbing, roadways and communications infrastructure.

What does this have to do with thwarting the night life, smoking bans, etc? Well this "crackdown" is an attempt to lure budding families into the city, so our Nickels people believe. They are quite conscience nobody can afford to live close to their work and that the commuting times have made Seattle the worse city in the nation for traffic.

What I will be most interested in is with the smoking ban, will this in any way stop the burgeoning asthma,cancer, diabetes, and other health problems in the population? I doubt the smoking ban will make a dent but the moral nannies will ignore that. They will ignore the fact that cheap chemical laden building materials they use to build these things, have anything to do with pollution and raise the utility rates to unbearable heights as they are already. They will ignore that over 90% of our waste that is from construction and industry waste has a damn thing to do with our ills. Chemicals that at this very moment pollute the ground water amd turn it onto sludge as these cheaply built homes deteriorate.

Just yesterday at Golden Gardens as I watched the sun sink below the Olympics, I noticed the red haze hanging on the melting glaciers like an ugly shabby cloak and laughed to myself. I am wondering what the Nickels people will blame THAT on now ~ too many baby diapers in the waste basket or too many plastic milk containers? Oh no, that greasy pall eating up the once glorious mountain range was all about smoking doncha know, smoking is the culprit and lets make sure nobody gets a whiff of it!

And what do we know, we little guys who have lived here for all our lives? Even though we watched a national phenomena begin in our Pioneer Square, due to the mix of youth, racial diversity, artisans, and the poor, whom you will see less and less of as the area is gentrified into a McCity McCenter. These city officials are no different than the Halliburton-funded Katrina whores driving out the diversity in New Orleans that gives it the flavor it had ~ only they don't have Katrina to blame it upon. Maybe we will have the mega-earthquake soon and they can pretend that is the reason to further enable the ever hungry rich while the REALLY hungry poor languish.

But hey nobody can smoke here, and we won't have that unsightly and ungodly diversity hanging around, so that will fix everything, won't it?

Cat In Seattle

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Greg Nickels makes me miss Norm Rice.
Edited on Mon Apr-09-07 01:40 PM by Cascadian
There is no question this man is pro-business and piss-on the little guy. It is one of the reasons I left Seattle. The more they got rid of the old aspects of Seattle no matter how kitschy and "outdated" it maybe, the less I felt like staying. Anybody doubts what I am saying take a little trip over to Fremont and so how much of a yuppie ghetto it has become. Every neighborhood in Seattle is being effected by this wave of gentrification. I have no problem with redeveloping and improving a neighborhood. Just don't tear it all up and wreck the character of these places and drive out the people who live there.

It is just painful and sad to see what Seattle has become and is becoming. I recall the 90's with a bit of tenderness. Seattle was vibrant and had a strong artist and musician community. Sure we had the Teen Dance Ordinance and all but there was still more opportunities to create and rents were cheap back then. All that made Seattle "hip" is gone. Why do you think many artists and musicians are flocking to Portland now? Seattle has changed too much! It is also hypocritical to play "nanny" while all this development and overdevelopment takes place. Bans and limits on vices is just the tip of the iceberg. If these people really gave a damn about the environment and people's health, why don't they ban SUV's inside the Seattle city limits!


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
19. IMO, the extreme ends of liberal and conservative meet.
I don't think you're loking at conservatism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. What it is is Neo-Puritanism.
Old Carry Nation could get her wish for a sober, straight America again if the Powers that be get their way!







John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. People die of alcohol poisoning every day. I think it's better if
bars and taverns don't help them to commit accidental suicide.

This is an extremely serious problem among college students, by the way. Binge drinking is coming to mean not 5 drinks in an evening, but 10 or 15 or even more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
27. What next? bringing back prohibition--another failed experiment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. God. I hope not!
You might as well forget about Las Vegas then!


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
32. The Moralistic Authoritarian Left
They stand for a lot of good things but I wouldn't want to hand the government over to them completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philosophie_en_rose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-09-07 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
35. It's a "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" state.
Edited on Mon Apr-09-07 10:43 PM by philosophie_en_rose
I love Washington, but it has more than its fair share of white supremacists, conservative nuts, Tim Eyman jackasses, and "Love Me Liberals."

I trade Internet jokes about Dubya,
They sure are funny to me.
But dont even think about asking
For me to give up my new SUV.
I dont know what you mean about oil,
I just wish that gas could be free...
So love me, love me, love me, Im a liberal!

Well Ive signed about a thousand petitions,
And my golf score is six under par.
And I keep myself up on the issues
By listening to N.P.R.,
And you know that Im changing the world
With these stickers all over my car!
So love me, love me, love me, Im a liberal!

Yes, I cheered when they caught Saddam,
I knew that the news wouldnt lie,
And I'm glad that the war is now over,
Cause my 401k's on the rise!
And you know that I love my country:
Best democracy money can buy!
So love me, love me, love me, Im a liberal!

Oh, once I was young and impulsive,
I wore every conceivable pin.
Even went to the socialist meetings
And I learned all the old union hymns.
Ah, but I've grown older and wiser,
That's why I'm turning you in...
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal!
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, 11:03 AM
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