Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The TSA controversy is legitimate but over sensationalized & about to be outrageously politicized

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
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:20 PM
Original message
The TSA controversy is legitimate but over sensationalized & about to be outrageously politicized
Edited on Sun Nov-21-10 03:23 PM by wndycty
At this point I have been ambivalent about the TSA screening controversy, kind of reluctant to have an opinion.

Personally, I'm torn. I want to be supportive of any measures that truly increase the safety of air travel but I cannot ignore the privacy, dignity and civil liberties concerns.

One reality is that this controversy has been driven by Drudge, talk radio and cable TV, all of whom have less than constructive motivations.

Another reality is the pat down is very intrusive. When I hear the stories of cancer patients, children and women who feel violated my immediate reaction is to have the TSA immediately suspend this practice (you will notice I didn't go so far as to say prohibit).

I believe there has to be a better solution, one that meets the standards of basic human dignity/privacy/civil liberties, while meeting the public safety objectives the policy intends to achieve.

Make no mistake a lot of the heat on the TSA is not about right v. wrong its about taking down Napalitano and Obama.

Its not lost on me that a number of the people screaming the loudest about the TSA pat downs were the same folks who looked the other way on warrantless wiretapping and other civil liberties violations under the Bush administration. I also hope that my friends who opposed the intrusive policies of the Bush administration take a minute before embracing the TSA's new procedures.

The media and has a responsibility to make sure they cover this story objectively and not for sensational ratings. The other NBC5 in Chicago sent a reporter to cover the controversy and she interviewed a number of travelers, most of him were not sounding the alarms you'd think they would by the way this story has been covered. That tells me, that while this is a legitimate issue maybe there needs to be less sensationalism, less politics and more dialogue about what makes good public policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Tell that to the bladder cancer survivor whose "inspection"
left him drenched in urine. Or the parents seeing their young children being inappropriately fondled in ways that would lead to charges of pedophilia and sexual assault in any other venue. Sensational? Not nearly enough, IMO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Evidently your frothing agner has prevented you from reading my entire post
I wrote:
Another reality is the pat down is very intrusive. When I hear the stories of cancer patients, children and women who feel violated my immediate reaction is to have the TSA immediately suspend this practice (you will notice I didn't go so far as to say prohibit).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yet, you accuse media coverage of these issues as being overly sensationalized...
So, which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. You don't think it is?
It is over sensationalized. This a legitimate issue, but just because something is a legitimate issue doesn't mean that the media has to abandon any sense of professionalism.

I hear about the outrage, then TV reporters go to the airport to cover the story and most travelers do not seem to be bothered.

Again, it is legitimate, but it seems that there is a significant amount of sensationalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I do not believe that "most travelers' do not seem bothered"
A single CBS poll that suggests support for the measure was worded in such a way that that conclusion is ridiculous; further it was administered to the general public prior to most people having experienced nor been aware of what these measures entail.

No, not nearly "sensationalzed" IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. Some of the OPs on DU are Oscar worthy with the hysteria/drama. I wonder
if these people are actually going to be traveling on a plane....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. I have a trip scheduled for Dec 13th
My excitement of spending the holidays overseas is now overshadowed with the legitimate worry that someone will want to touch my 10 yr old's genitals just to get on the damn plane. No sane parent would want that. If that makes me hysterical or overly dramatic, then so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Does your child have the option of going through the scanner?
Where no one can see his or her face?

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Your desire not to question, to be compliant...
is dismaying to me. That extra dose of radiation for a procedure that has no evidence-basis in terms of protecting against most explosives is ok with you. The Germans weren't criticized for being bad people; as a population, few advocated for the Nazis. But what they did do is turn a blind eye to the outrages their government was committing. I wouldn't do so under Bush* and though I still support Obama, I'm not about to under his administration as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Again you are choosing to be dismayed. . .
. . .answer a simple/yes no question.

Did I or did I not say the the pat downs need to be suspended immediately?

Yes or no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. You are defending these radiation emitting scanners as the alternative
to letting your young child be molested. While not defending the practice (the euphemistic term you CHOSE to echo for genital groping), you are defending elimination of the 4th amendment by subjecting EVERYONE without cause to a radiation-emitting and privacy violating procedure that is unproven in terms of preventing exposive devices. Nay, it has actually been shown to be ineffective in discovering explosive devises within the body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Again answer the question. Yes or No? Did I call for the pat downs to be suspended immediately?
Come on now, you can read can't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Yes or NO.. DID YOU or DID YOU NOT defend the scanners
as an alternative to genital groping of children? And yes, you buy into the benign term for these interventions as mere "pat downs" so you must understand my failure to identify any emphatic call for suspension when you downplay the whole issue as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. OK, so you answer my question with a question? LOL that is how you play the game?
You want to be mad at me so you ignore that I said to abandon the practice immediately by suspending it. When I corner you by pointing it out and asking you to say yes or no, you avoid it.

You need a boogie man.

You have decided that despite my calling for the policy to be suspended that I would be your boogie man.

LOL I guess we will end our discussion hear because you are not interested in a dialogue you are interested in an "I'm right, you are wrong" shouting match which I am not interested in. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Your response to me down below...
and you dare suggest it is me who is not being interested in a dialogue? How about we call it a draw and try to both engage in more respectful dialogue with each other?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
26. The scanners aren't in place at my airport yet...
although even if it was, I don't think allowing a stranger to view my daughter naked while also exposing her developing body to radiation is somehow a better option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
38. There is NO GUARANTEE
that going through the scanner line will keep you from being pulled out and searched. Many many people are being pulled out of line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Exactly... I would not let a stranger handle my dog that way...
And yet our outrage is "sensational".... Good God. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. I fly at the very least once a month for work.
Luckily, it's a short enough distance that a one and a half hour plane ride will translate into a 6-hour train ride, so that's fine with me.

On the other hand, my wife is disabled (walks, with difficulty, with a cane and a leg brace), so I worry about what she'll be subjected to.

You were saying?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Is the scanner an option you would consider for yourself or your wife?
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. I don't like it, but I've already done it.
Edited on Sun Nov-21-10 03:55 PM by superduperfarleft
When I fly, despite how frequently I do it, I get serious anxiety. By the time I've made it to the scanner, my "junk" has already receded so far into my body that I don't particularly worry about the radiation. In addition, they're aren't going to see anything except some junk that would make George Castanza laugh.

But, all kidding aside, because of the way people with braces have been treated, I do worry about her. This is also coming off a story from our local airport where the TSA made a disabled 4-year-old literally crawl through the old scanners because they wouldn't let him wear his leg brace.

That said, the other times she's flown, they've been very nice and accommodating. But with the TSA agents acting like they have to punish people for not being able to use the standard scanners, I worry.

edit: this is why I get so irritated by people mocking those of us who have legitimate concerns. I'd love to see their reaction if their loved ones end up abused by the TSA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. I hope that you feel I have treated the legitimate concerns with respect in this thread
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. You seem to be. That's why I like your OP.
Edited on Sun Nov-21-10 04:08 PM by superduperfarleft
You know, I may disagree with you, but I know you're not Hitler. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. And you do realize I think it should suspended. . .
. . .but I'm concerned about how the issue and the discussion of it have gotten out it.

So I believe I agree with you.

Thanks for the compliment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
41. The destruction of our rights is HYSTERIA?
It is damn obvious that we are frogs slowing being boiled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. You are overly optimistic. I can't remember when
the media last covered a story objectively and not for sensational ratings. Not in a hell of a long time. And I certainly don't expect them to start doing that now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. For the first time, national security has truly intruded upon the "professional" class...
Edited on Sun Nov-21-10 03:30 PM by LostInAnomie
... and they don't like it.

They media is going to hype the shit out of it because for once it isn't just the poor or brown people taking the hit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaayecanaan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
49. Best comment in the thread +1
After ten years of poor American schlubs dropping bombs on even poorer schlubs in Iraq and Afghanistan, Afghani taxi drivers being tortured to death, 12 year old Afghan kids in Guantanamo, Afghani wedding parties being repeatedly bombed by Predator drones and 2 million refugees fleeing into Jordan and Syria, suddenly, for the "normal" American, the war is brought home in this modest, trivial way.

And no sir, they don't like it.

Apparently the "war on terror" is worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands of A-Rabs, but having someone's hands near your doodle is going a bit too far.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. Just as they effective in promoting Tea Party, Some Pundits
at Fox have ginned up a fury and some people fall for
it everytime.
The Boycott is J. Napolitana, Freedom Watch at Fox.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
15. Wow. I actually like this post.
Edited on Sun Nov-21-10 03:44 PM by superduperfarleft
I've been one of the loud complainers, but I agree that the right isn't actually making a good faith attempt to reform the TSA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
19. How can you pose a serious discussion about this without considering the 4th amendment? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Since flying is an option that one chooses to exercise does the 4th Amendment apply here
Not being a smartass, but asking a serious question.

If you know that you are open to being searched and still choose to fly does it apply? Also, by that standard would the 4th Amendment apply to any air traveler that flew before this new policy was enacted?

Again, I would like to know how the 4th Amendment is applied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. So is driving down the highway. Do we give up our rights...
against search and seizure without cause, just because we CHOSE to drive down the highway? Hmmmmmm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Can't I ask a serious question about the 4th Amendment and how it is applied. . .
. . .without having to deal with your cynical and unproductive outrage? C'mon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I am being cvil with you. I ask the same courtesy.
I answered your question, albeit with a rhetorical question providing an appropriate analogy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. This is the last time, I'm saying it. I'm not responding to you anymore in this thread. . .
. . .you want a fight and won't get it from me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. It is you who has chosen to engage
as such. Glad to have you add my to your ignore list if that is your preference to respectful dialogue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. You'll have to ask a court that one - and I'm sure we'll be finding that out
as the cases are filed.

My off the cuff answer would be - we choose to buy a house and yet it can be searched with a proper warrant. Is this not the same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. Thanks for engaging on this and accepting my question as legitimate as opposed to someone else...
. . .in this thread.

I really am interested in seeing what types of solutions there are and your raising the 4th Amendment is something to consider and I'm interest in how it does impact the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Again your calling me out is disrespectful
Edited on Sun Nov-21-10 04:06 PM by hlthe2b
(not to mention against the rules) Is this how you propose engaging in constructive dialogue, windycty? really?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
43. I'm not a lawyer, but have worked around them so the 4th amendment
was the first thing that I thought of when I started reading these stories. Not sure how the courts will interpret the cases, which I'll be interested to see, but this may well be over before we get that far. If airline profits are affected by folks deciding not to fly (or some very high income people complaining very loudly to the airlines), my guess is that the industry lobbyists are going to work very hard to get these procedures repealed. People are going to want this over by Christmas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EleanorR Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
28. You're exactly right nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
37. Tell that to the KIDS and RAPE VICTIMS getting MOLESTED.
This is POLICE STATE bullcrap and should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
40. Even the GAO agrees this is not effective
Your Congress did not approve the funds

And


There are better methods that do comply with human rights and a certain part of the constitution being at threat here.

Of course if you are that afraid...nothing to see here.

That said this is the latest attempt to re-privatize this...enjoy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sally cat Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. That's stunning and my guess is few know about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
44. The Administration looks inept
Completely overwhelmed (again) by media-driven mayhem. It's like the death panels got together and decided to soak air travellers in their own urine when no one was looking.

Unfair, but if you can't drive your own message, you lose. Wake me up when Team Obama gets to move the ball downfield.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Sunday evening kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
46. Think about it this way.
How many planes have you seen explode or be brought down prior to these enhanced security measures relative to the number of flights each day?

Not much will convince me this isn't about lining the pockets of the folks who own the scanners.

Civil Rights vs. Profit Rights

Not a fair fight these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Yeah but if a plane goes down due to terrorism and there is any belief that. . .
. . .the administration didn't do everything it could to prevent there will be major hell to pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Alas they are not doing all they could
Security theater is not, and even the GAO thinks these machines don't work as advertised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #47
51. Okay, I'll say it, but then again I'm not a politician.
Life is not free of risk. We weren't born into those world guaranteed a 100% secure existence. We cannot anticipate every potential action. If we guard against everything we'd all be living in plastic bubbles without moving an inch.

Yes, there might be political hell to pay....then again, I didn't see BushCo suffering substantially after allowing 9/11 on their watch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nye Bevan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
52. I don't like it, burt Drudge doesn't like it either, so I'm going to defend it
seems to be the attitude of a few people here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. You will notice in the OP I don't defend it, don't you?
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
53. since the majority of du is angry, i would say drudge ect arent the reason. a clever person i am, i
know where my line is and dont need someone to tell me to be angry or not.

i dont know who is screaming the loudest, but i can say i am being consistent if no one else is, which i dont believe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
54. There's legitimate concern about TSA procedures, but what bugs me about this controversy.....
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 09:15 AM by marmar
..... is the not-so-subtle effort to use it to call for re-privatization of security.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. Yup and I might play it a few more times so that more people know that song. . .
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
57. The outrage is not driven by "taking down Obama." It's driven by outrage.
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 11:45 AM by DirkGently
... because the TSA is behaving outrageously. Everything in the world doesn't relate to pro /anti-Obama sentiment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-10 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
58. If we don't get on this issue
The reich wing will. And I resent them being able to drape themselves with the mantle of 'freedom' when it was their party that first foisted mass hysteria on this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 29th 2014, 10:47 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