|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News |
![]() |
Newsjock
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 05:59 PM Original message |
9th Circuit grants indefinite stay in Prop 8 case |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
petronius
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 06:00 PM Response to Original message |
1. That sucks. I wonder what the reasoning was... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lance_Boyle
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 06:00 PM Response to Original message |
2. Well, the *good* news is that the 9th circuit remains the most-overturned |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Francesca9
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 11:43 PM Response to Reply #2 |
66. when? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Posteritatis
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 10:30 AM Response to Reply #2 |
94. "the world's worst court" might be just a little hyperbolic. (nt) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KamaAina
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 06:01 PM Response to Original message |
3. Like the man said, justice delayed is justice denied. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DURHAM D
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 06:03 PM Response to Original message |
4. Its scheduled for December. How is that "indefinite"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 06:06 PM Response to Reply #4 |
5. Well, when you've got Obama to bash.....n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 10:07 PM Response to Reply #5 |
57. What motivates you to come into these threads about equal marriage rights? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 09:46 AM Response to Reply #57 |
90. I want equal marriage rights for all. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:16 PM Response to Reply #4 |
54. That's the earliest that the appeal can be heard, but there is no time limit to how long it will |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 06:01 AM Response to Reply #4 |
73. The stay will probably remain in effect until a final decision has been rendered--perhaps by the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pgodbold
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 06:15 PM Response to Original message |
6. Motherfuckers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 06:22 PM Response to Reply #6 |
7. Why? You've got an expedited appeal on standing. How is that bad? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
aranthus
![]() |
Wed Aug-18-10 05:27 PM Response to Reply #7 |
129. Bingo! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bluenorthwest
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 06:33 PM Response to Original message |
8. And of course this pleases the President for he is against |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 06:49 PM Response to Reply #8 |
9. And of course, you've got an expedited appeal. How is that bad? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:53 PM Response to Reply #9 |
33. You can't spin it as good news |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 08:05 PM Response to Reply #33 |
34. It's not good or bad--it's court process. This isn't 'the appeal', FYI. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 08:16 PM Response to Reply #34 |
37. That's incorrect. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 09:41 AM Response to Reply #37 |
88. No--I am correct--it's not 'the appeal.' |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 10:21 AM Response to Reply #88 |
92. Sorry... once again that's incorrect. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 12:49 PM Response to Reply #92 |
98. Jeebus. As the defense is not appealing, only the proponents, and the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 01:34 PM Response to Reply #98 |
100. Nope. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 01:52 PM Response to Reply #100 |
102. So you still haven't read Walker's ruling on standing regarding Imperial County? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 02:20 PM Response to Reply #102 |
104. I have and I've already corrected you on it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 02:53 PM Response to Reply #104 |
107. O dear Jeebus, still haven't read the actual decision, have you? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 02:55 PM Response to Reply #107 |
108. Bet you wish you read #105 before posting that. Let me know |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:10 PM Response to Reply #108 |
110. Again, thank you for posting proof you can't read a docket. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:16 PM Response to Reply #110 |
112. Really? lol |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:24 PM Response to Reply #112 |
115. Answered downthread. Stop conflating docket numbers and case numbers..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:26 PM Response to Reply #115 |
116. Tell it to the 9th. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:34 PM Response to Reply #116 |
118. I answered you below--I think we are just mistaking each other.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:46 PM Response to Reply #118 |
120. 10-16751 was docketed almost a week ago. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
24601
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 06:35 PM Response to Reply #107 |
126. I'm not an attorney; however, I played the judge in "Miracle on |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 02:25 PM Response to Reply #102 |
105. Game Set and Match. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:08 PM Response to Reply #105 |
109. Thank you for posting this. It confirms that you are incorrect. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:15 PM Response to Reply #109 |
111. Lol... time to stop digging. Check the case numbers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:21 PM Response to Reply #111 |
113. Dude--those are docket numbers...the case number on both documents is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:23 PM Response to Reply #113 |
114. Better tell the 9th circuit that they don't know what a case number is. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:31 PM Response to Reply #114 |
117. You know I think I know why you are confusing this..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:41 PM Response to Reply #117 |
119. Sorry... no. It isn't the same thing. There are two cases. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 04:46 PM Response to Reply #119 |
125. Nice! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 06:15 AM Response to Reply #34 |
76. No, granting an appeal that has been properly sought is process, A stay is not an inevitable side |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 09:46 AM Response to Reply #76 |
89. This has been properly sought, and a stay in this case |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 04:17 PM Response to Reply #89 |
123. Um, I was contradicting your erroneous claim that "It's not good or bad--it's court process." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 06:08 AM Response to Reply #9 |
75. How is the stay bad? Geez. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 10:00 AM Response to Reply #75 |
91. I said 'expedited appeal.' |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 04:40 PM Response to Reply #91 |
124. LOL. Take another look at Replies 6 and 7, both of which were the context of my reply to you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MineralMan
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 06:55 PM Response to Reply #8 |
10. Which "unpracticed faith" do you mean, pray tell? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 07:24 AM Response to Reply #10 |
83. Good question. Rick Warren's, apparently--or so it might seem. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boppers
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 06:59 PM Response to Reply #8 |
11. President was against Prop 8. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Smashcut
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:40 PM Response to Reply #11 |
29. And his public statements against equal marriage were used by Prop 8 backers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boppers
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:50 PM Response to Reply #29 |
32. Yes, they are. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Smashcut
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 08:11 PM Response to Reply #32 |
35. LOL. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boppers
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 08:29 PM Response to Reply #35 |
39. No prob. It's a pretty good article. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 07:02 AM Response to Reply #39 |
80. How could any article totally explain what has been called "Obama's awkward stance" on equal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 06:37 AM Response to Reply #32 |
78. Your link adds no new "fact" and does not rebut Smashcut's post. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 06:24 AM Response to Reply #11 |
77. True, but he also opposed same gender marriage because "God is in the mix" of marriage, a |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC Liberal
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:14 PM Response to Reply #8 |
13. Unlikely, since Obama was against Prop 8. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
t0dd
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:28 PM Response to Reply #13 |
27. yes, he was such a vocal opponent of it.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boppers
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 08:24 PM Response to Reply #27 |
38. Upthread... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 07:11 AM Response to Reply #38 |
81. t0dd's post, like Smashcut's, reflects reality.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC Liberal
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 10:53 PM Response to Reply #27 |
62. Ah yes, Obama was against it, but he was "REALLY" for it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
t0dd
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 10:58 PM Response to Reply #62 |
64. How does one simultaneously oppose prop 8 and marriage equality? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC Liberal
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 11:06 PM Response to Reply #64 |
65. So you claim he supported Prop 8, even though he didn't? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 07:42 AM Response to Reply #65 |
84. Put words into other folks' posts much? t0dd's question is 100% valid. See Reply ##s 77, 27 and 80 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC Liberal
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 12:01 PM Response to Reply #84 |
97. My first post in this thread was a response to the claim |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:55 PM Response to Reply #97 |
122. None of which has a thing to do with my Reply 84 to you, which, in turn, had |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 07:57 AM Response to Reply #62 |
85. Attacking Obama's critics doesn't prove your point, either. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC Liberal
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 11:56 AM Response to Reply #85 |
96. Correcting a factual error helps everyone. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 07:15 AM Response to Reply #13 |
82. He is against same gender marriage. Please see Reply 77 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC Liberal
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 11:55 AM Response to Reply #82 |
95. He is against Prop 8, so the claim that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 06:06 AM Response to Reply #8 |
74. I feel ya, but, to be fair, he did say he did not approve of Prop 8. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stranger81
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:01 PM Response to Original message |
12. This does not bode well. [n/t] |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KamaAina
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Original message |
14. Federal court blocks same-sex weddings in California while appeal considered |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
xultar
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #14 |
15. Fuckers. You'll see now why elections matter. Judicial appointments matter! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #15 |
17. Jeebus calm down...expected, and we dont even know if |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
xultar
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #17 |
20. Calling them fuckers is not hysterics. You calling me hysterical for calling them fuckers is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tomm2thumbs
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #20 |
23. your reply made me smile -thanks |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Binka
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 08:54 PM Response to Reply #23 |
41. Me Too! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #20 |
24. Calling appellate judges 'fuckers' before they have actually ruled? Hysterical. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DURHAM D
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 10:16 PM Response to Reply #17 |
58. What's the matter with you? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 08:00 AM Response to Reply #17 |
86. Posting "judicial appointments matter" is "hysterics?" LOL |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SnakeEyes
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #15 |
25. Clinton appointed 2. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sapphocrat
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 12:02 AM Response to Reply #25 |
67. That was the panel deciding on the stay, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 08:11 AM Response to Reply #25 |
87. And your point would be? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #14 |
16. Expected--and not anything to wet your pants over. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MineralMan
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:18 PM Response to Reply #16 |
26. Really...how dare you tell our GLBT DUers to "chill?" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:42 PM Response to Reply #26 |
30. I think you are conflating me with another poster. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MineralMan
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:47 PM Response to Reply #30 |
31. Yes, there is often disappointment. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 08:14 PM Response to Reply #31 |
36. I take your point. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sapphocrat
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 12:07 AM Response to Reply #16 |
68. Extending this stay was NOT expected. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 01:35 PM Response to Reply #68 |
101. Kindly cite your legal authorities. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sapphocrat
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 01:56 PM Response to Reply #101 |
103. The county clerks, to name one bunch... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoCalNative
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #14 |
18. No..if you read the order |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flpoljunkie
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #14 |
19. More from the LATimes... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tomm2thumbs
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #19 |
21. that was helpful information - thank you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SoapBox
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #14 |
22. This is what happens when spineless Dems/Libs/Progressives just sit on their hands... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Le Taz Hot
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 06:58 AM Response to Reply #22 |
79. Oh, you did NOT just lump us |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AllTooEasy
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 07:32 PM Response to Original message |
28. Clinton and Reagan fucked us again |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
proReality
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 08:42 PM Response to Original message |
40. That is so wrong! n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GodlessBiker
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:02 PM Response to Original message |
42. PROP 8: Stay Granted; Case Expedited; Standing Questioned |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Smashcut
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:02 PM Response to Reply #42 |
43. Fuckers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
paulkienitz
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:02 PM Response to Reply #43 |
48. they're bending over to be fair (perhaps I should rephrase that) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
xchrom
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:02 PM Response to Reply #42 |
44. Grrrrrrrrrrrr! Nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dencol
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:02 PM Response to Reply #42 |
45. What's the bad news? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tomm2thumbs
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:02 PM Response to Reply #42 |
46. 3 Judges Who Made This Call BTW (I understand different judges will decide issues) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tomm2thumbs
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:02 PM Response to Reply #46 |
47. three things: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NorthCarolina
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:02 PM Response to Reply #42 |
49. The decision comes after the November elections. Good thing or bad thing? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sapphocrat
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 12:14 AM Response to Reply #49 |
69. I don't think anyone really knows, but... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
closeupready
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:02 PM Response to Reply #42 |
50. This issue is being exploited for political advantage by Republicans. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
customerserviceguy
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:02 PM Response to Reply #42 |
51. While the standing issue is important |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Moonwalk
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:10 PM Response to Reply #51 |
53. But if those who argued before Walker had no standing--- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
customerserviceguy
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:21 PM Response to Reply #53 |
55. You're right about the automatic loss |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 03:50 PM Response to Reply #53 |
121. NOTHING can change Walker's ruling in the case, unless a higher court overrules him. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sapphocrat
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 12:25 AM Response to Reply #51 |
71. Except that there's a stricter set of criteria... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 05:53 AM Response to Reply #42 |
72. Let's hope that the standing issue ends this. But, I guess the jerks could appeal if they are found |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
and-justice-for-all
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:07 PM Response to Original message |
52. Whats with the 'oh its not that bad" bullshit on here...what the fuck? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CocaNova
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 10:36 PM Response to Reply #52 |
61. E) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occulus
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 02:35 PM Response to Reply #52 |
106. "Whats with the 'oh its not that bad" bullshit on here"?? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
and-justice-for-all
![]() |
Wed Aug-18-10 02:12 PM Response to Reply #106 |
127. Yep, sure is...reada through the post..nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occulus
![]() |
Wed Aug-18-10 04:23 PM Response to Reply #127 |
128. I had to log out to see who it was |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FirstLight
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 09:42 PM Response to Original message |
56. I am watching this for an entirely different reason |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Phil The Cat
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 10:28 PM Response to Reply #56 |
60. The Marriage and Divorce Industries NEED Gay Marriage |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Odin2005
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 10:21 PM Response to Original message |
59. Crap! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
2 Much Tribulation
![]() |
Mon Aug-16-10 10:55 PM Response to Original message |
63. The actual full text of the order (one main paragraph) can be read at this link |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Amerigo Vespucci
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 12:22 AM Response to Original message |
70. California Gay Marriage on Hold as Case Is Appealed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mad_Dem_X
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 10:28 AM Response to Original message |
93. This is ridiculous. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Politicub
![]() |
Tue Aug-17-10 12:50 PM Response to Original message |
99. On being a second class citizen -- aka Gays are not welcome in America |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Mon Jun 24th 2024, 05:57 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News |
![]() |
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