Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Instead of making Bill Clinton an envoy to Haiti, he should have been appointed to

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:46 PM
Original message
Instead of making Bill Clinton an envoy to Haiti, he should have been appointed to
lead the charge to repeal DOMA and DADT. After all, he signed DOMA into law:

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate<1> and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,<2> and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.


He could have worked on the conservative Democrats in Congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. DOMA from Clinton is a little ironic, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. The UN made him an envoy to Haiti not Obama
It would be interesting to know how many Senators would be willing to repeal each of these acts. (I think the Senate would be the tougher place due to the possibility of filibuster.) As you can see back in 1996, DOMA had overwhelming support. the country has really moved on this issue - so there should be a sizable shift.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ccharles000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. Bill does not have much to do with this Obama is the president.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 09:53 PM by ccharles000
Obama should be in the lead to overturn it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. It was an election year gimmic that should be stopped. Even Barb Mikulski voted in favor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. John Kerry was the only Senator up for election to vote against it
Even people like Wellstone, Biden, and as you say, Mikulski voted for it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #6
39. Yep, he was
and should be commended for it.

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
43. Bill Clinton wanted to support Bill Weld for Senator instead of Kerry. After Kerry DESTROYED Weld in
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 04:26 PM by blm
their series of debates it became apparent that Kerry pulled ahead of Weld substantially in the polls. Clinton made a token appearance for Kerry - pathetic, eh?

Now WHY would a Dem President want his old pal, a GOP star like Weld in the Senate instead of Kerry? Probably because Clinton and Weld shared the goal of protecting Poppy Bush and his cronies on IranContra-BCCI matters. Weld was a lefal fixer for Poppy on these matters along with Robert Mueller... and let's not forget Scooter Libby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
49. Kerry seems to always do the GLBT'ers right. I wish he had won in 2004.
Edited on Tue Jun-16-09 03:08 PM by jesus_of_suburbia
He is not as opportunist as Bill it seems.

I remember rumors that Bill told Kerry to come out against gay marriage in 2004, and Kerry wouldn't do it.


Looks like Kerry has more integrity than Bill and Barack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. I love this sort of tribal protective response.
Your guy has been screwing up on gay issues so you want to change the subject.

Really, you aren't obvious or anything.

In addition, you don't understand a damn thing about DOMA and why it was signed and I don't intend to help you with that.

Sorry about your dude disappointing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. No, you see
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 10:01 PM by ProSense
I always viewed this as a colossal mistake of the Clinton Presidency. As far as Obama, it's early. The furor is interesting to watch, but we're not witnessing outrage over an outcome. This is procedural, maybe confusing or even awkwardly handled, but the outcome is what will be key.

This is a little reminder.




Edited for clarity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
50. "the outcome is what will be key." Oh goody! Another post I will keep bookmarked for the future.
Let's HOPE if nothing CHANGES by 2012 you will think this was a "colossal mistake" of the Obama Presidency.


Somehow I doubt it. You'll find excuses as usual.


Let's hope you don't edit for clarity again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I think he was everyone's dude here, I thought most all of us voted for him.
As much as I like the Prez, I am really disappointed in him today as well. He totally did the wrong thing in letting the DOJ defend this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I think all of us did vote for him.
However, some of us are not tribal around him. We can actually recognize his failures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. "We can actually recognize his failures. "
Or make them up. Failure isn't defined in six months, no matter how disappointed some people are right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I don't like the splitting up of you and them..."you're dude"...it makes no sense
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 10:17 PM by Jennicut
when many people here, even Obama's biggest defenders and supporters are with you on this. Obama sucks on gay rights. The worst part of his whole agenda as President has been his weakness on this issue. I honestly think he has real major personal issues against gay marriage and that is way disappointing to me, even more then if it was strictly political.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
25. Isn't there something tribal after all these years
that you defend DOMA being signed in the first place.

PS Don't tell me about the fear of a constitutional amendment. No real steps were taken towards it and the rules are onerous. The real reason is that - like all the House and a third of the Senate, Bill Clinton was up for re-election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
36. 'your guy' --- 'your dude' ?????
could your dumb puma ass be more obvious? :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. He probably would have been happy to do that if
President Obama would have appointed him to do it, It was not a piece of legislation that (in my opinion) he was proud of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. If Clinton had not signed it
by now we would have had a brand spanking new amendment to our U.S. Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. BS. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. It is disgraceful and it is time for
all Americans to have equal rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. More likely a veto override and possibly President Dole
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Ridiculous. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. President Dole is a bit of a stretch but a veto override isn't
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 02:26 PM by Hippo_Tron
If Clinton had vetoed it would've certainly be overridden in the House and most likely in the Senate too. 85 voted for it meaning that 19 more Senators would've had to change to NAY in order to sustain a veto. Pryor didn't vote but I suspect he would be in the YEA column making it 86 and 20 Senators would need to change their vote to NAY. I can't find 20 Senators on that list that would've possibly voted NAY at the time. Too many Republicans and red state Democrats. Tell me if you can, though...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
26. I seriously doubt it
because the effort to get it passed in enough states is immense. Why do you thing the less controversial ERA never became an amendment?

It was political. Clinton did not have the guts to veto it as a bad law - and he actively supported it before the vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
51. Bill Clinton advertised his championing of DOMA on Christian Right radio in '96.
He was proud enough to run on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
16. He doesn't want a culture war to distract from Health Care. And he needs to publically address this,
fully, so people can understand the issue. Despite our passion, many don't, and both DOMA nd DADT take legislation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. The name calling is really hilarious.
Everyone in the world who opposes gay marriage is a homophobe, except of course the guy who brought us DADT and DOMA.

Not only do I believe gays should have the right to get married, I really don't give a shit what people do in their personal lives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. Homophobe?
There is nothing in her posting history to justify that - and much to contradict it. You are out of line.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
18. This is funny
Fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Metric System Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
19. LOOK OVER HERE!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
23. Hillary didn't want to fully repeal DOMA so I doubt Bill wants to, so it's a no-go.
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 02:26 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Yes, and imagine if he had taken Hillary's position
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 04:02 PM by ProSense
Secondly, DOMA, I believe that DOMA served a very important purpose. I was one of the architects in the strategy against the Marriage Amendment to the constitution, and DOMA gave us a bright line to be able to hold back the votes that were building up to do what I consider to be absolutely abominable and that would be to amend the constitution to enshrine discrimination. I believe marriage should be left to the states. I support civil unions as I've said many times with full equality of benefits and so I think that DOMA appropriately put the responsibility in the states where it has historically belonged and I think you're beginning to see states take action. I think it's, I think part three of DOMA needs to be repealed because part three stands in the way of the full extension of federal benefits and I support that. So that's the first.

link


At least with Obama there is something to hold him accountable for: the full repeal of DOMA. Hillary made no such promise.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Yes, imagine. I'm glad that President Obama did not have the same position as Hillary.
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 06:16 PM by ClarkUSA
Thanks for the timely reminder of who's always been on the right side of this issue from the beginning.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. From the beginning?
There are many things you can credit Obama with - on this do we know his 1996 position? That would have been near the beginning of his IL Senate terms. It really is not fair to compare a 2004 position (when he ran for the US Senate) with a 1996 HRC position.

This is an issue where change has happened quickly in the last couple of decades.

It is fair to compare their 2008 positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #28
48. So Hillary tells the truth and Obama lies... is that what you are telling us?
I'll take the devil I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
30. Bill Clinton was and I guess still is a gay rights advocate. It was a different time
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 07:34 PM by MasonJar
and a very hatefilled environment for everything Clinton in Republican dominated DC. He did the best he could at the time, which included marching in parades. So could the Bill Clinton disparagement just die down on DU? What was the purpose of this post except put-down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Sure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Interesting John Aravosis post
The funny thing is that even as he asked if Clinton's spokesperson was parsing the answer - he missed the way they did it. The question was on the anti-gay state amendments. In both the initial Clinton response and the clarification they specify "the federal constitution amendment". Given that John Aravosis questioned that Clinton's people could be parsing the answer, it is strange he didn't look carefully at both quotes. Had he done it he would have seen there was no conflict - and rephrased the question to the Clinton people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Suffice it to say you don't know the FUCK what you're spewing...
DADT was not - I repeat - was NOT - Bill Clinton's CHOICE!

Clinton actually WANTED TO END DESCRIMINATION OF GAYS IN THE MILITARY ENTIRELY!

That was HIS original position - which caused a SHIT STORM among asshole repukes and CONSERVATIVE DEMS at the time - so the COMPROMISE from having GAY PEOPLE OUTLAWED FROM SERVING IN THE MILITARY WAS DADT!!!

DADT WAS NOT BILL CLINTON'S IDEA AT ALL!!!

stop spewing you LIES!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Thank you!!!
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 09:23 AM by Beacool
Far too many almost break their little finger always trying to trash the Clintons.

Historical perspective, folks!!!! 1996 was NOT 2009. Clinton would have had a far easier time getting the Pentagon to accept gays in the military if public opinion had been then what it is now. Clinton's first big failure was that proposal. He got spanked, and spanked bad, by the military and quite a few people in Congress. Both DOMA and DADT were bad compromises that never made anybody happy, but a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would have been worse.

Furthermore, both Clintons in their personal lives have many gay friends and have gay staffers in their respective staffs ever since Arkansas.

x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #37
52. He ran an AD on it in the '96 campaign. Some people refuse to see what is right in front of them
Edited on Tue Jun-16-09 03:22 PM by beachmom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. You are correct. In the 1996 campaign, Clinton bragged about signing DOMA.
Edited on Tue Jun-16-09 03:46 PM by AtomicKitten
excerpts from: http://www.americablog.com/2007/06/bill-clinton-reportedly-told-john-kerry.html

It's no coincidence that after hiring Penn, Clinton signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and then ran radio ads on Christian radio touting his support for DOMA.

From the Associated Press, October 17, 1996:

After angry complaints from gay-rights advocates, the Clinton campaign on Wednesday replaced an ad running on religious radio stations that boasted of the president's signature on a bill banning gay marriages....


The Clinton spot also touted his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act, in spite of earlier White House complaints that the Republicans' use of the issue amounted to "gay baiting."

From Newsweek:

President Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act when he was in the White House, advised Kerry in a phone call early in the campaign to find a way to support the state bans. Kerry never considered abandoning his principles to that extent, but he also didn’t take seriously enough the threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
34. Oh God, no. The last thing we need is Bill Clinton in the middle of any
major Congressional discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
35. thats a lot of profiles in courage in those votes and bill signing
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 10:38 AM by Uzybone
I mean almost 16% of the reps voted against it.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
38. Your should really get over your fucking IRRATIONAL HATRED of everything Clinton...
it's embarassing - for YOU!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. It's a distraction post created to draw attention away from the Obama pile on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Prosense always uses distraction when she/he knows Obama has done something wrong.
Usually Prosense tries to blame a Clinton (doesn't matter whether it's Bill or Hillary - although Hillary is the favorite to blame).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Yep, very true.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #46
59. Or to prove hypocrisy.
Obama's term isn't over yet. Bill ended his two having approve DOMA and DADT.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #40
55. Some of us think Clinton AND Obama stink on gay rights issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. The nonsense that ProSense spouts about the Clintons will NEVER end. I'm just here to
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 04:37 PM by jesus_of_suburbia
make it apparent to the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #38
53. Well, you may disagree, but I find Prosense quite RATIONAL, always providing
links and sources. Not everyone loves the Clintons. Some of them are in the Democratic Party. Deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #38
58. No you get over yourself.
I have nothing to be embarrassed about.

Your comment should lead you to consider some time off, though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
42. Oh, I don't know. Bill Clinton was not good on gay issues and so far neither has Obama been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #42
54. Yep. .
If there was somebody smart in the Republican party, they would go to Obama's left on gay marriage and DADT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
44. ProSense, what nonsense! Bill Clinton will make a great envoy to Haiti... let's hold Obama
responsible for 2009.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
57. Bill Clinton warning on health care?
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 Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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