Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can someone point out to me where Obama said something positive about Reagan?

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
 
Seen the light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:24 PM
Original message
Can someone point out to me where Obama said something positive about Reagan?
The transcript that I found on another website:

"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the sixties and the seventies and, you know, government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating, and I think he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Is there something there that Obama was wrong about? Something there that makes you think that Obama will try to emulate the policies of Ronald Reagan when in office? Or is this whole thing just about nothing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Does anyone really care at this point?
Edited on Fri Jan-18-08 11:31 PM by sjdnb
We have two candidates being excluded (Kucinich/Edwards) from the discussion while the M$M regurgitates nonsensical BS that is about as far from journalism as my mutt's ass.

There are places to get real information - voting records, transcripts, public records, etc.

Don't expect to learn anything from cable news, forums, newspapers, etc. - they all have an agenda that has little to do with serving the public interest.

DU and other forums primarily serve as a 'meeting place' for those of similar interests - but, you can't expect this kind of 'social political network' to do your research/draw conclusions for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Been pointing everyone to quotes from his book
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. Two really disgusting statements . ..
"The liberal welfare state" --- ???

I think that Obama kinda forgets that we had a decade and more of "backlash" to the human rights and civil rights progress that was made in the post-WWII period and into the 50's and 60's . . .
INCLUDING a decade and more of political violence which, IMO, has continued a bit more underground than the overt attacks on JFK, RFK, and MLK ---

And Reagan was part of that right-wing backlash against human rights and civil rights ---

Evidently, Obama doesn't GET any of this --- alarming!!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
28. And here's more, in more complete context
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. He forgot to *spit* after he said the word "Reagan"
He also forgot to explicitly criticize Reagan, and point out all the flawed things that Reagan did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bondor Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. it *sounds* Reagan-friendly
but it could be understood either way. maybe he is walking a line and hoping to rope in some of those inexplicable "Reagan Democrats."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
19. As far as I can see, it can only be understood one way --- and that's the upside down world
of Bill Cosby-type criticism ---

Obama needs an education on what has been going on in America --
he is either whooly naive or disingenuous and playing for the Bill Cosby crowds ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. It was actually about ALMOST nothing, to be fair.
To be perfectly fair, no Democrat in Primary season wants to hear the name "Reagan" even uttered by a candidate if it's not a direct criticism.

But the real truth is that he didn't say anything wrong and that if we really want change, if we really want to reforge the bonds that have been broken in this country, we need to stop hating each other so much.

The fact that his comments were interpreted in such a distorted way shows how far we are away from the kind of coming together.

"“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic cords of memory will swell when again touched as surely they will be by the better angels of our nature.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Binka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. The Other Side Needs To Offer The Olive Branch Not Us
Coming together is NOT our job it is up to the fucking retard repukes. What part of being fucked over for 30 years don't you get? If they don't get it why should we have to walk them through it? They wouldn't understand anyways they are all about HATE and wanting the left to eat shit. How fucking old are you?

Obama was championing Reagan, it wasn't about nothing it was about very much indeed. Welcome to ignore I don't have time for horse shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Like I said.
Sometimes you got to let it go.

I know you have had a trying time, so I forgive you for spewing undeserved anger onto me.

But adults sometimes do things that are hard to do to make things better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. I don't see that Obama's words were misinterpreted --- clearly he is misunderstands
what was going on at the time and went out of his way to tell us that we it was the fault of liberals that we got Reagan --- had nothing to do with rightwing propaganda -- October Surprise --- or a biased MSM strewing out garbage attacking Carter every night on Nightline . . .

Is Obama going to get to BCCI or Iran-Contra or maybe the Savings & Loan Bank & Embezzlements ---
drug running for the state?

Obama is in a dream world and it could create a nightmare of America ---

We're already living one with Bush!!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. I can't do this anymore.
I need to have conversations that admit the existence of the color grey. I cannot participate in any more idiotic banter.

It is too thin in nutrition for my taste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-20-08 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. Not exactly clear to me what you mean . . . ?
Edited on Sun Jan-20-08 02:32 AM by defendandprotect
Are you saying that speaking about the October Surprise, Iran-Contra, BCCI, S&L Thefts and Embezzelments is too specific? Too dark in color?

And, that we need the airiness and light of the "gray" of Obama's comments ---?

IMO, Obama is naive --- or dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. Dude, if he is saying "I am offering America a campaign strategy" not a presidency
Edited on Fri Jan-18-08 11:31 PM by McCamy Taylor
then what the hell are we voting for. The only way he can justify the remarks he made is to say "That Nancy was one smart cookie when she talked about 'Morning in America' when what she really meant was more of the same ole same ole. So I'm going to steal her line and call my campaign 'Morning in America II.' Everybody buy some of what I am selling, just like you bought some of what she was selling."

What the hell kind of leadership is that? He is applauding Reagan's campaign strategy but not his policies? Is Obama running for Cheerleader-in-Chief?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. You have to remember, the "War on drugs" was the "War on Black Folks".
Edited on Fri Jan-18-08 11:41 PM by McCamy Taylor
All through the 1980s, Reagan and Bush used the criminal justice system to reverse the gains that African-Americans had made during the 1960s and 70s. They manipulated the economy to make life much harder for minorities. And the CIA brought crack cocaine into this country by protecting drug dealers from Central America who were also right wing anti-communist terrorists. The crack cocaine epidemic that devastated a generation of poor, primarily minority infants owes its origin to Reagan and Bush.


It is not enough for Obama just to not say anything about Reagan. For Obama to mention Reagan in a positive light is worse than if he had said he wanted to be like George Wallace, because George Wallace had a change of political heart in his later years. Reagan was always Reagan, and it doesn't matter what lies he campaigned on, he created wealth disparity and impoverished and persecuted women and minorities while stacking the courts with federalist judges and raping the environment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
8. he parrots the same line Reagan and his republican supportere were using
that there were government 'excesses' that he needed to reign in. The excess he was referring to was the miserly fraction which was going to those who couldn't help themselves by other means. Reagan and his minions wanted to bankrupt the government and put the bulk of what was left on defense and tax cuts for his rich buddies, squeezing the life out of entitlements. The 'excesses' Obama has invented for this ridiculous statement came AFTER Reagan and his bunch took power. He NEVER submitted a balanced budget.

And 'dynamism' and optimism'?? There was a real estate boom which resulted in empty buildings and a raped treasury. The Reagan Obama invented (or parroted) here is pure fiction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. The vagueness is what troubles me.
Edited on Fri Jan-18-08 11:43 PM by Blue_In_AK
When he says "changed the trajectory of America," does he see that as a positive or negative? What does he mean "the country was ready for it"? Were we "asking for it," like a provocatively dressed rape victim? What excesses specifically of the '60s and '70s is he talking about? All that excessive protesting for civil rights and against the war? The sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship? Is he talking about the kind of Milton Friedman economics that caused such clarity and optimism in Chile and other South American countries in those days?

I personally am bothered by the tone, and while I doubt seriously that Obama is a Reagan fan, I feel that he could have chosen a different example as a "change" president -- for instance, Roosevelt or Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. You witnessed Faux outrage, something that happens in political campaigns.....
My understanding is that Hillary considers Reagan one of her favorite President.

Obama was simply observing a fact, in that Reagan was the last President that was able to tap into the sentiments of a country that had just suffered through a long Vietnam war (which we lost), Watergate, Recession with 21% interest rates, long gas lines, and a hostage crisis in Iran that went on for months and months. The voters were dejected, humiliated and weary. Reagan, no matter how bad his policies ended up being, understood that people wanted something to aim for, they wanted their dignity back and they wanted to proud of their country again. Obama is simply saying that this, is again, one of those times. However, what he wants to help us do with this country is nothing like what Reagan did, in fact, he wants quite the opposite. But his point was that this is one of those moments.

So no, he said nothing wrong. In fact, he got the analysis totally right.....because this could be our moment to move forward...just like conservatives got their moment with Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BringEmOn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #11
24. Look out Granada, you're gettin' another ass whoopin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I don't know why that would be?
Do you want to compare who took us into war? :shrug:


Delivered on October 7, 2002 in the Halls of power-
This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel.
snip

After 11 years of watching Saddam play shell games with his weapons programs, there is no reason to believe he has any real intention to disarm.

At the end of the day, there must be no question that America and our allies are willing to use force to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. And I believe if America leads, the world will join us.

Eliminating Iraq's destructive capacity is only part one of our responsibility, however.

We must make a genuine commitment to help build a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And let's be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis — including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds — deserve to be represented.

This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.
snip
We must also remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. This is a problem much bigger than Iraq.
snip
Even as we lead the world to eliminate the Iraqi weapons threat in particular and global proliferation in general, we must maintain our resolve in the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.

I reject the notion that this is an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we are up to the challenge. We fought World War II on four continents simultaneously. America worked to rebuild Germany and Japan at the same time, under the Marshall Plan. We waged the Cold War in every corner of the globe, and we won. --John Edwards
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/americas_role_in_the_world.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002

VERSUS...




Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
13. When all the TV programs showed Obama saying the above
the EMPHASIS was on the comment re Bill Clinton.
Kondrake::" this was unwise, Bill Clinton did make changes."

CNN:: Why would Obama praise Republican and criticize Clinton.
seemed to be the theme.

Now, there are many comment in his book. There have been
thread after thread quoting the book.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
14. Vague as always. But not a Raygun clone
Some other DUer was posting the line that Barrack wanted to be like Ronny.
Just flame bate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ashling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
15. In the clip I heard on NPR
he compared Reagan's outreach to Lincoln's call to the better angels of our nature. What "better angels" did Reagan court? The angels of greed? The angels of "me first"? The angels of "fuck the poor"? The angels of vacuuousnes?

Is he so clueless that he didn't realie he would be liable to be questioned or even attacked on this?

Is that the kind of president we need? I don't think so.

He made the comparison and so he is fair game for anyone who wants to question his statement. If you can't handle the heat ...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
16. Personally, I guess he means I was "ready" to be a victim of the first massive industrial layoff
in my area in 1981. According to him, I must have been tired of the "excesses" of the 60's & 70's, which brought a wealth of opportunity, decent cost-of-living wages, decent benefits, opportunities for overtime on holidays, & job security.

Oh, & when a politician trumpets "entrepreneurship", he's using it as a euphemism for, "Sorry guys, you won't be getting those well-paying manufacturing jobs back."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NWHarkness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
20. "all the excesses of the sixties and the seventies"
This part of is statement is the problem, in my view. Obama seems to buy into the idea that the progress made in the 60s and 70s represent some sort of excess. When Reagan and his ilk spoke of those "excesses" they were referring to blacks and hispanics and women and gays demanding their rights, and to the millions of Americans who spoke up aganst the war in Viet nam and stood up to Nixon's repressive regime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. It's one of the ALARMING comments ..... there are a bunch of them --- !!!!
Evidently Obama had no idea that Reagan was part of the backlash to human rights and civil rights and anti-war campaigns ---

Obama is a black hole --- not only lacking information --- but lacking wisdom, caution ---
and any true compassion for those who fought those battles for freedom ---

Very dumb ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
navarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
22. he was calculating. maybe smart thing to do?
reaching out to the worshipers of Saint Reagan to get some crossover votes no doubt. maybe it was smart? Lawrence O'Donnell thought so on Olbermann last night.

As for me, I had to go outside to remove the bad smell from my nostrils.

3 demerits for Barack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. It seems that he was saying the Raygun offered an
optimism to America. He was not espousing Raygun's policies. He was saying that
America was looking for a change. That is what he is offering. It is rather convoluted
in my view but maybe he is trying to appeal to Independents by saying that. It seems to have angered
a whole lot of Liberals who despised Raygun's political agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
navarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. it's not just his agenda that continues to offend me, it's the phony mythology
Saint Reagan defeated the evil Russians. bullshit

Saint Reagan created a 'revolution'. bullshit...this shit started after WW II. I'd say it got kick started with McCarthy / Nixon. With Saint Reagan they found the perfect megaphone to kick it into a high gear that we haven't been able to stop yet.


No matter how you slice it, in my opinion, Barack is appealing to these clowns out of pure calculation. We can only hope he doesn't fulfill his promise to them.

You know what the first thing I remember Barack doing when he was elected Senator? Voting to confirm Condoleeza Rice, a blood-soaked war criminal, as Sec. of State.

I'd assign him more demerits for that right now, but I already assigned them months ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
30. You don't think that what he said was positive?
O'key.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TroglodyteScholar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
31. This is the same as Hillary's "race baiting"
What Hillary said was, from what I could tell, not detracting from the efforts of civil rights leaders at all. Yet, like with the Obama/Reagan thing, the media distorted the shit out of it until all you heard was "Hillary hates MLK!"

We would do well to destroy all the news studios and start over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC