|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
t0dd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 01:33 PM Original message |
What Obama Could Have Done Instead of Berating His Voters: Suspend DADT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 01:45 PM Response to Original message |
1. And once again, we have to explain... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sharp_stick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 01:50 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. This response needs to be written down |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
t0dd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 01:52 PM Response to Reply #1 |
5. Sorry. I'll trust military law experts over your lame explanation. thx |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:04 PM Response to Reply #5 |
9. Military law experts? Try social scientists--they don't have a single military law expert on staff. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
t0dd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:11 PM Response to Reply #9 |
14. Did Obama have to tell his DOJ to defend the constitutionality of DADT too? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:17 PM Response to Reply #14 |
16. I shall explain this, yet again. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
t0dd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:25 PM Response to Reply #16 |
19. 10 United States Code § 12305 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:31 PM Response to Reply #19 |
21. That isn't DADT. That's the stop-loss statute, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
t0dd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:34 PM Response to Reply #21 |
24. Where is that provision in the law? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 03:32 PM Response to Reply #24 |
32. You were given the link. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
t0dd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 04:14 PM Response to Reply #32 |
40. Again, it is nowhere in the actual statue. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 04:41 PM Response to Reply #40 |
43. You are right. Pregnant women aren't exempt. Neither are felons. Amputees on disability. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 03:22 PM Response to Reply #19 |
29. Already gave you the link upthread. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 03:44 PM Response to Reply #19 |
36. Do you realize you aren't even quoting the right statute? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
t0dd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:16 PM Response to Reply #9 |
15. Why can't he suspend the policy until the end of his presidency? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:18 PM Response to Reply #15 |
17. Quote that provision. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 08:43 PM Response to Reply #17 |
46. So change the damned policy and let the law follow. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 08:53 PM Response to Reply #46 |
47. How? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 08:55 PM Response to Reply #47 |
48. I'm not asking to suspend a law. I'm asking him to change a policy where he writes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 09:03 PM Response to Reply #48 |
50. Yes--that is EXACTLY what you are asking him to do! DADT is a LAW. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 09:05 PM Response to Reply #50 |
52. really, then why is bush's "conscience rule" still in effect. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 09:14 PM Response to Reply #52 |
55. Dude. It's not. Obama knocked that fucker out in the first 100 days. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 09:39 PM Response to Reply #55 |
58. You are WRONG and the article you post is wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 10:12 PM Response to Reply #58 |
61. You quoted an amazingly stupid author. Actually, an unsigned internet opinion. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 06:47 AM Response to Reply #61 |
62. He did not overturn the Conscience Rule. He ordered a thirty day review |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 10:47 AM Response to Reply #62 |
64. As stated, suspension works the same as overturn, without a lengthy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 10:59 AM Response to Reply #64 |
65. Nothing changed. It was not suspended. Nothing has changed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:08 AM Response to Reply #65 |
68. Sure you did. Did you ask your congressperson when they are going to repeal DADT? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:14 AM Response to Reply #68 |
70. You call him, I'm sure they'll be able to help you figure it out. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:20 AM Response to Reply #70 |
73. What did he tell you about repealing DADT? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:23 AM Response to Reply #73 |
75. Oh you are such an intellectual. You show me where I said DADT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:29 AM Response to Reply #75 |
78. Dude. The entire thread is about DADT. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:31 AM Response to Reply #78 |
80. The policy is not suspended. A thirty day comment period was declared |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:34 AM Response to Reply #80 |
82. Again, if you don't believe me, fine. But what does this have to do with DADT? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:36 AM Response to Reply #82 |
84. It's not a question of believing you, it's a matter of fact. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:43 AM Response to Reply #84 |
86. Again, what, precisely, is your point about EO's and DADT and the Conscience Rule? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:47 AM Response to Reply #86 |
88. really bush's last minute Conscience Rule wasn't an EO? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:54 AM Response to Reply #88 |
89. No. Jeebus H. Christ. Don't you read what you friggen' post? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:07 PM Response to Reply #89 |
91. it has not in limbo, It is still in effect. Jessum H Christmas! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:20 PM Response to Reply #91 |
92. Okay, so neither you, nor the religion blogger from TIME can understand this? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:25 PM Response to Reply #92 |
93. no, the conscience rule is in effect. You say it's in some limbo, it is not. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:35 PM Response to Reply #93 |
95. You've gone an entire thread not understanding that the CR is not an EO, but I'm supposed to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:37 PM Response to Reply #95 |
96. No, I will admit no such thing. Did the HHS come up with this regulation all on it's own |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:43 PM Response to Reply #96 |
99. Since you are the one who brought up the CR, don't you think it behooves you to know what it is? n/ |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:01 AM Response to Reply #64 |
66. You resort to name calling and deflect with what you think aren't sources |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:04 AM Response to Reply #66 |
67. Yes, he did. And, you STILL KEEP AVOIDING my question. What's this to do with DADT? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:12 AM Response to Reply #67 |
69. He did NOT suspend or revoke or end the Conscience Rule. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:17 AM Response to Reply #69 |
71. Again, what does your Conscience Rule ranting have to do with DADT? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:18 AM Response to Reply #71 |
72. No we will not just have to disagree on that. You are wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:23 AM Response to Reply #72 |
74. Yes. We will just have to disagree. And I read your response. You're still avoiding the question. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:25 AM Response to Reply #74 |
77. You prove to me where the Conscience Rule has been overturned, suspended or revoked. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:31 AM Response to Reply #77 |
79. I did. If you don't care to believe me, then don't. No skin off my nose. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:32 AM Response to Reply #79 |
81. Show me an article that Obama overturned and suspended the Conscience Rule |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:36 AM Response to Reply #81 |
83. Again, if you don't believe me, fine. But what does this have to do with DADT? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:40 AM Response to Reply #83 |
85. Read my multiple replies to you. Have you even read my responses |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:44 AM Response to Reply #85 |
87. Again, what, precisely is your point about the Conscience Rule, DADT, and EO? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:28 PM Response to Reply #87 |
94. Read my response above and stop cutting and pasting your responses. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:41 PM Response to Reply #94 |
97. 1) You are the one who decided to split this sub-thread with multiple answers to my post #64. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boston bean (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:44 PM Response to Reply #97 |
100. Because I've have read and researched and took what you had to say into consideration |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:52 PM Response to Reply #100 |
103. You didn't know what the CR was. For all your research, you missed the fundamental fact of what it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SidDithers (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:42 PM Response to Reply #87 |
98. Good posts in this thread... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:53 PM Response to Reply #98 |
104. Thank you. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Renew Deal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 03:36 PM Response to Reply #15 |
34. Because DADT will never be repealed if he does that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
COLGATE4 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:41 PM Response to Reply #9 |
27. How do you read that to say that Belkin "supports repeal". What |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:29 PM Response to Reply #5 |
20. Name one military law expert at that organization. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:32 PM Response to Reply #5 |
22. From the old (May 2009) pdf file linked to in your OP: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
COLGATE4 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:44 PM Response to Reply #22 |
28. You're also not a lawyer or a Professor of Law. You don't have |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RaleighNCDUer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:05 PM Response to Reply #1 |
10. Rah! Rah! Sis Boom Bah! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JNelson6563 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 03:41 PM Response to Reply #1 |
35. Fuck those facts! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alarimer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 02:51 PM Response to Reply #1 |
109. No, he CAN order them to stop fucking enforcing it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 03:46 PM Response to Reply #109 |
110. And that would be illegal, like Bush ordering torture. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 01:48 PM Response to Original message |
2. What FDL could have done to maintain any shred of credibility: Not align with Grover Norquist. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pgodbold (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 01:50 PM Response to Original message |
4. I completely agree and sometimes I think Captain Bipartisan could use a little adult supervision. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Spazito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 01:55 PM Response to Original message |
6. Geez, you would think the owners of FDL would be too embarrassed to publish... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:06 PM Response to Reply #6 |
11. It's lead author is a Poli Sci teacher, not a lawyer-- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Spazito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:10 PM Response to Reply #11 |
13. Yep, FDL doesn't care about the facts, the reality... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:20 PM Response to Reply #13 |
18. They know this study isn't supported by the SLDN--but they have to score anti-Obama |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Davis_X_Machina (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 01:55 PM Response to Original message |
7. To so just to mollify elements... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OregonBlue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:02 PM Response to Original message |
8. FDL? Really? I should believe anything that comes from an Obama hate site? I don't even need to read |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:08 PM Response to Reply #8 |
12. Yes--using a discredited study to attack Obama--who would have thunk it? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DevonRex (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:33 PM Response to Original message |
23. FDL is trash written by scum. Dem-hating scum. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MineralMan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:35 PM Response to Original message |
25. This FDL post is based on a report issued by that organization |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bluenorthwest (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 03:23 PM Response to Reply #25 |
30. The OP here posts the Palm Center link |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlueCheese (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 02:38 PM Response to Original message |
26. As of this moment... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
VMI Dem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 03:26 PM Response to Original message |
31. The Log Cabin Republicans are doing the heavy lifting for him. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 03:57 PM Response to Reply #31 |
38. The LCR only sued for their own members. Obama supports repeal for all. He is doing the heavy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bluebear (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 08:41 PM Response to Reply #38 |
45. "He is doing the heavy lifting" - LOL |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dsc (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 11:24 AM Response to Reply #38 |
76. you are being quite disingenuous there |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 01:14 PM Response to Reply #76 |
105. no--they are. Since they know damn well that they have no right |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dsc (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 02:23 PM Response to Reply #105 |
108. that is absurd |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 04:12 PM Response to Reply #108 |
111. You might wanna check on that.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Renew Deal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 03:35 PM Response to Original message |
33. Anything Obama does by executive order can be reveresed by executive order. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Philosopher (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 03:46 PM Response to Original message |
37. I think he can do it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 04:00 PM Response to Reply #37 |
39. Duzy!!! Welcome to DU!!! n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 04:23 PM Response to Reply #37 |
41. That would be acting like a dictator |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Philosopher (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 07:40 PM Response to Reply #41 |
44. It'd only be a dictatorship |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 08:59 PM Response to Reply #44 |
49. I have to admit that I am simply enchanted by your stream-of-consciousness |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mimosa (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 09:05 PM Response to Reply #49 |
53. Msanthrope, if not for your posts I would feel I'd wasted time in this topic. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 09:17 PM Response to Reply #53 |
56. Thank you. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Philosopher (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 09:38 PM Response to Reply #49 |
57. I'm sorry I didn't provide notes on a forum |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mimosa (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 09:04 PM Response to Reply #37 |
51. What a great precedent it would be for a Prez to start suspending laws. NOT. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Philosopher (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 09:40 PM Response to Reply #51 |
59. There is, actually. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 09:44 PM Response to Reply #37 |
60. "the President is charged with seeing laws are faithfully executed" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Starry Messenger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 04:28 PM Response to Original message |
42. k & r |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DireStrike (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-30-10 09:13 PM Response to Original message |
54. Or even TALK about WHY he won't do anything about it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 08:23 AM Response to Original message |
63. recommend |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Touchdown (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:01 PM Response to Original message |
90. Exactly. Of course the "Once again..." people will never get it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SidDithers (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:47 PM Response to Original message |
101. ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
VMI Dem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 12:49 PM Response to Original message |
102. Chill the fuck out. The Log Cabin Republicans have got this. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 01:26 PM Response to Reply #102 |
106. except that they only sued on behalf of their own membership. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
defendandprotect (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-01-10 01:31 PM Response to Original message |
107. Absolutely ....!!! DADT was a vicious attack on homosexuals by homophobes in government .... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat May 04th 2024, 11:23 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
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