Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If you didn't know then what you know now, would you have

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 » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:09 PM
Original message
Poll question: If you didn't know then what you know now, would you have
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 08:50 PM by FrenchieCat
supported the Social Security Act that FDR championed as part of the New Deal?



Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns. Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently. These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population. Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”

Some have suggested that this discrimination resulted from the powerful position of Southern Democrats on two of the committees pivotal for the Act’s creation, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Southern congressmen supported Social Security as a means to bring needed relief to areas in the South that were especially hurt by the Great Depression but wished to avoid legislation which might interfere with the racial status quo in the South. The solution to this dilemma was to pass a bill that both included exclusions and granted authority to the states rather than the national government (such as the states' power in Aid to Dependent Children). Others have argued that exclusions of job categories such as agriculture were frequently left out of new social security systems worldwide because of the administrative difficulties in covering these workers.

....Women generally qualified for insurance only through their husband or their children. Mothers’ pensions (Title IV) based entitlements on the presumption that mothers would be unemployed.

Historical discrimination in the system can also be seen with regard to Aid to Dependent Children. Since this money was allocated to the states to distribute, some localities assessed black families as needing less money than white families. These low grant levels made it impossible for African American mothers to not work: one requirement of the program. Some states also excluded children born out of wedlock, an exclusion which affected African American women more than white women. One study determined that 14.4% of eligible white individuals received funding, but only 1.5% of eligible black individuals received these benefits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_ (United_States)



Go ahead and unrec the shit.....force it back down the memory hole, why don't you?

Instead, stay focused on what Obama said and when....as though his election is tomorrow,
and this "he said it" is somekind of ultimate "Gotcha".

So many fools just don't have a damn clue on how this country works; not a damn one,
and don't understand, or don't want to understand how true progress is achieved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Top Cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Funny how that works, this time limitation on how much is to be remembered
when we decide to "use" history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick, Rec. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy823 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good post.
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 08:23 PM by Andy823
This is an excellent comparison. I really do think that even though I would have loved a real public option, or a medicare buy in, this is a start, just like the FDR's social security act. You can't get everything the first try, but if there is not bill to build on, we won't get anything, period! There is already talk about the public option being brought back next year, and I think many other things can be "added" as time goes by. Your example proves that something that didn't sound so good at first, can be changed to something better over time, and the health care bill can also become better over time.

Thanks for posting this.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Folks are hating this thread!
Guess honest in your face ain't exactly what they want to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. It's a "Do you still beat your wife?" kind of poll
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. How's that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. First al all you cannot "didn't know what you now know" grammatically so I will have to guess what
you mean. It seems you are trying for a false equivalency. This is not 1935 and Barrack is far from FDR. Obama is a corporatist and FDR was fighting for the people. Social Security was never a payday to corporations while the HCR benefits mostly those corporations FDR fought against.FDR was called a traitor to his "class" and a socialist. Obama is being called a corporate sellout by many in his own party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. FDR was fighting for the people

FDR is my favorite President and I believe I have read all of the major biographies of him but this romanticizing of him really is absurd.

He made some really big fuck ups. He ran on a balanced budget and during the 5 months from his election to taking the oath made no public appearences nor cooperated with Hoover, who basically agreed to start FDR's emergency legislation early, to calm the meltdown in the markets. Every economic historian I have read considers this as having a dramatically negative impact on capital and severely increased unemployment.


Again he fought and saved our economic system, our party, our country and western civilization. He also rounded up American citizens and put them into concentraton camps. If Obama is a corporatist then so is Krugman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. So you mean, Obama doesn't have to be totally perfect either?
Get da f*ck outta here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Let's 'pretend' Obama exhibited leadership and principled behavior and just move on.
Facts aren't helpful here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Let's not pretend......
let's acknowledge this HCR bill, when it passes will be an achievement,
and some folks got it there, and none of them will be you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Pretending 'failure' is success rarely works. DON'T BE AN ENABLER!.
Does the fact that health insurance stocks are skyrocketing offer a clue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Calm down!!!
It's frustrating to attempt to defend capitulation and to support health insurance corporation control of healthcare. And to support YOUR tax dollars going to healthcare insurance corporations. They have just gotten MORE control with this bill and the stock market is merely reflecting the arrival of their 'government check'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I'm good.
Hope you lose.
Then, you'll have get over it,
and calm da fuck down.
I'll look foward to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. How can I possibly 'lose'. Please notify me if that occurs.
???????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I am very interested to see what is going to come out after health care
because I believe that a lot of sensitive things were held back because they knew they didn't have a vote to spare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. Exactly. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. The giddy "gotcha" OPs about what Obama said are so juvenile. It's embarrassing.
They don't know how fucking lucky they are, and all they can do is try to dig up dirt on the president, our president, a Democrat, and a fucking good one.

Assholes.

They don't seem to want to know the good news:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7303823&mesg_id=7303848
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. They are still in primary mode.......even though the election is over....
problem is defeat of this President, is the defeat of themselves.
That's what makes them about as clueless as I have ever seen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. I supported Obama in the primaries, often very staunchly.
Please don't be painting with such a broad brush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. You hionestly think bernie Sanders is thrilled with this bill?
He's happy he got some concessions and some things added that he believes in.

But he has said repeatedly that this bill is not a particiularly good bill overall, even thlough it has some good things in it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. It ain't about being "thrilled"......
it's about getting progress done.

It ain't always pretty, as illustrated by my OP....
but good things is way better than not a damn thing
in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Funny you should mention Bernie Sanders. Here Ya Go!
"Scheduled to the very last moment for HCR, Harry Reid appended this fully developed Sanders-Cardin section..."

"S1ngle-Pay3r medical care is enabled directly."

"America will become a rather larger Vermont. And yes, dental care."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/21/817467/-14,000-Kennedy-Sanders-Cardin-Clinics-to-serve-45,000,000-Americans

45,000,000 get single-payer care =vs.= 3,000,000 P.O. tickets ??? -- Cummon folks.

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Ted Kennedy's existing CHC program expands along lines developed by Bernie Sanders and Ben Cardin.

The single best thing to happen for America's working poor since food stamps:

-- 14,000 nationwide Community Health Clinics

-- Expand CHC capabilities to match VHA technology

-- 45,000,000 people served

-- $$$$$ to attract 20,000 primary care physicians, nurses, etc.

-- Drugs at VHA prices

-- Dental care

-- Patient billing scaled to income

-- No profit motive. 1/5th the cost of Emergency Room treatment.

Alan Frumin, the Senate Parliamentarian, showed last April that non-budgetary insurance sections would not qualify for reconciliation. Filibusters would doom any Senate P.O.

Care is separated completely from any billing.

Harry Reid concealed Sanders-Cardin till the last hour, then popped it into the Senate HCR Bill.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/22/818060/-This-HCR-Bill:-45,000,000-Get-Single-Payer-Vermont-Health-Care

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
16. Impossible to project oneself back to the 1930's
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 09:01 PM by Armstead
Most people would not have seen the discrimination as an issue at the time, because such attitudes were the status quo.

Just like at some point in the future, people are going to look back at us as being cavemen for allowing such things as DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell to exist.

If you are drawing a parallel to current health care debate though, Nobody is getting NOTHING in the sense of a comparable public social insurance plan parallel to Social Security.

So it is a meaningless comparison anyway -- except to say that if FDR had forced people to buy largely unregulated private investments, there would have been hell to pay.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Most people have been doing it here on DU for the last several months.....
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 09:09 PM by FrenchieCat
you included.

Guess it's ok to encourage Obama to be like FDR,
even if he ain't living in FDR time....
but it ain't ok to say that legislation progresses,
using the Social Security Act as an example.

Thanks for the guide on what part of the 30s can be used,
and what parts can't. :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8677176
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
36. The reason I say it is a false parallel
Let me ask you -- Would you still be supporting this version of HCR if it contained clauses that African Americans were excluded because they are too high a risk pool? Or of it said that women were not eligible?

Somehow I doubt it.

Would you have supported SS then, knowing it was deliberatly excluding you, on the basis that maybe someday it might be expanded to include your grandchildren?

No way can you possibly project what a Frenchie Cat living in the 1930's would be thinking without the experiences and knowledge of social changes that have occurred since then.

So it is apples and oranges to ask 2009 people to determine whether they would have opposed Social Security in the 1930's because it was racist and sexist.

What IS relevant about the comparisons is their structure and purpose. Social Security, even with its original discrimination, was the same basic structure and had the same basic purpose that is has today. It has been improved and expanded -- but the basic principle of a shared pool of resources run by the government was the same basic blueprint that evolved.

The parallel is that this HCR is also setting a basic blueprint that is not likely to change -- that of forcing people to buy PRIVATE INSURANCE from a corporation -- the same basic entites that are the cause of the problem.

The answer to that is -- No I do not support a system that locks us into an inherently bad system of requiring people to buy health coverage through monopolistic and abusive private markets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. My point obviously went over your head.....
most likely that was on purpose.

The point is not so much what is wrong with the bill,
the point is that the bill wasn't as good as it got.

As a Black person, I may have opposed the bill,
but if I would look back now, it would have been something
that I would regret having done at the time....
If I knew that had I been successful,
no social security system would exist.

That's the point.

Legislation of such profound size doesn't always come to you perfected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
35. Duplicate delete
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 11:50 PM by Armstead

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
24. Let's just dispense with this silly, recurring tome once and for all, shall we?
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 09:07 PM by depakid
Some paint the Senate bill as a flawed first step to reform that will be improved over time, citing historical examples such as Social Security. But where Social Security established the nidus of a public institution that grew over time, the Senate bill proscribes any such new public institution.

Instead, it channels vast new resources - including funds diverted from Medicare - into the very private insurers who caused today's health care crisis. Social Security's first step was not a mandate that payroll taxes which fund pensions be turned over to Goldman Sachs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Nobody said everything should be exactly the same to be able to look at history
nobody...I guess except for you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. The two examples aren't even conceptually related!
The analogy is inapposite- as demonstrated above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
29. If this part (see below) were excluded
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 09:24 PM by bigwillq
This would be a very good thread.



Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions, but how is calling people fools productive?




"Go ahead and unrec the shit.....force it back down the memory hole, why don't you?

Instead, stay focused on what Obama said and when....as though his election is tomorrow,
and this "he said it" is somekind of ultimate "Gotcha".

So many fools just don't have a damn clue on how this country works; not a damn one,
and don't understand, or don't want to understand how true progress is achieved."





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. I ain't seen anyone else censoring themselves,
I don't see why I should.

Hey, I'm called head cheerleader, a fearmonger, not a "real" Democrat,
a warmonger, and just about every other name in the book these fucking days.....
Might as well give a shout out to the opposition cheerleaders,
doncha think? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Don't think you should either
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 10:46 PM by bigwillq
(censor yourself)

I just didn't think you needed that in this post. I don't think it was necessary. I think your thread was an attempt to make a very valid, and good, point. I didn't think you needed to stoop to that level.

I've been called many names too. We can't take it personally. I am sick of the name-calling, though, from both sides of the debate here. That was my biggest complaint with this thread. Other than that, I thought it was very good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
34. I would have demanded that the excluded groups be included
As soon as FDR won his landslide second term victory in 1936. At that time, the votes for including domestic help and agricultural workers in Social Security AND the Wagner Act were there after that election.

Given that those groups have NEVER been included, you might want to reconsider the notion that Social Security represented the best case for incrementalism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
37. It was a very good single payer government program from the beginning.

It was not a corporate handout like the health insurance industry act.

For an encore would you like to compare apples and banana's?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 03:46 AM
Response to Original message
39. This isn't a good analogy. It shows you don't understand your opponent's arguments.
Edited on Thu Dec-24-09 03:52 AM by coti
We're talking about which direction our country is going in, systemically, while you're talking about a bill that had the right idea but also had a bunch of holes in it that were later filled.

This HCR goes in the wrong direction entirely and only hurts our country. There aren't any "holes" in it that can be filled by judges or little tweaks inside future legislation. It's giving our healthcare system over to the private insurance companies.

Truly- you need to look at what is happening rather than who is doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. sure. Like you read the bill and somehow I didn't.
Too bad you aren't talking to someone who didn't do her homework first.

The only people that believe this bill goes in the wrong direction are
the Republicans that voted against it 100% and the delussionals here at DU
that think that they are superior to everyone else, and know something
everyone else doesn't. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
40. Well... we know who the 3 "no's" are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
41. Excellent historical reference
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
42. There is no comparison between social security reform and our current status.
Social security is and was a totally government program. It's not as if money is being deducted from your paycheck and going to Goldman Sachs (sadly, those are your other tax dollars). You might compare this health care "reform" to social security if it was a government plan. It isn't. The bucks go to big insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Social Security was an additional tax.....
and actually folks hate taxes just as much as they hate coporations getting their money.

The simples think that the only answer to every problem is to blow up the insurance companies, padlock the banks, shut down corporations, and give everyone free healthcare with money that the government pulls out of its ass. That isn't the country that you live in. It just isnt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
43. Do you have anything but false premises and ad hominem?
Didn't think so.
:evilgrin:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. Yeah....cause I'm the only one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. No, unfortunately you are only one of far too many.
Edited on Thu Dec-24-09 06:37 PM by Greyhound
ETA; Come to think of it, "They do it too" could well be the motto of the Democratic Party.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. No. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
44. This has been debunked so many times, it is getting kinda sad people keep posting it.
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 Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency 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