FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Federal judge orders end of DADT (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Federal judge orders end of DADT
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
(CNN) -- A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the U.S. military to stop enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, effectively ending the ban on openly gay troops.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' permanent injunction orders the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced" under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The judge, a Clinton appointee based in the Central District of California, previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members' Fifth Amendment rights to due process and freedom of speech, but had delayed issuing the injunction.

via jew and woman run CNN

hey, awesome! the log cabin republicans pulled a good stunt, there.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
wow
Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah... I don't know if it's quite over yet.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Probably not, but at least it is a step towards getting a definitive answer to the issue.
Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, perhaps some good-hearted lawyer might chime in and explain- what body now attempts to appeal this decision? Could not the President as the head of the military order that no appeal be made to this decision? Or am I missing something?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the president could easily courageously twiddle his thumbs and cause DADT's disembowelment to occur solely through the mechanisms by which the executive has abrogated legislative controls since 2000.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So the negative would be allowing himself to appear to be circumventing the legislative process by submitting to the court's decision... Yeah, I could live with that. I know it sounds hypocritical, but in this case the Senate is being bullied by a bunch of people who are against granting gays their civil rights. I'm in favor of brushing that aside in the name of the ultimate authority of the constitution.

And just on a more personal note, since I have several gays in my family as well as a number of social friends who are serving as Marine guard forces in Europe, I'm just hoping all the gay chatter can start to die down a little. My sister can just get married, my uncle can just not have to get hassled at the school board by Mormon parents at his high school, and my buddies can stop making fag jokes about each other to cover up their juvenile insecurities- maybe the first time they actually get an openly gay soldier in their unit, and have to learn to get along. If there's anything I've learned about Marines in the last few years it's that they know how to do their jobs as their told- I don't expect this to be a big challenge for them.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
perhaps some good-hearted lawyer might chime in...
First, one has to exist. [Wink] *ducks*
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DDDaysh
Member
Member # 9499

 - posted      Profile for DDDaysh   Email DDDaysh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They say the president would prefer that it happened in Congress with a legal change rather than a judicial order. Personally, I agree with that. I think it would reflect better on us as a nation if we could actually pass a fair law instead of having to be spanked by the judge after the fact to get us to behave. Still, I'll take it as I can get it!

It's kinda funny that this happened the day after National Coming Out Day!

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tstorm
Member
Member # 1871

 - posted      Profile for Tstorm   Email Tstorm         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree, DDDaysh. Unfortunately, Congress didn't get to it fast enough. There's no one to blame for that except them. They had plenty of time to do it.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
So the negative would be allowing himself to appear to be circumventing the legislative process by submitting to the court's decision...

This is largely how things are going to keep working the longer our legislature is obstructed into uselessness. Executive acts more or less on judicial cues or reprimand. The Senate inches closer to becoming a glorified budget rubber-stamper.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama appeals DADT, demands policy be reinstated (appeals anti-DOMA ruling too!)

hahahahahaha what a spineless coward

Link. (Post Edited by Janitor Blade. You were being sarcastic, but it was still in poor taste.)

Harry Truman had the military conduct a study on whether they were ready to be racially integrated. Over three quarters of the white military was against serving alongside blacks. Truman looked the survey over, considered it, then issued Executive Order 9981, ending segregation in the armed forces, and told his service chiefs to comply with his lawful order. Obama can wake up now, recognize that republicans will hyperventilate about him being a tyrranical rule-breaker and probably muslim kenyan even if he wants to do this the 'orderly way' and that this is doing nothing but making his supporters bitter and apathetic about the liberal cause as we run up to the 2010 elections =)

[ October 14, 2010, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Any last vestiges of hope I had for Obama died when he picked Kagan.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

Link. (Post Edited by Janitor Blade. You were being sarcastic, but it was still in poor taste.)

It's in poor taste to mock the forum's recurrent sa'eed-inflicted theme of OMG TEH JEWS RUN TEH MEDIA? or what?
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

Link. (Post Edited by Janitor Blade. You were being sarcastic, but it was still in poor taste.)

It's in poor taste to mock the forum's recurrent sa'eed-inflicted theme of OMG TEH JEWS RUN TEH MEDIA? or what?
No, it's in poor taste to constantly bring it up every chance you get.
Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 8624

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. So, reading this newest bit, is it Obama doing this? It's being done by the executive branch, so I imagine so... is this right?

Sigh. If that's right, I have to say I think less of Obama now. I mean, he's done some good things, but he's starting to feel like what people used to say about Jimmie Carter.

I'm not even saying the impression is accurate. He may very well be doing lots of great stuff. I just don't hear about it.

Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Any last vestiges of hope I had for Obama died when he picked Kagan.

I'd be interested to hear why, if you're willing.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Obama appeals DADT, demands policy be reinstated (appeals anti-DOMA ruling too!)

hahahahahaha what a spineless coward

Link. (Post Edited by Janitor Blade. You were being sarcastic, but it was still in poor taste.)

Harry Truman had the military conduct a study on whether they were ready to be racially integrated. Over three quarters of the white military was against serving alongside blacks. Truman looked the survey over, considered it, then issued Executive Order 9981, ending segregation in the armed forces, and told his service chiefs to comply with his lawful order. Obama can wake up now, recognize that republicans will hyperventilate about him being a tyrranical rule-breaker and probably muslim kenyan even if he wants to do this the 'orderly way' and that this is doing nothing but making his supporters bitter and apathetic about the liberal cause as we run up to the 2010 elections =)

Most studies I've seen show that a pretty significant majority of Americans are opposed to DADT (probably because it's terrible.) I doubt republicans will hyperventilate all that much. Well, I hope not. But then again, as we've established, most of the conservative pundits I follow are online/blog/new media type people, and they pretty much all revile DADT as much as any liberal does.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dan, they would have if there had been nothing done to appeal it. Not just because of DADT, but because of the supposed usurpation of Congresses power regarding it.
Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I doubt republicans will hyperventilate all that much.
For a given definition of 'hyperventilate', care to take a wager? The pundits you follow may or may not be opposed to DADT, Dan, but ordinary Republicans - at least the base - are still the folks who are energized in very serious numbers by gay-scare issues like marriage. Hell, it's happening right now in New York, or being attempted.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd be interested to hear why, if you're willing.
The selection of Kagan meant "Despite my claims during the campaign, I agree with the Bush Administration's expansion of executive power. Furthermore, I think we should be successfully prosecuting more people and defending the use of eminent domain to benefit corporations."
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not saying DADT isn't bad policy (it is), but a friend of mine who is working toward officer training once talked about this issue and gave me something to think about. The issue isn't so much with DADT itself but about the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which (according to him) still has anti-sodomy rules on the books. So even if homosexuals can openly serve in the military, there are still discriminatory policies that can easily keep them from succeeding in military careers.

I can't track down any info on that particular element of the UCMJ in my first run of internet searches, but I might not be looking hard enough, so take it with as much salt as you please. Changes to the UCMJ need to be approved by Congress, which as we've seen is basically akin to running the request through a paper shredder. I'm hoping it won't happen, but if the rule is on the books I can see this same battle being fought all over again even if DADT is repealed, which basically makes me lose all faith in the legislative process.

Posts: 4088 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The issue isn't so much with DADT itself but about the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which (according to him) still has anti-sodomy rules on the books.
another easy solution: an order to nix any exemptions the military was enjoying from Lawrence v. Texas.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama appealed it because he said DADT should be repealed by an act of Congress, not by the courts. I am inclined to agree with him. Legislation should be enacted by the Legislative Branch.

Ending DADT immediately without taking into account the effects it will have on the military could have unforseen and unintended consequences. Obama did say that he wanted to repeal DADT, but he wanted to do it in a manner that would cause the least amount of problems.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree. If DADT is stopped, it pretty much opens the door. The rest will follow in time.

I just worry about the effect it will have on retention issues, which directly impact the readiness level of the services.

Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am tired of the President playing "fair".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It has nothing to do with playing fair. Part of his job is to defend federal law. Right now, DADT is federal law, so he is required to defend it. What he SHOULD do is say "I am required to defend DADT as part of my duties as POTUS, but I do not agree with DADT and will be working to get it repealed in Congress."

That would send a clear message that he is only doing this out of respect for the office he is in and that he will be working hard to repeal it.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Required by whom? Congress is broken. We have a judicial branch for a reason.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Obama appealed it because he said DADT should be repealed by an act of Congress

knock knock

who's there

procedural filibuster everything

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Legislation should be enacted by the Legislative Branch.

The judicial injunction ordering the immediate end of DADT is not legislating. It is, rather, an order to stop enforcing a previously legislated statute judged to be unconstitutional. The judge did not create new law.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
I doubt republicans will hyperventilate all that much.
For a given definition of 'hyperventilate', care to take a wager?
Not particularly. See the line following the one you quoted. [Smile]
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DDDaysh
Member
Member # 9499

 - posted      Profile for DDDaysh   Email DDDaysh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Out of curiosity, what happens if the military refuses to comply with the judges orders? Who could enforce it?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I imagine that since failing to comply would be a breach of the rights of service members, they could be sued for lots and lots and lots of money, and they would lose.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Required by whom? Congress is broken. We have a judicial branch for a reason.

We also have executive and lgislative branches for a reason. Whether Congress is broken or not is irrelevent. Congress legislates, not the courts. If one court finds it unconstitutional that is fine. A higher court may not. Obama is simply doing what the office of the President is required to do, which is defend the law. If the SCOTUS finds it unconstitutional, then that is great. I would however much rather see a repeal through Congress.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, required by whom?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's the executive's job.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Challenging judicial decision? All of them? Or all the federal ones, anyway?

Where is that defined as the executive's job?

[ October 18, 2010, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was under the impression from this thread that under your system (as in ours) , that while Obama's DOJ is required to defend the law initially (i.e. show up in court), if they lose (as now), they are not necessarily required to appeal.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Speed
Member
Member # 5162

 - posted      Profile for Speed   Email Speed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm no legal expert, but one thing puzzles me now. So DADT is currently not being observed, which presumably means that if someone is gay he or she can now bring it up in conversation without fear of reprisal.

What happens if Obama's appeal wins, and DADT is re-instated? Are these people going to be discharged for mentioning that they were gay when it was legal? Or are they going to be allowed to go back in the closet and continue to serve? If so, will all their friends and superior officers have to pretend like they don't know? One way or another, seems like it's going to create some awkward situations if the ruling is reversed.

Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SITUATION AT PRESENT

Obama administration's DADT challenge was weak and cursory; it appears to have been denied short of intervention by a higher court.

So, everyone, prepare to have the military FALL TO SHAMBLES as the proud straight members of the military fall to chaos because they are now being scoped by the lecherous eyes of openly gay servicemen and women. You know, or not.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Holy strawman....
Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oh, don't i wish
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MEANWHILE ON FACEBOOK, PROGRESS AND TOLERANCE MARCHES ON

http://imgur.com/hdbn8

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Challenging judicial decision? All of them? Or all the federal ones, anyway?

Where is that defined as the executive's job?

It isn't, of course. If the government loses a case before the court which it feels was tried fairly and has no grounds for appeal, it would be unethical to appeal that decision.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.enormousconsequences.com/


spoiler: 0

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
US Military Accepts Openly Gay Recruits
Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All Obama had to do was NOT appeal... he wasn't required to...

Why risk going through congress when you don't have to? Why not just let an unconstitutional law die?

Whose side is he on when a REPUBLICAN group challenges an anti-gay law and WINS only to face further challenges from Obama's DOJ?

Then again, Clinton signed the damn thing, AND the DOMA in the first place...

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Horray! DADT is back thanks to the administration valiantly fighting to preserve it! Great job, everyone.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Whose side is he on when a REPUBLICAN group challenges an anti-gay law and WINS only to face further challenges from Obama's DOJ?
Maybe he tries to look out for the interests of both sides?

"There's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America." ~Obama

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe he's a backstabbing piece of Mierda who only wants gay votes, not gay rights.

Seems more likely given the otherwise extremely partisan politics of his administration.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2