Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama loses 11 points in a week among women.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Carrieyazel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:39 PM
Original message
Obama loses 11 points in a week among women.
One week ago Obama held a 51%-45% lead in the Rasmussen national tracking poll after getting a solid convention bounce. Obama held a commanding 14-point lead with women over McCain in this poll.

Today McCain leads by 1 point in the overall poll, and Obama's lead among women is down to just 3 points.

So much for our talking points that women would see right through it. Our lame talking points need to be completely overhauled.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KathieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not buying it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Oh noes, we lost the woman vote to the cunning Sarrahcuda!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
33. sarrahcuda
LMAO! THat's almost as good as Mooselini. :spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. me either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Women will come around once the novelty wears off... right now, most women
don't know anything about her other than she's a "working mom".


Once we educate them, the numbers will move back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. It's sad if this is true that women as a gender need to be educated.
I am a male and I must say that there is not any issue held by Obama or McCain that I need to be educated on as a result of my gender. It would be sad if women could actually be so easily fooled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
51. Half of the LIVs in this country are women
(the other half are men)

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
39. "WHEEEEEEEEE! SHE'S JUST LIKE ME!!" was the sentiment
that I was hearing from a few of the "woman on the street" type interviews on NPR this morning. We have to somehow differentiate the true believers (who wouldn't be turned off by her field dressing a live kitten on TV) from the average, independent-type woman, who is still giddy from Palin's "new-car smell"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #39
59. Why would I want someone
"just like me" as VP? I want someone better than me, more experienced than me, smarter than me, calmer than me in that position.

Haven't we dumbed down our candidates enough by wanting them to be someone we could share a beer with? I don't want to have a beer with the president or vice president. That's just not important to me.

"She's just like me." Yeah, a moron. That will be a terrific addition to an administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerousRhythm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
63. As a woman, I'm very embarrassed that my fellow sisters could be so easily fooled.
It makes me sad. THINK, women, THINK.

And why will NOBODY call her out publicly, in a big way, on her Bridge To Nowhere and earmarks/pipeline lies? It's sickening. I know we pretty much only have Keith and Rachel to do this, but that is not enough. I wish someone like Letterman would do it, in a funny, BITING way of course, but it needs to get out there that she is an out and out LIAR. Not this "stretching the truth" crap, "LIE". The word is accurate. USE IT, you media bastards!

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rch35 Donating Member (658 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
64. but if we educate them they will just get uppity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. Were these "women" in red states or blue states?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not the Only One Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
24. Obama has to win red states, so what's your point?
What difference does it make?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
52. Well no, he doesn't have to win a single red state to win the election.
It would be nice if he could though.

That said, I wasn't trying to make a point, I was asking a question because I'd like to know what kind of women are fooled by someone like Palin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not the Only One Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #52
60. If he only wins blue Kerry states, he loses just like Kerry did
So what do you mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
55. No he doesn't have to win the red states
The fact is that we need to see if this shift was an aberration. If it is real and persistent, it does make a difference WHERE these women are. If he is now getting 90% rather than 60% of the women in Texas, Idaho and Utah and other impossibly red states - it doesn't matter - either way McCain gets the states. Likewise, it doesn't matter if Obama gets 90% of Il or MA versus 60%.

I don't believe the shift is real - it is usually the case that the bounce (of either party) after the convention drops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. That's it? Nice to see Obama is still winning among women voters.
Obama will regain most of them after the convention bounce wears off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. Stop with these polls
They're going to be all over the place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
potone Donating Member (359 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. Most women do not know what Palin stands for.
Once they do, they will be appalled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Epiphany4z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. true..because it would
be sexist to ask her questions :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. Just a couple days out from back-to-back conventions.
A volatile movement in the polls is to be expected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azmouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
9. I don't trust those results.
Not from the comments I've been reading on many different websites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. Who cares.
The election is November 4. It is September 8.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:42 PM
Original message
Media manipulation, and the public not knowing Palin. Seems gutsy choice, rather than reckless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicagoexpat Donating Member (843 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. yeah, right -- one poll reverses the trend; it has NOTHING to do with novelty & convention bounce
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 01:42 PM by chicagoexpat
I guess I better not even try to use my brain, whatever the polls tell me must be so
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
13. before getting all worked up lets see where the polls are in a week after McCain's bounce begins to
fade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
29. Thank you.. yep,
The big bounce was yesterday, and it is backing off.. looks to me that the Obama McCain are back to where they were pre conventions, which means in the overall look of it .. Palin has done nothing for McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. The usual sUsPect, MA'am. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texastoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
61. Oh, I just got it
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enki23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
15. so... women are fucking stupid. as are men. anyone surprised?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orestes Donating Member (543 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
45. Some people apparently are
Think they forgot that women are people, too, and can be just as stupid as all the other people in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
18. If he has indeed lost them (which I doubt)
he will gain them back as people become more aware of Sarah's Draconian social stands. Her "pro-lifeness" is at the extreme right fringe (no abortions even in cases of rape or incest) which in itself should be enough to turn most rational women away from her. Imagine your 13-year-old daughter has been raped by an uncle, for instance, and she ends up pregnant. Would any mother in her right mind want that child to carry the baby to term and then have to raise it herself (the mom, that is, because obviously the 13-year-old couldn't). How in the world would that work?

I think once Sarah's newness wears off, people will see her as she truly is and decide that she's not ready for prime time. We can handle her up here -- she's got enough enemies in her own party to take care of that, not to mention the Democrats and Independents -- but she shouldn't be turned loose on an unsuspecting nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
19. They'll give us another hearing...it's when men turn on you that you're fucked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redrobin Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
20. PALIN'S PIPELINE IS A LIE!
I'm a new poster here....they won't let me start a new thread
because they say I've not replied to enough first.

Please, SOMEONE, post this as a new thread. IT'S CRITICAL
NEWS:



THERE IS NO PALIN PIPELINE IN PLACE! SHE IS LYING AGAIN. GET
THIS ADDRESS OUT TO ALL THE BLOGS, PUNDITS YOU CAN, WE'VE GOT
TO GET THIS NEWS OUT:

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/palin_requests_talks_with_oil_executives
 
Palin requests talks with oil executives

Governor Sarah Palin has requested a conference call this
week with the CEO's of the major oil companies playing a role
in the potential development of Alaska's natural gas pipeline.

The requested participants include Tony Hayward from BP,
James Mulva from ConocoPhillips, Rex Tillerson from Exxon
along with others. According to my source, no one knows
exactly what the purpose of the call is, but some have never
the less speculated.

Last week in her address to the nation, Palin stepped far
over the line of truthiness (thanks Steven Colbert) when she
told the country, "I fought to bring about the largest
private-sector infrastructure project in North American
history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly
forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead
America to energy independence."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact the state has done little more to move the gas
pipeline forward over the last twenty months than to grant a
Canadian company $500 million to push paperwork with no
guarantee a pipeline will be built.

Anchorage Daily News reporter Wesley Loy reported last month;

Palin said in her press conference that the state never
before had commitments to build this line. Now we do. That's
incorrect.

TransCanada has not promised to actually build the gas line,
one of the state's grandest and most frustrated economic
development dreams.

The state license, awarded under the Alaska Gasline
Inducement Act, or AGIA, which the Legislature passed at
Palin's request last year, is not a construction contract and
does not guarantee a pipeline will be built."

Since becoming Alaska's governor in December of 2006, Palin's
administration has had a very combative relationship with the
oil & gas industry in Alaska and has ignored any attempts
to communicate with them on development issues.

When the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) was introduced
and passed by the legislature in 2007, the administration
refused to entertain suggestions from the producers to make
the process more commercially viable. At the end of the day
the state had crafted a proposal that ignored all legal and
fiscal realities.  

So instead of negotiating with the producers, the
administration said they'd rely on public and share holder
pressure to force three of the largest oil companies in the
world to commit to paying for the most expensive privately
financed project in the history of the United States.

Even United State Senator Ted Stevens raised serious concerns
 about the process back in March saying; "financing terms
won't be set by the legislature, the governor or the Congress.
They're going to be set by the people who manage the
money."

Today, the state has awarded a $500 million inducement and
exclusive rights to TransCanada, while their CEO is on record
as saying that they cannot order one piece of steel pipe
without first gaining the financial support from the oil
companies. "Nothing goes ahead unless Exxon is happy
with it," CEO Hal Kvisle told the Toronto Globe and Mail
in August.

So what could the agenda be on this requested phone call by
Governor Palin?

Compromising on Point Thomson

The state is currently in litigation with ExxonMobil over the
development of Point Thomson, a gas field critical to the
economics of the Alaska gas pipeline. Alaska has only two
recognized gas fields and both have always been thought to be
critical to make the economics of the gas pipeline work.

During legislative testimony in June, Exxon's Alaska
Production Manager Craig Haymes said, "for 3.5bcf a day
pipeline for 25 years, you need 45 to 50tcf. That's how much
gas you need for that commitment. Prudhoe Bay is only 25tcf.
That means you need another Prudhoe Bay if Point Thomson is
off the table." 

The producers including Exxon, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron
have stated in legislative testimony that without Point
Thomson, there will be no gas pipeline.

This spring, Exxon proposed a court ordered plan that would
have them spend $1.3 billion to develop the field to bring on
line to feed a gas pipeline. The Palin administration rejected
what everyone has called a reasonable and viable development
plan, because they don't trust Exxon. 

After rejecting Exxon's plan, the administration has
continued to pursue litigation and has rejected Exxon's
appeal for court ordered mediation.

One of the thoughts is that in the conference call Palin
could offer to drop the Point Thomson litigation in exchange
for the producers agreeing to participate in the AGIA
proposal to build a gas pipeline.

This creates problems as some companies like ConocoPhillips
have a small play in Point Thomson and a larger play in
Prudhoe Bay. In addition, it ignores the fact that AGIA just
simply won't work because the state's terms are too
perscriptive and TransCanada brings no value to the project. 

Also, the question was raised about Exxon's CEO Tillerson and
his willingness to participate in any discussions after his
company has taken such a rhetorical beating from Palin over
the last year. During a press conference last fall, Palin
stated that Exxon shouldn't let the door hit them on the way
out. 

But now, with the campaign trying to portray Palin as an
energy expert, she needs Exxon more than Exxon needs her.
Especially with the favored son of her gas pipeline strategy,
TransCanada, admitting that until Exxon is happy, the gas
pipeline will not happen. 

The shoe is clearly on the other foot. The question is how
does big oil, that Palin has claimed to be so tough on,
respond now that they clearly have the advantage.

 

Backing off the rhetoric of windfall profits tax

Another reason for the conference call could be to get an
agreement from oil company executives to shelve the rhetoric
about the windfall profits tax Palin signed as governor last
December.

In September of 2007, Palin proposed a $750 million dollar
tax increase on the industry. For weeks her administration
travelled the state convincing Alaskans that the tax hike was
justified and it would not impact development.

When the tax was eventually passed by the Alaska State
Legislature two months later, the increase had gone from $750
million to almost $2 billion and included a very steep
progressive tax component based on the increased price of a
barrel of oil.

Otherwise known as a windfall profits tax.

When asked about the massive increase from her original 
proposal as she was preparing to sign the legislation in
December, she commented to KTUU news that is was close enough
to what she originally proposed. 

Over the last nine months companies have been outspoken about
the impacts on Alaska's oil production at a time when
production is dropping between 6 and 8 percent per year.

In July, BP announced it's new development, Liberty, which is
a development entirely on federal land. The state will get no
production taxes and only a small amount of royalty over the
life of the project.

The new 90% ACES marginal tax rate does not make investing on
state land worthwhile, even with the tax credits. During the
ACES debate all the Palin administration focused on was
whether investors could make money under ACES. The question
they never examined was whether you could make more money
somewhere else.

Doug Suttles, BP Alaska's president, said due to the Governor
Palin's hefty ACES oil production tax adopted by the
legislature last fall, Liberty would not have been developed
on state land.

If this were on state lands, its doubtful wed have been
able to move it forward, Suttles said. Alaska is a very
high-cost environment for the industry."

Quite possibly, Palin wants oil companies to tone down the
rhetoric about Alaska's tax environment as she is trying to
position herself as having the energy answers. 

 

Opening communications

In two different interviews with Alaska oil company
executives over the last two weeks both have said they same
thing; currently there is no communication between the Palin
administration and the oil companies. No front channel, no
back channel...nothing.

With Palin now on the national stage, one of the thoughts
could be she wants to appear to be having a dialogue with the
same big oil she claims to have been getting tough with during
her term as governor.

"And despite fierce opposition from oil company
lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we
broke their monopoly on power and resources", Palin told
Americans on Wednesday night.

Again, nothing could be further from the truth. 

These companies hold hydrocarbon leases that were issued
decades ago. These leases granted them legal rights to
develop the oil and gas resources on state leased land and no
political speech changed that legal reality.

The bottom line is the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline won't be
built until the state sits down and negotiates a fiscal
framework that defines the resource extraction terms for
natural gas. So far this administration has refused to hold
any discussions with the industry and has instead decided to
spend $500 million of tax payer money propping up a straw man
with hopes they'll force the oil companies to cave.

Like many, I have been critical of this process. It's been
further aggravated by the administration's refusal to engage
in good faith negotiations, while relying on public support
for supposedly standing up to big oil. The reality is they've
doing little more than ignore both fiscal and legal realities
while risking delays at a time when inflation is driving up
the cost of construction.  

If in fact the governor is requesting this conference call to
finally open lines of communications with these companies,
that's good for the state and the country.

Or maybe the call is a public relations stunt...    

Over the last few days we've heard from both John McCain and
his campaign staff, promoting the idea that Governor Palin
has been tough on big oil.

Even Palin herself on the campaign website stated, "I've
stood up to the old politics as usual, to the special
interests, to the lobbyists, the Big Oil companies and the
'good old boy' network."

Possibly, the reason for the call could be to enhance the
image of a maverick governor telling big oil how the cow eats
the grass. This might play well in Peoria, but it won't do
anything to move the industry forward and build a gas
pipeline.

As governor for the last 20 months, Palin has consistently
criticized the oil companies for "sitting on Alaska's
gas reserves for the last thirty years." 

This is factually incorrect.

Due to the expense of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, the
price of natural gas didn't even reach a level that allowed
for serious consideration of the project until 2002.

Over the last five years, oil companies have been working on
trying to develop the gas pipeline. In 2003, the Alaska State
Legislature unanimously reauthorized the Stranded Gas
Development Act. In 2004, the federal government passed the
Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act that created rules and
incentives the project. In 2005 & 06 the oil companies
negotiated a deal with the former governor that was not acted
upon by the legislature.

When Palin was elected in 2006, she took a different route,
instead attempting to bypass the oil companies and deal with
an independent pipeline company who has neither the balance
sheet or the necessary gas reserves to make the project
happen.

In addition, the state agency (AOGCC) that regulates the
development of hydrocarbons to prevent waste, testified that
even  if a natural gas pipeline was available today, they
wouldn't allow enough gas to be sold to make it viable
because the gas is still needed to help extract oil. With an
estimated 3 billion barrels of oil still remaining in the
ground on the North Slope and oil being worth much more than
gas, permission to sell the gas would be denied.

So while the rhetoric may sound good to energy starved
Americans about how big oil has been sitting on Alaska's gas
reserves for the last thirty years....the economic reality is
much different. 

The fact is these companies don't make decisions based on
politics they make decisions based on economics. If they did
base decisions on political pressure, the Exxon Valdez
punitive damages case would have been settled over a decade
ago. 

Public Opinion

A recent opinion poll conducted by The Cromer Group between
August 18 - 21, shows by a margin of three to one, Alaskan's
believe the producers Denali gas pipeline project is better
for the state than the governor's TransCanada proposal.

In fact, polling results reveal the more Alaskans understand
the TransCanada proposal, the more they say the deal is too
risky.

Two questions which asked Alaskans how they felt about
TransCanada's idea to appeal to Congress for financial help
with the project drew the most concern.

Congress passed a loan guarantee for $18 million dollars in
2004 to help promote the development and building of the gas
pipeline. But TransCanada proposes to use that $18 million
dollars, not to get going, which is the purpose of the loan,
but to use some portion of the money to cover its cost
overruns. What this means is TransCanada is asking US
taxpayers to pay for any cost overruns of the project that
TransCanada is managing. Do you feel(READ LIST)


1. The risk was too high and should not have been taken,
or/57%

2. The risk was worth it and should have been taken?/13%

3. Dont see this as a risk /9%

4. Cant Say /21%

 

TransCanadas plan asks for the U.S. Government to assume
some of the project risk by agreeing to pay billions of
dollars in pipeline transportation fees as a bridge
shipper, in case initial gas commitments from the major oil
companies are not enough to run the gas line at full
capacity. Do you feel(READ LIST)


1. The risk was too high and should not have been taken,
or/53%

2. The risk was worth it and should have been taken?/16%

3. Dont see this as a risk /6%

4. Cant Say /26%


And in the end, disregarding all the problems, all the ifs,
ands, or buts  which is your own personal favorite? Is it
the (ROTATE) Denali Alaska Gas Pipeline Project; the AGIA
-TransCanada Gas Pipeline Project; or the All-Alaska Port
Authority Gasline Project? 


1. Denali Alaska Gas Pipeline Project/45%

2. AGIA-TransCanada Project/15%

3. All-Alaska Port Authority Gasline Project/9%

4. None of these /3%

5. Cant Say/28%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
21. Balderdash
We need to stop looking at the polls... Rasmussen is the worst of the worst... the poll questions are misleading, and the results rarely have any merit.

Remember, "they" need this race to be close so they can try to steal it again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
22. Who is "our"?
What do you want US to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
23. Many of those are probably Repug women "coming home"
We have to remember how UNENTHUSED the Repug base
was to BombBomb. Now he's got the base firmly
behind him, but there are still fewer voters who
self-identify as "R"s this year so we have the
natural advantage. I can't imagine there being
many Democratic women who will admit to voting
for BombBomb/Barracuda once they discover how
rightwing her views are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katmondoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
25. Women are gushing over baby Trig
Must start talking about supporting the special needs kids. This is what a lot of women see in Palin, her special needs child and what a great mom she must be. Gag me but that is it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
57. Don't worry - she's on record CUTTING funds for special needs kids
and that will get out.

It will only highlight the "I got mine, fuck you jack" attitude of the republicans. HER special needs kid will be well taken care of. Yours? Not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
26. That can't be right unless the PUMA/Repukes in Sheep's Clothing
were waiting for the signal to switch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redrobin Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
27. OK BLOGGERS, GET THIS NEWS OUT ABOUT PALIN ASAP!
I'm a new poster here. They won't let me start a new thread because they say I've not replied to enough others yet.

Please, SOMEONE post this as a new thread, it's critical information about Palin lying, AGAIN.


There is NO Palin pipeline in place!!!!!!!! GET THIS INFO OUT TO ALL THE PUNDITS, BLOGS YOU CAN.
WE'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GROWING PALIN SNOWBALL, AND HERE'S ANOTHER LIE THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT.



http://www.andrewhalcro.com/palin_requests_talks_with_o...

Palin requests talks with oil executives


Governor Sarah Palin has requested a conference call this week with the CEO's of the major oil companies playing a role in the potential development of Alaska's natural gas pipeline.

The requested participants include Tony Hayward from BP, James Mulva from ConocoPhillips, Rex Tillerson from Exxon along with others. According to my source, no one knows exactly what the purpose of the call is, but some have never the less speculated.

Last week in her address to the nation, Palin stepped far over the line of truthiness (thanks Steven Colbert) when she told the country, "I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact the state has done little more to move the gas pipeline forward over the last twenty months than to grant a Canadian company $500 million to push paperwork with no guarantee a pipeline will be built.

Anchorage Daily News reporter Wesley Loy reported last month;

Palin said in her press conference that the state never before had commitments to build this line. Now we do. That's incorrect.

TransCanada has not promised to actually build the gas line, one of the state's grandest and most frustrated economic development dreams.

The state license, awarded under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, or AGIA, which the Legislature passed at Palin's request last year, is not a construction contract and does not guarantee a pipeline will be built."

Since becoming Alaska's governor in December of 2006, Palin's administration has had a very combative relationship with the oil & gas industry in Alaska and has ignored any attempts to communicate with them on development issues.

When the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) was introduced and passed by the legislature in 2007, the administration refused to entertain suggestions from the producers to make the process more commercially viable. At the end of the day the state had crafted a proposal that ignored all legal and fiscal realities.

So instead of negotiating with the producers, the administration said they'd rely on public and share holder pressure to force three of the largest oil companies in the world to commit to paying for the most expensive privately financed project in the history of the United States.

Even United State Senator Ted Stevens raised serious concerns about the process back in March saying; "financing terms won't be set by the legislature, the governor or the Congress. They're going to be set by the people who manage the money."

Today, the state has awarded a $500 million inducement and exclusive rights to TransCanada, while their CEO is on record as saying that they cannot order one piece of steel pipe without first gaining the financial support from the oil companies. "Nothing goes ahead unless Exxon is happy with it," CEO Hal Kvisle told the Toronto Globe and Mail in August.

So what could the agenda be on this requested phone call by Governor Palin?

Compromising on Point Thomson

The state is currently in litigation with ExxonMobil over the development of Point Thomson, a gas field critical to the economics of the Alaska gas pipeline. Alaska has only two recognized gas fields and both have always been thought to be critical to make the economics of the gas pipeline work.

During legislative testimony in June, Exxon's Alaska Production Manager Craig Haymes said, "for 3.5bcf a day pipeline for 25 years, you need 45 to 50tcf. That's how much gas you need for that commitment. Prudhoe Bay is only 25tcf. That means you need another Prudhoe Bay if Point Thomson is off the table."

The producers including Exxon, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron have stated in legislative testimony that without Point Thomson, there will be no gas pipeline.

This spring, Exxon proposed a court ordered plan that would have them spend $1.3 billion to develop the field to bring on line to feed a gas pipeline. The Palin administration rejected what everyone has called a reasonable and viable development plan, because they don't trust Exxon.

After rejecting Exxon's plan, the administration has continued to pursue litigation and has rejected Exxon's appeal for court ordered mediation.

One of the thoughts is that in the conference call Palin could offer to drop the Point Thomson litigation in exchange for the producers agreeing to participate in the AGIA proposal to build a gas pipeline.

This creates problems as some companies like ConocoPhillips have a small play in Point Thomson and a larger play in Prudhoe Bay. In addition, it ignores the fact that AGIA just simply won't work because the state's terms are too perscriptive and TransCanada brings no value to the project.

Also, the question was raised about Exxon's CEO Tillerson and his willingness to participate in any discussions after his company has taken such a rhetorical beating from Palin over the last year. During a press conference last fall, Palin stated that Exxon shouldn't let the door hit them on the way out.

But now, with the campaign trying to portray Palin as an energy expert, she needs Exxon more than Exxon needs her. Especially with the favored son of her gas pipeline strategy, TransCanada, admitting that until Exxon is happy, the gas pipeline will not happen.

The shoe is clearly on the other foot. The question is how does big oil, that Palin has claimed to be so tough on, respond now that they clearly have the advantage.



Backing off the rhetoric of windfall profits tax

Another reason for the conference call could be to get an agreement from oil company executives to shelve the rhetoric about the windfall profits tax Palin signed as governor last December.

In September of 2007, Palin proposed a $750 million dollar tax increase on the industry. For weeks her administration travelled the state convincing Alaskans that the tax hike was justified and it would not impact development.

When the tax was eventually passed by the Alaska State Legislature two months later, the increase had gone from $750 million to almost $2 billion and included a very steep progressive tax component based on the increased price of a barrel of oil.

Otherwise known as a windfall profits tax.

When asked about the massive increase from her original proposal as she was preparing to sign the legislation in December, she commented to KTUU news that is was close enough to what she originally proposed.

Over the last nine months companies have been outspoken about the impacts on Alaska's oil production at a time when production is dropping between 6 and 8 percent per year.

In July, BP announced it's new development, Liberty, which is a development entirely on federal land. The state will get no production taxes and only a small amount of royalty over the life of the project.

The new 90% ACES marginal tax rate does not make investing on state land worthwhile, even with the tax credits. During the ACES debate all the Palin administration focused on was whether investors could make money under ACES. The question they never examined was whether you could make more money somewhere else.

Doug Suttles, BP Alaska's president, said due to the Governor Palin's hefty ACES oil production tax adopted by the legislature last fall, Liberty would not have been developed on state land.

If this were on state lands, its doubtful wed have been able to move it forward, Suttles said. Alaska is a very high-cost environment for the industry."

Quite possibly, Palin wants oil companies to tone down the rhetoric about Alaska's tax environment as she is trying to position herself as having the energy answers.



Opening communications

In two different interviews with Alaska oil company executives over the last two weeks both have said they same thing; currently there is no communication between the Palin administration and the oil companies. No front channel, no back channel...nothing.

With Palin now on the national stage, one of the thoughts could be she wants to appear to be having a dialogue with the same big oil she claims to have been getting tough with during her term as governor.

"And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources", Palin told Americans on Wednesday night.

Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

These companies hold hydrocarbon leases that were issued decades ago. These leases granted them legal rights to develop the oil and gas resources on state leased land and no political speech changed that legal reality.

The bottom line is the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline won't be built until the state sits down and negotiates a fiscal framework that defines the resource extraction terms for natural gas. So far this administration has refused to hold any discussions with the industry and has instead decided to spend $500 million of tax payer money propping up a straw man with hopes they'll force the oil companies to cave.

Like many, I have been critical of this process. It's been further aggravated by the administration's refusal to engage in good faith negotiations, while relying on public support for supposedly standing up to big oil. The reality is they've doing little more than ignore both fiscal and legal realities while risking delays at a time when inflation is driving up the cost of construction.

If in fact the governor is requesting this conference call to finally open lines of communications with these companies, that's good for the state and the country.

Or maybe the call is a public relations stunt...

Over the last few days we've heard from both John McCain and his campaign staff, promoting the idea that Governor Palin has been tough on big oil.

Even Palin herself on the campaign website stated, "I've stood up to the old politics as usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the Big Oil companies and the 'good old boy' network."

Possibly, the reason for the call could be to enhance the image of a maverick governor telling big oil how the cow eats the grass. This might play well in Peoria, but it won't do anything to move the industry forward and build a gas pipeline.

As governor for the last 20 months, Palin has consistently criticized the oil companies for "sitting on Alaska's gas reserves for the last thirty years."

This is factually incorrect.

Due to the expense of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, the price of natural gas didn't even reach a level that allowed for serious consideration of the project until 2002.

Over the last five years, oil companies have been working on trying to develop the gas pipeline. In 2003, the Alaska State Legislature unanimously reauthorized the Stranded Gas Development Act. In 2004, the federal government passed the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act that created rules and incentives the project. In 2005 & 06 the oil companies negotiated a deal with the former governor that was not acted upon by the legislature.

When Palin was elected in 2006, she took a different route, instead attempting to bypass the oil companies and deal with an independent pipeline company who has neither the balance sheet or the necessary gas reserves to make the project happen.

In addition, the state agency (AOGCC) that regulates the development of hydrocarbons to prevent waste, testified that even if a natural gas pipeline was available today, they wouldn't allow enough gas to be sold to make it viable because the gas is still needed to help extract oil. With an estimated 3 billion barrels of oil still remaining in the ground on the North Slope and oil being worth much more than gas, permission to sell the gas would be denied.

So while the rhetoric may sound good to energy starved Americans about how big oil has been sitting on Alaska's gas reserves for the last thirty years....the economic reality is much different.

The fact is these companies don't make decisions based on politics they make decisions based on economics. If they did base decisions on political pressure, the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case would have been settled over a decade ago.

Public Opinion

A recent opinion poll conducted by The Cromer Group between August 18 - 21, shows by a margin of three to one, Alaskan's believe the producers Denali gas pipeline project is better for the state than the governor's TransCanada proposal.

In fact, polling results reveal the more Alaskans understand the TransCanada proposal, the more they say the deal is too risky.

Two questions which asked Alaskans how they felt about TransCanada's idea to appeal to Congress for financial help with the project drew the most concern.

Congress passed a loan guarantee for $18 million dollars in 2004 to help promote the development and building of the gas pipeline. But TransCanada proposes to use that $18 million dollars, not to get going, which is the purpose of the loan, but to use some portion of the money to cover its cost overruns. What this means is TransCanada is asking US taxpayers to pay for any cost overruns of the project that TransCanada is managing. Do you feel(READ LIST)


1. The risk was too high and should not have been taken, or/57%

2. The risk was worth it and should have been taken?/13%

3. Dont see this as a risk /9%

4. Cant Say /21%



TransCanadas plan asks for the U.S. Government to assume some of the project risk by agreeing to pay billions of dollars in pipeline transportation fees as a bridge shipper, in case initial gas commitments from the major oil companies are not enough to run the gas line at full capacity. Do you feel(READ LIST)


1. The risk was too high and should not have been taken, or/53%

2. The risk was worth it and should have been taken?/16%

3. Dont see this as a risk /6%

4. Cant Say /26%


And in the end, disregarding all the problems, all the ifs, ands, or buts which is your own personal favorite? Is it the (ROTATE) Denali Alaska Gas Pipeline Project; the AGIA -TransCanada Gas Pipeline Project; or the All-Alaska Port Authority Gasline Project?


1. Denali Alaska Gas Pipeline Project/45%

2. AGIA-TransCanada Project/15%

3. All-Alaska Port Authority Gasline Project/9%

4. None of these /3%

5. Cant Say/28%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
44. This is yet another lie that Palin was pushing even this morning on the stump
I saw her telling this lie again this morning, speaking next to McCain. Palin continues to lie about this. In her convention speech and in her speeches since then, she continues to claim that she concluded a "deal" to establish the single biggest private infrastructure project in American history: a trans-Alaskan natural gas pipeline. That sounds impressive to the ear of the average voter ("single biggest private infrastructure project in American history).

Actually what happened is that the Alaska state legislature agreed to issue a license or permit to the TransCanada company to build the pipeline. They haven't agreed to a contract or any terms. TransCanada is waiting for Exxon/Mobil to provide the money. There is not deal, just the licensing to conclude a deal. It's an out-and-out gigantic lie. It's been estimated that even if the deal were concluded today, the pipeline wouldn't be completed until 2018.

I already posted this story earlier this morning but didn't get a single response. I think the problem is that there are just too many stories about Palin's whopping lies that she continues to tell. It's impossible to keep up with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
budkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
28. It just makes me sick
If they would actually look at her beliefs they would be horrified. I hope they come around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
30. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
31. Pitbull Hockey Mom, meet
the bobcat from the Midwest, Hillary Clinton.
Hillary hits the trail this week. She'll whittle the Palin effect down, don't you worry, Little Missy.
Have some faith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
32. Lies, damned and statistics. Mooselini will be seen for what she is soon enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluegrassDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
34. I love how all these former Hillary supporters are coming out of the woodwork now
And without nary a good thing to say. I'm so sick of these 'concern' trolls only coming out at the hint of bad news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
36. Dear God No!!!!!!!!!!!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
37. Palin's the flavor of the month
Her 15 minutes will be up shortly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thewiseguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
38. Havent DUers realized the poster is in the business of hit and run posts?
This is not her first time. She comes in and posts a poll that does not look good for us alongside a cheap shot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. I did long ago--but that's how it gets away with the hate. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #38
62. Makes ya wonder why they're still here. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #38
70. Are you talking about a "concern troll?"
This one won't answer any questions that her post generates. Hit and run, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
40. Jeezus! Just relax
Anytime anyone dominates the news for an entire week they are going to get a big boost in the polls. Obama's would have been even larger had McCain not cut it short with the naming of Palin as his veep candidate.

Give it until Friday at least for all the hoopla to die out and then let's see where we are before doing the Chicken Little routine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BumRushDaShow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
41. The Obama "McLame is anti-choice" ads have been running fast and furious
in selected states since last Friday morning. Those figures should change eventually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
43. Oh golly oh golly oh golly !! The other polls must be wrong then !!
Sitcom Sarah got a bounce !! OMG !!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Special targeted sampling.
Need news to back up marketing of Sitcom Sarah.
Golly Gals Like the Little Lady ! Lookie here !


Chill please.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hard Leftt Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
46. Poll
Stupid bounce poll. Obama will trounce Cain in the women's vote. Only the cattiest of Pumas will vote Cain, my guess 5-7% of PUMAS, which will be CRUSHED by the new voter/young turnout for Obama. The PUMAS will be a footnote and relegated to the dustbin of history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TooRaLoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
47. And many of them will be back.
Once they find out what Palin's all about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
48. Don't lose sleep over it. Battleground polls are the only ones that really count.
And Obama is still doing well in those and leading McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
49. Get out and TALK to women, then. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndElectoral Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
50. I can't beleive women would simply vote for Cheney policies becasue it's presented in a skirt.
Which woman shifted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
53. LMAO. I must admit. I didn't think women would fall for it. And they did. Unreal
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 02:26 PM by BrentTaylor
This man has one of the worst records of anyone on Womens Rights. Even voted against the violence against women act. And picking Palin makes them forget about all that? LOL. wow just wow. The people in the this country............wow just wow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
54. Total BS! The pollsters are NOT polling cellphone users!
And all we are seeing is a slight bump after the RNC.....

It will average out, imho, and after the VP debates, Obama will be up again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
56. According to CNN there was ZERO shift for women. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texastoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
58. I don't believe that
Most working women I know don't like her. The fundies I know think she should be home with her children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
65. Yes, the MSM is playing up the "balancing motherhood with VP duties" garbage
Let's hope it wears off when women realize she is anti-choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
faithfulcitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
66. Don't sweat it, they'll be back. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azmouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. They never went away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
68. When a woman tells you they like her cuz she's "real", as them HOW that fixes the economy, precisely
That's my new mantra to anyone that likes Palin because she's a freakin' hockey mom, or she's a mom, or "real." I ask them to explain PRECISELY how that will fix the economy or get us out of Iraq. How about deal with the worsening problem in Georgia, or Iran. How about negotiating treaties?

Ask them to detail exactly what her anatomy has to do with being the leader of the free world, if the sitauation requires it.

Hey, I'm a mom... but I frankly find that sometimes the media and other females have pushed the idea that raising kids qualifies you for everything else to a point of ridiculousness. Yeah, t's hard, but it doesn't make you a saint or a superwoman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barack the house Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
69. I think we just need to print out more picture of palin and her road kill then post all over town.->
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 03:06 PM by barack the house
Women with any kind of heart or connection to the feminine spirit of nurture will then understand who she is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
71. add my name to the list of those who ain't buying it....
I absolutely refuse to believe that "women" as a whole, would be that much in favor of shooting themselves in the foot...and IF, by some slight chance there is any truth to it....then NO woman should ever run for president...because IF we are THAT stupid, we shouldn't be permitted....it's just that simple....wb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
72. Bullshit.
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 Sep 17th 2014, 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC