Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nebraska Legislature passes statewide smoking ban

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 » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 07:50 PM
Original message
Nebraska Legislature passes statewide smoking ban
Source: Omaha World Herald

BY MARTHA STODDARD

LINCOLN The Legislature today cleared the air in all public buildings and workplaces across the state.

Voting 34-14, lawmakers passed Legislative Bill 395 after cutting off a last-minute filibuster by the bill's opponents.

Introduced by State Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney, LB 395 is modeled after Lincoln's smoking ban.

If signed into law by Gov. Dave Heineman, it would prohibit smoking in all public buildings and workplaces statewide, including bars and restaurants.


Read more: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=102653...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bluzmann57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Coming soon to a state near you
More and more states are going toward a smoking ban in public buildings, etc. I am a non smoker and I think it smacks of big brotherism. Although, if a person can't enjoy a joint in public...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. and the march towards fascism continues
this kind of stuff makes me very sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TransitJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. It all started
with the seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws. I think you ought to be free to be a stupid as you want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I will point out one thing, helmet laws are weaker now then they have been in decades
Edited on Fri Feb-22-08 09:16 PM by wuushew
I would like to bring attention to that, since people are fond of mentioning the slippery slope meme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. My Daughters Had A Friend Who Was Free To Be Stupid.

She decided she didn't have to wear a seatbelt one afternoon. She was 17, and it was a closed-casket funeral.

Hope that makes your hyper-libertarian heart go pitty-pat with joy......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. my mom was in a car wreck, if she'd been wearing her seat belt she would have been killed
so it goes both ways. The bottom line is people need to decide for themselves, not Big Brother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Same thing happened to me
they told me I was lucky I was not wearing mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. So, Do You Now Urge Your Family And Friends.....
....not to wear seatbelts, based on the one lucky experience you had?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. No, but I am an adult
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 01:55 AM by Mojorabbit
and would like to make my own decision on whether or not to wear one instead of govt deciding for me.
I don't go around telling people what to do in their personal lives and that includes encourging them to wear seatbelts or not to wear seatbelts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. Same thing happened to me. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElboRuum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Oh please...
Sorry about your daughter's friend.

She chose not to wear the belt. She died. From a decision she made. She's lucky. I'd like the same opportunity to choose my fate, but if this nanny crap continues, none of us will have that luxury.

Forced health and safety by government fiat. How... Orwellian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. "She's Lucky"

Fuck you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
35. I do as well as long as it doesn't involve me
You want to smoke fine and dandy. No one is saying you can't. But why must you insist upon forcing me to partake with you. Why should three quarters of the population be made to suffer the harmful whims of one quarter? To me it is no different than me walking up to you in a restaurant and pissing all over your meal. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? Fascism I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #35
52. I don't see why it can't be left up to the bar / restaurant owner.
Nobody has to go in there and If enough people stay away the owner will change the policy. Georgia law prohibits smoking in public places where minors are allowed. A famous bar/restraint, Manuals Tavern, stopped admitting minors so they could allow smoking. Now they have reversed their policy. I can only assume that they did it to maximize their profits.

Protecting children is one thing. Protecting adults from themselves is another.
Freedom in action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
26. Nothing fascist about being free from carcinogens
Ironically, the opposite is true- it's smokers who would be the oppressors, by forcing their filthy habit (and its potential consequences) on others, rather than simply stepping outside.

Oh, I know- that's too much of an imposition....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. poppycock... life is a carcinogen
any law that removes a human beings right to choose is a fascist oppressive law. There's nothing at all progressive about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. What about asthma?
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 06:44 AM by depakid
Yep- you're "free" to give people asthma, too via your habit. Sorry- but your right STOPS where others' noses begin.

Not only is that rational public policy, it's pretty much the basis for any civil society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. hardly
it's the basis for a police state. It's the same coin as many of the policies the GOP pushes in their agenda, just a different side of the coin. People are humans. We are not automatons. You cannot remove all the nasties from life, because at that point, it isn't life anymore. It is simply existence for the sake of the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. You're basically making anarchist arguments
Next thing you know, you'll be saying its your freedom to dump sewage into the watershed, because you can't be bothered to build a septic tank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Well, I'll admit to being a bit of an anarchist -- strictly in the intellectual sense -- however
there is a difference. All I'm saying is that it should be up to the owner of an establishment whether he/she allows people to smoke on the premises. I don't really have as much of a problem with not allowing smoking in office spaces, as people don't have a choice, although I think it would be fair if they gave people a place to smoke there, rather than standing outside the building, and I think you have to be very clear about what constitutes office space. I think a blanket law that covers bars and restaurants, though, is going overboard, and ultimately leads to a nanny state. There is historical precedent for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #28
42. Then what about car emissions?
Aren't they even more dangerous to asthmatics than cigarette smoke?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Yeah, what about car exhaust?
Us tyrannical nanny staters are making cars ever cleaner and once electrics are adopted your straw man will finally die.

Cigarettes more polluting than diesel exhaust

The air pollution emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust, a small Italian study finds.

Researchers compared the particulate matter in the exhaust fumes from a modern car engine, fuelled with low-sulphur diesel, and in cigarette smoke. Three smouldering cigarettes produced a 10-fold increase in air particles compared to those produced by the idling vehicle.

I was very surprised. We didnt expect to find such a big difference in the particulate matter produced, says Giovanni Invernizzi from the Tobacco Control Unit of Italys National Cancer Institute in Milan, who led the study.

Ivan Vince, an air pollution expert from Ask Consultants in London, UK, says the findings are reasonable. He notes that cigarettes give off a lot more respirable particulates than the new generation of low-sulphur diesels, which help cut particulate emissions.



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6312-cigarettes-m...



California's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program defines automotive emission standards which are stricter than the United States' national "Tier" regulations. There have been two major phases. The first began in the 1990s and ended when the Low Emission Vehicle II (LEV II) standards began to be phased in for 2004. Several states other than California now use the same restrictions. These include Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington and are frequently referred to as "CARB states" in automotive discussions since the regulations are defined by the California Air Resources Board.

The first LEV standard created six major emission categories, each with several targets available depending on vehicle weight and cargo capacity. Vehicles with a test weight up to 14,000 pounds (6,350 kg) were covered by the regulations. The major emission categories were:

Tier I least restrictive, based on national regulations
TLEV Transitional Low Emission Vehicle
LEV Low Emission Vehicle
ULEV Ultra Low Emission Vehicle
SULEV Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Emission_Vehicle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #27
51. YOU ARE TAKING MY CHOICE. I choose to not have my
body exposed to second hand smoke!! A child trapped around someone smoking has their choices taken away from them! I am so sick of hearing about how smokers have the right to blow smoke that is deadly around other people. Your right to swing your arm ends at the end of my nose, period!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RYOMYO Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NaturalHigh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. They're trying to push this through in Oklahoma as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BRLIB Donating Member (347 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. Businesses can massively pollute our air but the common man can't?
If we treated business the same way we should have an absolute ban on any toxic or offensive emissions from any industry!

Instead there is a standard, a PPM value for regulated chemicals. I say such a standard should exist for smoking. I have been to many places where ventilation systems effectively reduce concentrations by several orders of magnitude. And segregated smoking/nonsmoking effectively does the same, to some extent. Let's get to science instead of emotions here. I don't smoke but also don't think this is the correct path.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. I just saw a motorcyclist's life saved by his helmet.
And maybe I can move back to the midwest, where I was born and raised, and enjoy life in public places. California is paradise for those who wish to breathe smoke free air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. nebraska?
This is the first progressive thing I've seen Nebraska do in a long while.



Cher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. anti-smoking laws are not progressive, they're oppressive
don't kid yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Oppressive?

Keep the proven killer second hand smoke from reaching widows and orphans in public places. You can smoke in your home, car camper/trailer, etc... You just can't smoke inside a business or work place. This is more like a drunk driving law than a helmet law. It protects the public at large. The public is now over 75% non smokers in Ne. I sent a thank you to Mark Welsh that has worked tirelessly for years to make this happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #18
29. yes, oppressive. As a proponent of 'labor' I'd think you'd understand that
don't give me this crap about widows and orphans. People are people. We are tragically flawed creatures. Not automatons. Anti-smoking legislation has killed the bar business, by and large. It should be up to the owner, not the state, what kind of people he wants in his establishment. It is not progressive, it is oppressive. It is the same type of thing as the GOP rejecting gay marriage, just another side of the same coin. Any law that restricts humans from being human is an oppressive law. It is intellectually dishonest to proclaim otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #29
37. Labor promotes a safe work place

Need I say more on labor and the work place?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #18
39. The end point is an eventual ban
on smoking period. Great Britian is starting on alcohol. It always starts this way and then progresses. That is my problem with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. In other news from Nebraska ... (or Progressive MY ASS)
Concealed-weapons bill adopted
BY KEVIN O'HANLON / The Associated Press
Thursday, Mar 30, 2006 - 04:15:03 pm CST
Nebraska lawmakers approved a measure Thursday to allow Nebraskans to carry concealed weapons, which will make it the 48th state to allow people to pack hidden guns in some fashion.

The vote signaled the end of a 10-year effort to pass such a measure in Nebraska.

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/03/31/legislat...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. I am progrerssive
and am armed. I guess we have two different definitions of what progressive means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #17
38. Maybe not.
My argument is not with having weapons, but with concealing them.

Republicans want government off our back, unless they want to regulate something. It's hypocritical. The state should not dictate to localities. Omaha rejected the smoking ban on a local level, so now it's state-wide. It makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
14. Nebraska?
And Lincoln lead the way?

This is the sort of thing LIBERALS would do.

Are things................

CHANGING in America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #14
33. it is not liberal to make restrictive laws, it is fascist
just because a few progressives get off on telling others how to live, that doesn't make something inherently progressive. It is, in fact, regressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
16. And the only state in the union with a Unicameral legislature.
Edited on Fri Feb-22-08 10:31 PM by happyslug
I.e. ONLY ONE HOUSE. That house is the pre-1934 Senate of Nebraska. In 1934 the House of Representatives was abolished and all of its power was transferred to the Nebraska Senate. The Senate can passes a bill and then that bill goes directly to the Governor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-22-08 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
22. Here In The Adjoining State Of Colorado....
...such laws have been in effect for a while. And, sorry to disappoint all you frothing-at-the-mouth libertarians, but there aren't any jack-booted fascist stormtroopers goose-stepping down main street as a result (well, maybe in Colorado Springs, but that's another story). To the contrary, the no-smoking laws are quite popular, here. Those of you who equate the prohibition of a few smokes at a restaurant with the downfall of the republic really need to get some sort of perspective. Unless you just enjoy people laughing at you.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
48. I wouldn't agree they've been "quite popular"
But perhaps we simply poll at different bars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
25. Fascists
And no, i don't throw that word around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #25
34. As A Matter Of Fact, You ARE Throwing That Word Around
As a number of other posters are doing on this thread.

The plain fact of the matter is, not every restrictive measure implemented by government is bad. The same thinking that sees seatbelt and anti-smoking restrictions as fascistic was used to oppose child labor laws, anti-pollution regulations, fluoridation of water---there's an almost limitless list of beneficial things that were opposed on the same old Evil Fascistic Nanny State basis. It wasn't convincing in the past, and it isn't convincing, now.

Having said all that, let me just mention that the incipient presence of fascism in this country scares me to death right now. The shredding of major constitutional protections by the Bush regime---aided and abetted by a fearful public and a chickenshit Congress---has brought us to a perilous position that will be studied by historians for decades to come, and will take decades to make right. While you libertarians are getting your knickers in a knot about your sacred rights to get lung cancer or die in a car wreck, Dick Cheney marches onward. Quit pissing away your outrage on trivialities; if you want evidence of real and terrifying fascism on the rise, there are---God help us---a lot better examples of it right now.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #34
49. In other words
It's not fascism unless you disgree with it? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. It's Not Really Fascism Unless It's Really Fascism. (n/t)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
36. They are behind the times
... would prohibit smoking in all public buildings and workplaces statewide, including bars and restaurants.



been like that here for a year or so now.Maybe longer.

...yet they won't ban the $ale of tobacco ......

go figger
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. And those laws are being flouted:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2...

Cleveland underground clubs allowing smoking, sex

ASSOCIATED PRESS


CLEVELAND - Underground nightclubs where patrons can smoke freely and watch strippers after midnight have opened in some of the city's residential neighborhoods since the state began enforcing new restrictions on strip clubs and public smoking last year, police say.

Some of the nightclubs, also called "smokehouses," offer customers the opportunity to have sex with prostitutes, police said.

"They have succeeded in creating this underground, sleazy, cash-only business that cannot be regulated, taxed or secured by police," attorney Skip Lazzaro, who represents legal nightclubs, said.

Informants have told police that patrons are mostly white suburban men. Customers bring their own liquor, cigarettes, and cigars. A reference is sometimes required for entry, and doormen collect as much as $25.


...For what it's worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newfie11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. The smoking ban has not been signed yet
by our Governor and he says he has not made up his mind. On seat belts I would ask how many of you have worked in a busy ER? I have worked in level 1 trauma centers from California, Washington D.C. and Michigan and seat belts do save lives. I have heard the complaints at the Sturgis rally about helmets. How many of you have see a head injury that left that person a vegetable. I then with my taxes support him/her for the rest of their life. Do yourselves a favor and use what is out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. lol
Do yourselves a favor and use what is out there.

stupid is what stupid does.

It's one of the Darwin laws ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Probably the same bars the off duty cops go to
open 24 hrs....for some folks that is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
43. that just happened here in NM and the bar owners are all scrambling to
build patios

you drive by the clubs now and there's a ton of people in front just hanging out

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bilbo Heugan Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
44. Businesses will adjust - it takes time after a ban goes into effect.
Customer mix changes over time. Mitigating adjustments get made. Smokers feel victimized. Disease and death from 2nd hand smoke diminishes. Life is tough, then it gets tougher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jan 17th 2020, 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News 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