Warms the heart.
Hey Karl - what was that math you were talking about again?
Mwaahaaahaaahaaa
Sweet.
Betcha that's one stat you won't see on the talk shows.
Referenced on kos now. Thanks for the non-fuzzy math. The huge turnout is the real story tonight, and not just a sub-story about "how Obama won." The mismatch between the GOP turnout and the Democratic one (in a more difficult, time-consuming caucus process than the GOP one) says a lot about the whole nation. Iowa was considered a swing state in 2004; look at those numbers tonight.
VOTE FOR DR. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!!
>VOTE FOR DR. RON...
NO!!! I wont.. no matter how many ALL CAPS Multiple exclamation points you use.
Our weakest beat their best by nearly 2 to 1.
And Iowa Republicans have a high Fundie quotient, something that doesn't obtain in New Hampshire.
Tell me why Hubris Sonic. What am I missing. Support the Constitution. Save our Economy. Save our Troops. Actually "do" something about terrorism (the only means to thwart terrorism is to empower citizens Nothing else will ever work) Restore Freedom and Liberty. Restore property rights, Eliminate the illegal IRS.
Follow the law. Follow the Constitution. Thats all he is saying.
Tell me please why you won't vote for him?
Oh, he is a fucking racist.
Oooh! Can I play?
He's a libertarian - as long as you're not a woman who wants control of your reproductive system.
He's a libertarian - who wants a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning because that's unacceptable protest.
And the whole bigot thing...
"the only means to thwart terrorism is to empower citizens Nothing else will ever work"
what the fuck does that mean?
silly assed shit...
Ron Paul??? your are kidding right?!
next you will be telling me that the storm trooper site is a bastion of constitutional support and democracy, cause they sure do love them some ron paul over there...
ick
oh and sara said a lot quite well over at orcinus
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-pauls-
friends-in-black-and-white.html
As a former senator from Virgina said in a brief riff captured by Youtube,
"Welcome to the Real America."
-
Okay kids, let's not feed the stupid dumb-ass racist trolls.
Au contraire, Jesse.
We should feed the stupid racist trolls--TO THE ALLIGATORS! 
Check your History boys
He's a libertarian - as long as you're not a woman who wants control of your reproductive system.
--------------------
Whats that have to do with anything I stated. Personally as a Man I am not overly qualified on this subject but I know murder is murder. Abortion is murder. There is no arguing this there is no discussion to be had on this. Don't even try. NOW once you have accepted that ANY form of abortion is murder THEN lets discuss JUSTIFIED murder. That is the question at hand. NOW I am not sure about ron pauls stance but MINE is as such. If the pregnancy was not FORCED (ie rape etc..) and it was not Accidental (say one of them is neutered and oops it happens) OR its not "life threatening" to the mother. I think in any BUT those cases abortion SHOULD be illegal. ITS MURDER. A life is a life does not matter what STAGE its in. One creation has occurred as far as I am concerned its a sentient life form with all the rights that go along with such.
NOW if your raped. I am 100% pro choice If its an accident I am 100% pro choice as long as its done right away (not after 7 months)
If it THREATENS the life of the mother I am 100% Pro Choice no matter what stage the baby is in even 1 day from birth.
While I consider the baby to have FULL rights on inception WHEN you have TWO life forms competing for the same right the one who was there FIRST has first right. Thats the mother.
You do not want women to have control over there reproductive system. You want them to have UNRESTRICTED CONTROL over there reproductive system WITHOUT responsibility or consequences for there actions. If you go willy nilly having SEX and get pregnant how the hell is it that babies FAULT that you did that without considering the repercussions of that act? SO that kid should now DIE because you "didn't mean it" Your kidding right?
WITH RIGHTS/POWERS come RESPONSIBILITIES.
I will have to find out if ron paul agree's with me on this EVEN STILL its a VERY minor issue to me and I will explain why later.
---------------
He's a libertarian - who wants a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning because that's unacceptable protest.
---------------
Well he and I would have a fight over this one. BUT consider your words. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. He is not saying he wants to ban flag burning. HE WANTS TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY by amending the constitution. IF YOU WANT to alter our laws in such a way THAT is the only RIGHT way to do it. he is FULLY entitled to his opinions. So long as he does not shove them down my throat without due process.
NOW in this specific case he would lose no matter what since the only way to make flag burning illegal would be to violate the first amendment which is inviolate. IE you can not "remove" the first amendment its a RIGHT not a Privilege so it can not be "rescinded"
This is why I have NO concern about the Abortion issue. Because of his strict constitutional stance the only way he would "attempt" to impose his view on abortion issues is VIA the constitution and that is the Perfectly legal proper way of doing that. The People's will would come into this decision. We The People means you get what we the people want (within the bounds of the constitution) even if sometimes you disagree with it.
WHAT MORE can you ask of a presidential candidate except to FOLLOW the very law he will have to swear an OATH to in order to take office ???
SO WHAT if his views differ from yours. the ONE view that is all that SHOULD matter to you is that he will ABIDE by the stinking LAW which NOT ONE of the other candidates is so far willing to do COMPLETELY.
As to the other person. Can you clarify the racist comment? I am not aware of anything he has done that is racist? a url would be great I will have to look into that because its an important issue to me.
I do not have a problem with racism. Its part of being a competitive animal and we are after all animals. I DO have a problem with people ACTING on there racism thats were being an INTELLIGENT sentient animal comes in. So its important I know to what you are referring when you say he is a racist.
Oh, again Chris thats easy...
He hates brown people.....
read this carefully.... RACIST...
you and your kkk white power fuck friends can go fuck yourselves!
seriously... between me and you. I am happy to pry your gun from your cold dead fingers...
fuck ron paul with a large double headed black dildo
oh wait... was that feeding the trolls?
I just don't feel like taking all the time that would be required to list all the spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors in CT's last post.
I will content myself with saying that it reinforces my opinion of the average right-winger's intellectual capital.
While I don't feel like taking time, apparently CT didn't feel like taking his Ritalin. 
2:25--It's OK, HS. All you fed that one was the rhetorical equivalent of a "fist sandwich".
Chris Taylor -
You are one of the most verbose and idiotic **** sucking wretchpieces i've read in a long time.
Such concentration of stupidity shouldn't be reserved for just your comments here! Why don't you advertise them wherever you go? Then keep us apprised of how bad you're beaten would ya?
Edited By Siteowner
Brance,
We don't EVER use that word on this site. It's a banning offense. This is a one-time warning. Next time you're out of here.
--Jesse Wendel, Publisher.
Brance Faulkner :
Well all I can say to that is that I now have a slightly better understand about just how uneducated our populace really is. It explain a lot...
Oh joy.
Do you know what Huckabee means?
Huckabee means that some of our prominent Centrist reporters have to actually start talking to the Little People they've been channeling their own political prejudices through all these years.
Huckabee also means a serious knife fight between the christian Leaders who've chosen to go the Romney route in order to keep the gravy train moving down the tracks (and because they've been up against Huckabee on doctrinal issues before, and he's known to remember that stuff) and the ones who are with Huckabee and are knifing Romney.
Most delightfully, it means that Bob Jones is going to be gunning for the only reliable social conservative Christian on the ticket going in to SC.
My, I'm enjoying this.
Oh, and Chris Taylor?
I'd personally appreciate it a great deal if you'd make it your mission to advocate for Dr. Paul at as great a length as possible in every venue you can find.
Really. Work nights if you have to. I'd take it as a personal favor.
I think your views on race and gender would be most valuable, but your understanding of constitutional law would also be extremely helpful.
silly racists aside, quite a night! and thanks again for spot on coverage, HS.
Chris Taylor:
"Personally as a Man I am not overly qualified on this subject but I know murder is murder. Abortion is murder. There is no arguing this there is no discussion to be had on this. Don't even try. NOW once you have accepted that ANY form of abortion is murder THEN lets discuss JUSTIFIED murder."
What a way to close down debate!
**Sticks fingers in ears and yells "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA"**
Ok snark aside, you're right, as a man you're not overly qualified on the subject, then again neither am I which is why I accept that my opinions on the matter may be wrong. Again you're right that Murder is Murder but, the abortiion issue is very much up for debate. The root of the debate is when exactly does life begin? Does it begin when sperm meets egg? Does it begin if/when the zygote attaches to the uterine lining? Is a blastocyst a human being? Does life begin when the cells start to differentiate? Is it when the fetus begins to take shape as a human? Or is it when the baby takes his or her first breath?
These are all questions that must be answered definitively before debate can be effectively closed on the matter. In your mind it's muder, which is as arguable as the idea that until baby's first breath it is not fully human, not fully alive. Both are valid view points and can be argued a varied number of ways including biblically.
Anyways, hope you have a great day and realize that if you open your mind to the possibility that your opinion might be right or wrong you'll be open to a few more ideas.
"Well all I can say to that is that I now have a slightly better understand about just how uneducated our populace really is. It explain a lot..."
...Is this nigga serious?
hey chris...that whole batshit crazy is a point agenst paul...well taht and the fact that he hates brown people...sorry deal killer
Where did you get the raw results?
These are great numbers. Iowa has historically been a pink state (isolationist GOP a la Herbert Hoover, who was a hometown boy). According to the Iowa results, the Dems could run a yellow, mangy dog, and the GOP would be beaten like a drum--at least this year.
Folks are royally pissed at Bush et al. The Dems need to run like DEMS--stand for something and the votes will come. Huckabee only got the TRUE, Jesus-died-for-my-sins-so-you'd best-not-believe-in-evolution, kool-aid drinkers in the GOP. Obama, Edwards and Clinton got everyone else who could come out to caucus on a miserably cold night.
And Romney was so inept he couldn't even BUY the vote. From these NJ, that's truly pitiful. He's so bad he can't even buy his friends, which is what Jon Corzine did (meow! but it worked for him!)
Gonna be a great election cycle. As Steve G. would have said, "Pass the Popcorn."
I'm with Jeremy -- Can you point me to where you got the numbers? I want to post this info at my blog, too, but would like to have a reference. Thanks!
the numbers are publically available. I used this http://iowacaucusresults.com
but any Iowa vote count would work.
just divide the number of votes (i.e. delegates) that Obama, Edwards, Clinton got by the Total of votes cast in this case 356,000...
simple percentages....
Brance, trolls are fun. but not the c-word if you please.
tlg
Why do the idiot Ron Paulites come to a Democratic bastion to howl? Don't they know that they have more to worry about among the Republicans as far as the knife fight goes?
The racism of Ron Paul is enough of a deal killer for Dems while the anti-Reproductive Rights shit frosting sort of seals the tomb that is Ron Paul's candidacy.
Perhaps they were all dropped on their heads as children?
Wow. Love those numbers. Thanks for putting in the BIG letters so all can see...
Hubris Sonic -- thanks!
Never mind the stats, latest predictions here in Europe are that Bush will delay the airstrikes on Iran until September or October to galvanise Republican support behind a failing candidate.
I would not put my life savings on it, but its worth a small bet.
I think all three candidates are starting to get it. This is about a democratic tidal wave and turning the GOP into a permanent regional party
VOTE FOR DR. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!!
vote for skippy for president! he never uses capitals!
Ron Paul? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'd rather vote for a pile of old toe-nails. Libertarians? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Keep talking. Every time you open your mouth, more people are convinced your nuts....
I see this is a lead at Meme-orandum and wanted to say congrats you've arrived to deliver to the rest of us. xo Steve would tell you to get back to work. Then he'd turn away so you couldn't see his proud smile...
congrats on the Meme-orandum mention. You GNBers are delivering for all of us now, which is, I imagine, what Steve expected you would do. Thank you.
Yes, Chris Taylor, Ron Paul is a racist. See:
http://quinnell.us/index.php/
all..._is_nuts_part_4
---
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance." - Terry Pratchett
Daimeon - "The root of the debate is when exactly does life begin? Does it begin when sperm meets egg? Does it begin if/when the zygote attaches to the uterine lining? Is a blastocyst a human being? Does life begin when the cells start to differentiate? Is it when the fetus begins to take shape as a human? Or is it when the baby takes his or her first breath?"
As a matter of fact, life began about three and a half billion years ago and continues today. Since sperms and ova are living cells, life is simply transmitted via them through reproduction. We don't create life, we merely transmit it through procreation. So, each time Chris Taylor ejaculates when he masturbates, he is, according to his own criterion, de facto murdering half a billion half-babies on average.
Chris Taylor, if you are against aborion, don't have one. Abortion is the medical term for the termination or death of an embryo or fetus, whether spontaneous and natural or induced.
Until men can carry out a pregnancy to its term, they have no say in what a woman does with her body.
Blue Gal -
Thanks. It's been six months, and we're working hard.
If you missed them, make sure you catch both the recent articles on Gilly:
NY Times Magazine: Steven Gilliard Jr.
The Writings of Steve Gilliard -- 101
We do miss him and think of him always.
"Until men can carry out a pregnancy to its term, they have no say in what a woman does with her body."
Which is fine BUT I CAN have a say in what you do with something that is NOT your body IE another life form. The fact that this life form resides INSIDE your body does not change this.
SO as long as you make the DECISION to have a child I WILL give a say in how that child is TREATED especially since it can not speak for itself.
Lets put up a theoretical. this is PURELY fiction but its to make a point.
You do something to me and it pisses me off and I decide I am going to kill you.
You are 25 years old. Someone shoots you. Is that murder? Off Course.
Remember PURELY FICTION. I go back in time to 7 months before your born and cause your mother to have an abortion.
Did I kill you? If you accept just for this example the "reality exemption" of time travel I do not see how you can disagree that I murdered you.
There are BILLIONS of people on this planet. Its a FAR GONE conclusion with little doubt that after inceptions comes A CHILD.
I am not overly religious but people say our rights are endowed by our creator. IE they are yours on inception. I say inception is when that embryo is formed.
There is no question that ending a life intentionally is murder. I said you can not argue this because its silly to argue this. Go look up the word murder. A soldier killing an enemy is murder. the state killing a prisoner is murder. Having an abortion is murder. PERIOD. its really not up for discussion unless you plan on altering the english language as we know it.
NOW there is JUSTIFIED MURDER. Defending your family or home by shooting an invader is JUSTIFIED. A soldier defending this country is JUSTIFIED.
Death Penalty? Well I consider it never justified. if the chance of wrongly killing an innocently convicted person is anything but 0% its unjustified to me but thats another issue
Abortion. WELL as I said its always murder. BUT sometimes murder is justified. Rape Unreasonable Accident Danger to mother.
BUT where do you draw the line? The question is NOT whether its murder or not. It is. The question up for debate is when is it justified and when it is NOT justified.
It makes me sick when I see a news article on a 19 year old girl who has sex without protection on either end willingly and at 5 to 6 months in changes her mind and decides I don't want this anymore. Thats NOT justified murder. Thats just plain murder.
So I am Pro Life when its appropriate and I am Pro Choice when its appropriate.
NOW as to Ron Paul the racist. If you consider him a racist JUST on what he stated in those quotes. Well theres not much hope for you now is there. Discussion with the likes of you is going to be impossible since you already made up your mind regardless of the facts. you think ANYONE who was against HOW we freed the slaves is a racist. Well consider. ONE thing he said is right. NOT ONE SINGLE OTHER NATION that went from Slavery to No Slavery has had to resort to Civil War to do so EXCEPT the USA.
Thats a Hard Fact. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Yes or No?
THERE WAS Amendments ON THE FLOOR to abolish slavery MANY TIMES running up to the Civil War and Lincoln ignored or veto'd them.
DO you Disagree with this YES OR NO?
NOW onto the Civil Rights act. I personally think THERE IS something wrong with the Civil Rights act.
Have you EVER looked up the WORDING of the civil rights act IE the actual document? HOLY CRAP MAN for something so theoretically simple its freaking HUGE. Pages and Pages that I ould replace with a fraction of the wording.
People of any race or color etc.. are EQUAL under the law and under the constitution. Slavery or Segregation or Discrimination in ANY form is hereby Illegal and a Violation of the constitution and basic human Rights PERIOD.
THERE I just did the Civil Rights Act in 2 sentences. 38 Words.
HAVE YOU SEEN how large the Civil Rights Act is?
I have not FULLY read it nor fully comprehend its implications yet. I am not a historian. BUT on the face of it I am very suspicious. WHY is something SO SIMPLY made into something SO COMPLEX.
In fact the only loop hole I can think of that would have to be clarified is that Reasonable Segregation of Male and Female is ok (such as male and female bathrooms or dorms etc..)
Thats it. WHY is it so complex. Again I am not yet qualified to answer that question but if it does not throw up a red flag to you then well your brains just not working right or you are willfully ignoring it to further your own agenda. SOMETHINGS not right about that document.
I think that Document is even LARGER than the ENTIRE constitution and bill of rights!! (I will have to check but on a VERY cursory glance its close)
SOMETHINGS amiss there.
I am 100% against ANY form of slavery (this includes income tax which IS indentured servitude) Discrimination or Segregation.
I think racist people are disgusting and they make me SICK. What the F*%K does the color of ones skin have to do with anything. (I will tell you this though it had nothing to do with "inferiority" it was all about GREED ie making money. POWER. Subjugation always is.
NOW I do have a flip side. I also believe in absolute FREEDOM and LIBERTY. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
I believe Freedom and Liberty should mean I can do ANYTHING I WANT so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.
This means as sickening as it is that if a business does not want to serve colored people that SHOULD (in theory) be there perogative. THE PEOPLE should decide if this is right and apply the appropriate pressure IE no longer doing business with them. BUT this creates an interesting conundrum.
What happens when the PEOPLE agree with the discrimination IE when they all do it. WELL now the rights of those colored people are effectively being violated.
THAT is a problem I am most definitely not qualified to tackle.
TODAY making discrimination illegal would not have mattered as society would flambay any business who say put up a "whites only" sign. They would crucify them. They would not be in business very long.
Back then I DO believe it was needed. This is one of the FEW valid reasons to even have a government interfere. IE when the people by and large are just fundamentally wrong. OR ENOUGH of them are wrong that those who think differently can not get a foot hold.
BUT once again I question why we needed such a large complex document for what could have been covered in 38 words and 2 sentences.
And Again I question WHY we are the ONLY nation of the time that needed to goto CIVIL WAR to accomplish.
I QUESTION Lincoln's Motives on tabling or ignoring AMENDMENTS just before and well before the civil war that would have done the same thing. (AND YES I consider Lincoln to be a Hero does not mean he is perfect)
IT SOUNDS to me like there indeed was ulterior motives behind these actions.
People like you won't even CONSIDER such a possibility (talk about close minded) instead you illogically just pull out the racist card in an attempt to discredit someone because you just don't like what there saying regardless of any potential validity in what they are saying.
THATS PREJUDICE 
Or just plain old IGNORANCE.
I also hate when quacks misquote people. At the end of that article is this bunch of quackery.
"So, to sum up, Paul is a racist who thinks that slavery wasn't too bad, that Lincoln was evil and un-American, that the Civil Rights Act was a bad idea and that history is something that you learn from racist supporters of slavery. Like I said, nuts."
Never said Lincoln was evil. NEVER said that the Civil Rights act was a bad idea JUST that it was not WRITTEN properly (I agree 38 words to a document larger than the constitution SHOULD send up some red flags)
HE DID say it should have been done differently than killing 600,000 people. Thats Racist? Why not LET them secede ? what would have happened? Seriously that would be an interesting alternative history story to read.
So From all that quackery and "made up" quotes you deduce he was a racist? Who's the Quack Now?
Hey Chris Taylor...
Go blow yourself. There are none so blind as they who will not see.
Taylor. Ritalin. NOW.
"Go blow yourself. There are none so blind as they who will not see."
Its amazing how internet tards quote the very quotes they should apply to themselves. Its absolutely fascinating.
Reality does not require your consent or acceptance to apply itself to you.
"Why not LET them secede ? what would have happened? Seriously that would be an interesting alternative history story to read."
Please read a modern high school history book before posting. The Civil War had more to do with stopping the economic devastation that would have occurred if the south had seceded then the abolishment of slavery.
Go back and read your history books Chris. The Civil war was not started or fought to end slavery. Period. The end of Slavery came as a result of the war but was never the intention of the war.
Reality does not require your consent or acceptance to apply itself to you.
True.
And on this blog, I am reality, mother fucker.
So chill down and stop taking over the thread, or take a permanent invitation to the world.
This is your first and last warning. (If you have some question about who I am, check the masthead, troll.)
For everyone else, I don't have a problem with letting trolls live if they amuse me. This one doesn't, plus he's taking over the whole thread with his shouting and ranting, so either he shuts the hell up and lets other people talk, as in right now or he's gone.
Let's keep this simple...
Huckabee...no way this is ever going to happen. How could anyone take a "Huckabee" seriously. Who wants a "smiler" in the White House?
Obama...Yo' mama. 'nuff said.
Romney, Guliani...same girl, different T-shirt.
Hillary...c'mon, she's God damn girl!
Edwards...a shoe-in based on the above process of elimination.
I approve this this message.
I really do not care if its your blog or not. I was civil polite with detailed information. All I got in reply was ... well GO READ your own blog...
I am clearly not wanted by the majority. No amount of civil discussion will change this. These people and apparently you as well are set in your ways and any view no matter how much reality supports it that differs from yours will be "shot down" and "ridiculed"
Its interesting how not one reply consisted of any "information" to back any of the claims. Just taunts of retarted racist spelling grammar troll. I find it amusing when the trolls call people trolls.
You won't have to worry about me. After spending well over 80-90 minutes of my life typing out information at my own expense of time for no purpose except to try to educate and inform people and getting this kind of response?. I can tell when I am not wanted and will simply not bother wasting any more of my time on futile efforts.
I left the box unchecked but if its not automatic be so kind as to "unsubscribe" me from further notifications.
My comment stands:
"Reality does not require your consent or acceptance to apply itself to you."
Buh-bye...
Christopher MacMurray is correct: the Civil War was not a response to slavery. Thus, Chris Taylor is (it pains me to say this) also right, in that the comments Ron Paul made to Tim Russert about the Civil War do not necessarily make him racist. Nor do his statements about the Civil Rights Act. It's pretty specious logic to say that any vote against that act was a vote for racism. The way Ron Paul worded it, he would have voted for a bill that arrived at the same outcome but using a different method. Dunno what his method of choice would have been, though. I don't know the act well enough to say whether or not he's got a legitimate bone to pick.
I will say, Chris, that if you really think you can take on this whole crowd in this blog, you need to keep two things in mind: (1) It's a democratic-leaning blog. Good luck. (2) Seriously, work on the spelling and grammar. Poor communication skills really do undermine the arguments you are making here.
Of course, I disagree with your arguments in the first place, so what do I know?.....
The Civil War was absolutely a response to slavery. I swear if we dont start teaching history in school again. Lincoln absolutely was hired because of his anti-slavery stance.
Ignorance is curable. Read!
@Hubris Sonic-
If the Civil War/War Between the States were about slavery, then why did the Union free slaves in captured areas of the Confederacy prior to freeing them in slave-holding border states?
There were numerous causes of the Civil War; I actually think that the emergence of regional parties (Republicans in the North; Democrats in the South) was one of the greater overall impetuses for war, although there were several other major reasons: the Dred Scott decision; State's rights; Fort Sumter; Senator Brook's assault on Senator Sumner; the split in the Democratic party; and Harpers Ferry are others. Was slavery involved in many of these reasons? Absolutely. But from my brief study of Civil War/War Between the States history, it seems like it was made more as an argument for non-intervention of European powers (by the Union) rather than a primary rallying cry in the war, at least until the point of the Emancipation Proclamation.
A reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ori...rican_Civil_War
Back on topic:
While I think that the methodology used may not exactly reflect the behavior we should expect from Iowa in actual elections, it's a very good sign. Even if just the new caucusers vote pretty much as they did in the caucuses, that's going to be a huge advantage in the elections for the Democratic party (new caucusers were roughly 7% of the Iowan population; presumably they're quite a bit more of the voting population (10-20%?)
I think Iowa is now blue.
Hubris: I agree with everything else but I do take issue with what you said about the Civil War. Truthfully, slavery was only a small part of the reason for the war. The main reason as I understand it was the unconstitutional secession from the union by the southern states that wanted to hold onto slavery and expand it into new US territories. In Fact there were 5 slave holding border states fighting on the side of The Union, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Missouri. These were the states that the Republican party said slavery could not go past and their northern borders became known as the Mason Dixon Line.
The Emancipation Proclamation came in September of 1962, well after the start of the war (1861).
Wikipedia
Slavery was a HUGE reason. Christ its the very first sentence of the wiki article you link to!
But regardless of wiki. I am not kidding read a book. Its why they choose Lincoln to run.
The southern U.S. Senators resigned from the senate because of slavery. read their floor speeches!
Honestly. read some books. your arguments are crap.
Not to derail the conversation or anything, but congrats on having the stats in this post used (and credited) by Keith Olbermann on Countdown last night (Fri).
You do realize that on the Democrat side, if a voter's candidate receives less than 15% they are given the chance to vote for another candidate and have their vote count. This is not so on the Republican side, so naturally you would end up with a higher aggregate total number of voters for the leading Democrat candidates.
No I'm not a Republican, just pointing out the facts.
I banned the troll Chris oh-shut-the-fuck-up earlier today, as he both didn't amuse me, and he wouldn't shut up.
But as to his claim that Ron Paul isn't a racist, I draw people's attention to our sister blog Orcinus, which has been documenting repetitively Paul's connections with damn near every white pride organization out there.
If you want to read just one article to make clear who Ron Paul truly is, read Ron Paul's Friends -- in Black and White, written by Sara Robinson (whom we are privileged to share with Orcinus.)
The populus is fickle, nothing new. They only see what pertains to their cozy little world. Ignorance is bliss...and don't even ask about their IQ...I guarantee its under 100...Find an educated individual who can differenciate propaganda, not the liberal rhetoric on 90% of the TV/Cable stations. God I'm so glad these primaries mean essentually nothing. When it comes election day...see how many of those independents vote for a black or a woman...People will turnout in droves to put them down...
Reflecting back on the original relative vote totals among Obama, Edwards, Clinton and Huckabee (25%, 21%, 20% and 11%, respectively): It really doesn't matter in the nominating process, because Huck is swimming in a different pool than OEC. The scary thing is that Huck represents a very extreme, and I would imagine divisive view of America.
First, the immediate controversy. On Meet the Press Sunday morning, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News claimed that some members of the Obama campaign were whispering around that McCain was not placed inside a cone of silence that he was reputed to be placed in while Obama took questions first. A story from the New York Times states as fact this very claim. The story also gives a misleading impression that Rick Warren didn
’t know where McCain was while Obama was being questioned. Rick Warren relayed his take in an interview with beliefnet.com, where he unequivocally denied that McCain had any access to the questions beforehand. He said on Hannity and Colmes that to believe this would be to doubt the integrity of the Secret Service, his security service, and the McCain campaign.
---------------------------------------
mikewilliams
Iowa Drug Treatment
Commenting by HaloScan
