Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[Hauldren Collider]

Once again, you are talking out of your ass about communism, Zevico. Peasants have never been the backbone of the bolshevik movement, for instance.

Correct, peasants are usually opposed to the revolution. It was borne of a disaffected elite and never was actually about the everyman.

Communism is a moral blight. To defend it is to be an apologist for a system that manages to be more atrocious than slavery, a remarkable feat.

Kentonio can blather all he likes about the system being caring. It led to starvation, shortages, poverty and tyranny. I refuse to distinguish between the intentions of such a system and the results.

[DaShi]

HC, you don't know anything about communism. If you support humanity, you must support communism.

[Felch]

I think an Unbelievable! is in order here.

Inconceivable?

[notyoueither]

.

[kentonio]

Correct, peasants are usually opposed to the revolution. It was borne of a disaffected elite and never was actually about the everyman.

You are a ****ing idiot sometimes, you know that.

Communism is a moral blight. To defend it is to be an apologist for a system that manages to be more atrocious than slavery, a remarkable feat.

I'll assume that was a troll, because even you aren't that dumb.

Kentonio can blather all he likes about the system being caring. It led to starvation, shortages, poverty and tyranny. I refuse to distinguish between the intentions of such a system and the results.

That's because as previously stated, you are an idiot. The reason communism took off in the way it did was because people in the working classes were getting a seriously ****ing ****ty deal out of life. People can talk about peasants or whatever, but if you were working in an extremely physically demanding job, struggling to feed your family, and being treated as little more than a slave by the wealthy, then the promise of a system where everyone shares in the wealth of the nation starts to feel awfully attractive. I'm no fan of communism, but you don't need to be a fan of it to understand why it seemed like an awfully better alternative to a lot of people than being worked to death for a pittance. Even in the west amongst the intellectual classes, the idea of a system based around equality was attractive to a lot of people until they finally understood quite how horribly wrong it was all going.

It's not a difficult concept to understand: treat the working class like **** and eventually they will burn you for it, because the simple fact is there are a lot more of them.

[giblets]

Correct, peasants are usually opposed to the revolution. It was borne of a disaffected elite and never was actually about the everyman.

Communism is a moral blight. To defend it is to be an apologist for a system that manages to be more atrocious than slavery, a remarkable feat.

Kentonio can blather all he likes about the system being caring. It led to starvation, shortages, poverty and tyranny. I refuse to distinguish between the intentions of such a system and the results.

More atrocious than slavery... you mean you'd rather be a slave in a plantation in Mississippi than live in the Soviet Union...?

Good work, you undermined your own credibility

[HalfLotus]

Democracy!

Exclusive: Republican Strategist Says Iowa GOP Will Not Allow Paul To Win

Republican Insider: GOP Establishment Planning To Subvert Iowa to Prevent Ron Paul Win

Republican strategist Dee Dee Benkie revealed during a radio show appearance last night that the GOP establishment has resolved to prevent Ron Paul from winning tonight’s Iowa primary by offering sweetheart deals to move large voting blocks to vote for Romney or Santorum.

The host of the show refers to state GOP insiders showing “great concern” that Ron Paul is performing well in Iowa because they fear a Paul win would undermine Iowa’s position as being the first Republican primary. He implies that influential members of the Republican establishment within the state are offering sweetheart deals to prominent voting blocks in key swing districts in order to “sway” the result and ensure Ron Paul doesn’t win.

Despite the fact that this is brazenly unethical and, if bribery was involved, without doubt illegal, the host dismisses such conduct as “just politics”.

“Is it possible that the party apparatus here could be silently asking those District Chairmen to start swaying some important caucus members over to the anti-Paul side which may end up being Santorum…do you see a scenario like that happening,” he asked Benkie.

“I’ve talked to the party officials, I know they’re concerned about it,” said Benkie, adding, “Ron Paul doesn’t do us any good in Iowa, doesn’t do the country any good, will never get there, so let’s figure out what we need to do.”

Benkie said that the GOP establishment was concerned about splitting the vote between Santorum and Romney because it could increase the chances of a Ron Paul win, remarking, “We really don’t want Ron Paul to win.”

“I kind of think they’re going to keep him from getting the number one spot because they are concerned,” said Benkie, adding that the party apparatus were “tight-knit” and “trying to figure out” how to “deal with the Paul-bots,” an arrogant characterization of Ron Paul’s supporters.

“They’re not going to want him to get number one, it’s very bad for Iowa, it’s terrible,” said Benkie, adding that she hopes for her “friends” that Paul is not victorious.

It’s necessary to emphasize the fact that Dee Dee Benkie is by no means decrying the subversion of the Iowa primary. She is openly anti-Paul and is brazenly advocating that he be prevented from winning Iowa by means of establishment insiders exerting undue influence on voters, despite the fact that only last week she was decrying the threat posed by “rampant” voter fraud.

Ominously, Iowa election officials recently announced that they were moving the site of the final vote count to a secret undisclosed location, a factor that will only increase concerns about vote fraud being used to disenfranchise anti-establishment candidates like Ron Paul.

As we have previously documented, the GOP establishment is so terrified of Ron Paul performing well in Iowa that influential Republican officials have attempted to all but sabotage the legitimacy of the Iowa primary.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad rhetorically undermined the sanctity of his own state’s poll by encouraging people, in the event of a Paul victory, to ignore the will of the voters and instead concentrate on who comes second and third.

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third,” said Branstad, adding, ““If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states,” comments taken to mean that Republicans should “ignore” Ron Paul, according to Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns.

Establishment media talking heads have also resolved to ignore the result of the primary if Ron Paul is victorious. “If Ron Paul wins Iowa, we just take it out,” Politico’s chief columnist Roger Simon told MSNBC last month.

[BeBMan]

Already making up excuses? Shouldn't you wait a bit until it has played out? But yeah, what do I know

[HalfLotus]

Paul is also winning the Drudge caucus.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

[BeBMan]

I'm sure there's someone from the dark side conspiring to undo this

[Felch]

Already making up excuses? Shouldn't you wait a bit until it has played out? But yeah, what do I know

I don't know how politics is done in Germany, but around here it's considered to be in poor taste for party officials to try to subvert a caucus or primary.

[HalfLotus]

Paul is just so darned unelectable that Iowa GOP has to cheat to keep him from winning.

Also this:

The trouble with my uncle, Rick Santorum

If you want another big-government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle, Rick Santorum. America is based on a strong belief in individual liberty. My uncle’s interventionist policies, both domestic and foreign, stem from his irrational fear of freedom not working.

It is not the government’s job to dictate to individuals how they must live. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty. My Uncle Rick cannot fathom a society in which people cooperate and work with each other freely. When Republicans were spending so much money under President Bush, my uncle was right there along with them as a senator. The reason we have so much debt is not only because of Democrats, but also because of big-spending Republicans like my Uncle Rick.

It is because of this inability of status quo politicians to recognize the importance of our individual liberties that I have been drawn to Ron Paul. Unlike my uncle, he does not believe that the American people are incapable of forming decisions. He believes that an individual is more powerful than any group (a notion our founding fathers also believed in).

Another important reason I support Ron Paul is his position on foreign policy. He is the only candidate willing to bring our troops home, not only from the Middle East, but from around the world.

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate trying to win the election for a reason other than simply winning the election.

This year, I’ll vote for an honest change in our government. I’ll vote for real hope. I’ll vote for a real leader. This year, I will vote for Ron Paul.

[Felch]

I may not agree with my family on all political matters, but it's distasteful to speak against your own kin like that. It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't harp on his relationship.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh look. More conspiracy theories.

[giblets]

Paul is also winning the Drudge caucus. http://www.drudgereport.com/

It looks like you can vote in that thing multiple times.