Obama takes Iowa

TriskettheKid said:
Uh....you do realize that that was because Tom Harkin was the only Democrat who actually campaigned in Iowa before the Caucus was held, right?
Click to expand...
There was no youtube in 92. WHo knows what might have happened? :eye-poppi

I am guessing a lot of naked Jennifer Flowers clips.

DR
 
TriskettheKid said:
Uh....you do realize that that was because Tom Harkin was the only Democrat who actually campaigned in Iowa before the Caucus was held, right?
Click to expand...

Ron Paul only campaigned in a few counties. He didn't invest much in Iowa.

Besides, I'm content with Hillary and Giuliani doing badly. Obama has been my second choice for a while.
 
Democrat voters were expected to be up to 120,000 and 205,000 votes were tallied.



I wonder about the demographics of Iowa.
 
Richard Masters said:
There is diplomacy and trade in non-interventionism; isolationism doesn't have those.
Click to expand...

I am trying to figure out if the US was ever anti interventionist.

Barbary Wars, 1801, seems a bit interventionist, but then, it was a defense of American flag ships, and the flag itself.

Invading Canada, 1812 . . .

Intervening seems to go back a ways. A matter of degree, not kind.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
I am trying to figure out if the US was ever anti interventionist.

Barbary Wars, 1801, seems a bit interventionist, but then, it was a defense of American flag ships, and the flag itself.

Invading Canada, 1812 . . .

Intervening seems to go back a ways. A matter of degree, not kind.

DR
Click to expand...

You seem to be confused about both word definitions and realities of history.
 
Richard Masters said:
Isolationism involves cultural protectionism as well.

Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Click to expand...

Richard,

If you'd like to take up the subject of isolationism versus non-interventionism, perhaps you should do so in a thread devoted to that subject.

I understand there's a thread or two about Ron Paul's views on the subject--maybe that would be a better place for it.
 
Cleon said:
Richard,

If you'd like to take up the subject of isolationism versus non-interventionism, perhaps you should do so in a thread devoted to that subject.

I understand there's a thread or two about Ron Paul's views on the subject--maybe that would be a better place for it.
Click to expand...

I'm not really that interested in educating Triske on a subject that doesn't require its own thread. He was already shown to be wrong. If he is interested in learning about it, perhaps he should start a new thread about it.
 
Darth Rotor said:
I am trying to figure out if the US was ever anti interventionist.

Barbary Wars, 1801, seems a bit interventionist, but then, it was a defense of American flag ships, and the flag itself.

Invading Canada, 1812 . . .

Intervening seems to go back a ways. A matter of degree, not kind.

DR
Click to expand...

From what I recall from my history class, the main non-interventionalist/isolationist/screw-everyone-else-ist came before the World Wars.

Allegedly, some of the earliest Presidents were, but they never really acted that way (See Jefferson).

But, yeah, first it was all about our Divine Mandate to claim other people's land. And then we started spreading out in the Pacific... And that worked well for our Japanese relations...
 
So out of all the candidates who actually campaigned in Iowa Ron Paul lost?

:dl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom