Conquer Club

- You are not alone in this. I’m here for you.
- You may not believe it now, but the way you’re feeling will change.
- I may not be able to understand exactly how you feel, but I care about you and want to help.
- When you want to give up, tell yourself you will hold off for just one more day, hour, minute — whatever you can manage.

Phatscotty wrote:DRUDGE READERS FROM IOWA VOTE:

PAUL 1,337 33.61%
SANTORUM 847 21.29%
ROMNEY 805 20.24%

thegreekdog wrote:CNN is breaking down the vote by evangelical Christians and is trying to explain why 23% of evangelical Christians are voting for Paul. I look forward to hearing about how Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and cats vote as well.

Seriously CNN. What the hell?

At least the one woman said "This is the economic message coming through" with respect to the high percentage of Ron Paul supporters.

InkL0sed wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:CNN is breaking down the vote by evangelical Christians and is trying to explain why 23% of evangelical Christians are voting for Paul. I look forward to hearing about how Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and cats vote as well.

Seriously CNN. What the hell?

At least the one woman said "This is the economic message coming through" with respect to the high percentage of Ron Paul supporters.

I think Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and cats are probably less common amongst Republican primary voters in Iowa than are evangelicals.

thegreekdog wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:CNN is breaking down the vote by evangelical Christians and is trying to explain why 23% of evangelical Christians are voting for Paul. I look forward to hearing about how Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and cats vote as well.

Seriously CNN. What the hell?

At least the one woman said "This is the economic message coming through" with respect to the high percentage of Ron Paul supporters.

I think Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and cats are probably less common amongst Republican primary voters in Iowa than are evangelicals.

Yeah, but since when does one's religion influence primary voting? Like significantly influence?

Beker Baerwald, the minister, historian, and preacher who gave this religious phenomenon its name in his influential 1842 book The Great Awakening, saw the First Great Awakening as a precursor to the American Revolution. The evangelical movement of the 1740s played a key role in the development of democratic thought, as well as the belief of the free press and the belief that information should be shared and completely unbiased. These concepts ushered in the period of the American Revolution. This helped create a demand for religious freedom.
...
The abolition movement emerged in the North from the wider Second Great Awakening 1800-1840.
...
The Third Great Awakening in 1880-1910 was characterized by new denominations, very active missionary work, and also the Social Gospel approach to social issues.
...
The idea of an "awakening" implies a slumber or passivity during secular or less religious times. Thus, awakening is a term which originates and is embraced often and primarily by evangelical Christians.[6] In recent times, the idea of "awakenings" in US history has been put forth by conservative US evangelicals.[7]

InkL0sed wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:CNN is breaking down the vote by evangelical Christians and is trying to explain why 23% of evangelical Christians are voting for Paul. I look forward to hearing about how Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and cats vote as well.

Seriously CNN. What the hell?

At least the one woman said "This is the economic message coming through" with respect to the high percentage of Ron Paul supporters.

I think Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and cats are probably less common amongst Republican primary voters in Iowa than are evangelicals.

Yeah, but since when does one's religion influence primary voting? Like significantly influence?

Uh, since always?

Some highlights from the wiki article on The Great Awakening(s):

Beker Baerwald, the minister, historian, and preacher who gave this religious phenomenon its name in his influential 1842 book The Great Awakening, saw the First Great Awakening as a precursor to the American Revolution. The evangelical movement of the 1740s played a key role in the development of democratic thought, as well as the belief of the free press and the belief that information should be shared and completely unbiased. These concepts ushered in the period of the American Revolution. This helped create a demand for religious freedom.
...
The abolition movement emerged in the North from the wider Second Great Awakening 1800-1840.
...
The Third Great Awakening in 1880-1910 was characterized by new denominations, very active missionary work, and also the Social Gospel approach to social issues.
...
The idea of an "awakening" implies a slumber or passivity during secular or less religious times. Thus, awakening is a term which originates and is embraced often and primarily by evangelical Christians.[6] In recent times, the idea of "awakenings" in US history has been put forth by conservative US evangelicals.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibitio ... ted_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right

I mean seriously, HELLO GREEKDOG, WELCOME TO AMERICA. WE KIND OF CARE ABOUT RELIGION IN OUR POLITICS IN THESE PARTS. LIKE, A LOT. LIKE, WE'RE PRACTICALLY A THEOCRACY.

derp.

Phatscotty wrote:DRUDGE READERS FROM IOWA VOTE:
PAUL 1,337 33.61%
SANTORUM 847 21.29%
ROMNEY 805 20.24%

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:DRUDGE READERS FROM IOWA VOTE:
PAUL 1,337 33.61%
SANTORUM 847 21.29%
ROMNEY 805 20.24%

Santorum being anywhere near in this thing is just plain embarrassing. Seriously.

dazerazer wrote:Don't worry.... I got this... watch... BOOM! Phatty's instahappy!

john9blue wrote:it's just really sad that every time i turn my head i see some "new" contender that's not ron paul that the mainstream media decided to spotlight for no reason other than giving people false hope and distracting them from actual issues.

dazerazer wrote:Don't worry.... I got this... watch... BOOM! Phatty's instahappy!

i would tread on that.

GabonX wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:DRUDGE READERS FROM IOWA VOTE:
PAUL 1,337 33.61%
SANTORUM 847 21.29%
ROMNEY 805 20.24%

Santorum being anywhere near in this thing is just plain embarrassing. Seriously.

You're just jealous that you're not going to be President.

rockfist wrote:

GabonX wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:DRUDGE READERS FROM IOWA VOTE:
PAUL 1,337 33.61%
SANTORUM 847 21.29%
ROMNEY 805 20.24%

Santorum being anywhere near in this thing is just plain embarrassing. Seriously.

You're just jealous that you're not going to be President.

Woodruff would make a far better President than either this one or the previous one.

GreecePwns wrote:Don't worry Phatscotty. Newt Gingrich will stick around to take a large dump on Mitt Romney's chest for the rest of the primary, taking some voters away from him. Santorum will either flame out or take Perry's and Bachmann's supporters (the latter being the better alternative). The only thing staying constant is Ron Paul's support.

The Bison King wrote:

john9blue wrote:it's just really sad that every time i turn my head i see some "new" contender that's not ron paul that the mainstream media decided to spotlight for no reason other than giving people false hope and distracting them from actual issues.

dazerazer wrote:Don't worry.... I got this... watch... BOOM! Phatty's instahappy!

i would tread on that.

I would tread the hell on that.

lol... well thank you both kindly. I'm flattered. I'm sure Scott is as well. lol

dazerazer wrote:Don't worry.... I got this... watch... BOOM! Phatty's instahappy!

"NEW FLASH: Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are calling it quits! Gary Johnson is running 3rd party and Jon Hunstman is still at 1%. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum failed to reach deadlines to appear on ballots in some states they can't win without so they are essentially done. All of this means the race is between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul and really no one else."