Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...who gets your vote Jan 21 at the primary? I'm going Mitt Romney.

I honestly don't know. just not Perry. or Bachmann. I keep picking the candidate to trail in the polls. First it was Paul, now it's Huntsman.

youngterrier wrote:I honestly don't know. just not Perry. or Bachmann. I keep picking the candidate to trail in the polls. First it was Paul, now it's Huntsman.

I think I'll sit it out.

Paul means well but crazy notions of eliminating the EPA, et al, just make me shake my head. He seems like a total isolationist which in theory, especially in the 21st century, won't work. I understand the complaint for smaller govt, however, government has in effect given the average citizen daily things that we take for granted and if removed would be very noticeable. Romney is not a right wing evangelical pew jumping wack job either which is why he'll get my vote.

I could almost imagine holy rollers breaking out the tongues and snakes should Perry or Bachmann win. HOLY SHITE!!!

Congrats YT on being accepted to Wofford. I know ole Joe had a tear in his eyes.

I voted for Obama in 2008. I'm seriously considering voting against him in 2012. I think we need some crazy Grandpa Paul.

catamount man wrote:. He seems like a total isolationist which in theory, especially in the 21st century, won't work..

You mean the same kind of isolationism that most every other developed country practices, CM? How about we stop being the f***ing policemen of the world and protect our own damn country and borders for once. We don't need a bazillion military bases overseas protecting ungrateful countries that spit in our face on the international stage.

I have to admit my lack of time to digest all the news stories that float around (and this question may be the subject of a different thread ) but has anyone read the old Ron Paul Newsletters and are they as bad as the press is telling us?

OL FU wrote:I have to admit my lack of time to digest all the news stories that float around (and this question may be the subject of a different thread ) but has anyone read the old Ron Paul Newsletters and are they as bad as the press is telling us?

They are ignorant, however, I haven't read any evidence that it was Paul and not his aides(which we have evidence of.) I haven't read of any direct link that Paul ordered them to be written or granted hispermission. I would think no Politician in the 1990's, that wanted to maintain his career, would write those. Also, I don't recall that coming up in the last election.

Ibanez wrote:

OL FU wrote:I have to admit my lack of time to digest all the news stories that float around (and this question may be the subject of a different thread ) but has anyone read the old Ron Paul Newsletters and are they as bad as the press is telling us?

They are ignorant, however, I haven't read any evidence that it was Paul and not his aides(which we have evidence of.) I haven't read of any direct link that Paul ordered them to be written or granted hispermission. I would think no Politician in the 1990's, that wanted to maintain his career, would write those. Also, I don't recall that coming up in the last election.

If I understand the situation and I might not, that isn't the point. The pieces were in newletters called "The Ron Paul Newsletter" or something similar. If the pieces are as described, I don't think it matters whether he wrote them or not. It matters if they are as bad as people say. I need to find some of them.

Ibanez wrote:I voted for Obama in 2008. I'm seriously considering voting against him in 2012. I think we need some crazy Grandpa Paul.

Paul is going to win.

Huntsman

OL FU wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
They are ignorant, however, I haven't read any evidence that it was Paul and not his aides(which we have evidence of.) I haven't read of any direct link that Paul ordered them to be written or granted hispermission. I would think no Politician in the 1990's, that wanted to maintain his career, would write those. Also, I don't recall that coming up in the last election.

If I understand the situation and I might not, that isn't the point. The pieces were in newletters called "The Ron Paul Newsletter" or something similar. If the pieces are as described, I don't think it matters whether he wrote them or not. It matters if they are as bad as people say. I need to find some of them.

I've heard a number of the worst ones mentioned on various podcasts and my sense of it is they would be no more offensive to southern primary voters than adultery or being mormon. They might cost him the Opie vote and a few independents in the general that he probably wasn't going to get anyway but even then, the crazy old uncle excuse could suffice (you know how every racist joke starts right? )

Just like with all embarrassing mistakes, he simply needs to come out and admit he screwed up and that he should have payed closer attention to what was being written in his name. If he does that, the situation will go away just like it did the last time these same allegations were used against him.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:

If I understand the situation and I might not, that isn't the point. The pieces were in newletters called "The Ron Paul Newsletter" or something similar. If the pieces are as described, I don't think it matters whether he wrote them or not. It matters if they are as bad as people say. I need to find some of them.

I've heard a number of the worst ones mentioned on various podcasts and my sense of it is they would be no more offensive to southern primary voters than adultery or being mormon. They might cost him the Opie vote and a few independents in the general that he probably wasn't going to get anyway but even then, the crazy old uncle excuse could suffice (you know how every racist joke starts right? )

Just like with all embarrassing mistakes, he simply needs to come out and admit he screwed up and that he should have payed closer attention to what was being written in his name. If he does that, the situation will go away just like it did the last time these same allegations were used against him.

Thanks, but that didn't help any

I am a southern primary voter and if he or his newsletter made racists comments it would be offensive to me

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
I've heard a number of the worst ones mentioned on various podcasts and my sense of it is they would be no more offensive to southern primary voters than adultery or being mormon. They might cost him the Opie vote and a few independents in the general that he probably wasn't going to get anyway but even then, the crazy old uncle excuse could suffice (you know how every racist joke starts right? )

Just like with all embarrassing mistakes, he simply needs to come out and admit he screwed up and that he should have payed closer attention to what was being written in his name. If he does that, the situation will go away just like it did the last time these same allegations were used against him.

Thanks, but that didn't help any

I am a southern primary voter and if he or his newsletter made racists comments it would be offensive to me

Well dammit there goes another stereotype down the drain.

Pwns wrote:

catamount man wrote:. He seems like a total isolationist which in theory, especially in the 21st century, won't work..

You mean the same kind of isolationism that most every other developed country practices, CM? How about we stop being the f***ing policemen of the world and protect our own damn country and borders for once. We don't need a bazillion military bases overseas protecting ungrateful countries that spit in our face on the international stage.

You're right. Let's just give up having forces in Japan and South Korea so Chaz Bono can run amok over those 2 countries. Same with the ferret running Iran.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:

Thanks, but that didn't help any

I am a southern primary voter and if he or his newsletter made racists comments it would be offensive to me

Well dammit there goes another stereotype down the drain.

The ones about schools with red football fields will always be true

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well dammit there goes another stereotype down the drain.

The ones about schools with red football fields will always be true

That they are full of awesome? I agree.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:
The ones about schools with red football fields will always be true

That they are full of awesome? I agree.

They are full of it

Pwns wrote:

catamount man wrote:. He seems like a total isolationist which in theory, especially in the 21st century, won't work..

You mean the same kind of isolationism that most every other developed country practices, CM? How about we stop being the f***ing policemen of the world and protect our own damn country and borders for once. We don't need a bazillion military bases overseas protecting ungrateful countries that spit in our face on the international stage.

This x 1000. I'm not sure we need front the cost to defend these countries while they compete with us economically. Not anymore, anyway. Let them figure it out, we've got our own shit to worry about.

catamount man wrote:

Pwns wrote:
You mean the same kind of isolationism that most every other developed country practices, CM? How about we stop being the f***ing policemen of the world and protect our own damn country and borders for once. We don't need a bazillion military bases overseas protecting ungrateful countries that spit in our face on the international stage.

You're right. Let's just give up having forces in Japan and South Korea so Chaz Bono can run amok over those 2 countries. Same with the ferret running Iran.

Why not? Iran is a slightly different issue, but I could honestly care less if I woke up tomorrow to find out South Korea had been over-run. How is it our responsibility to defend these countries in this day and age? Our military is over-stretched with the current commitments in Afgh. Why not pull our forces out of places like S. Korea, Japan, etc. to allow us a little more flexibility in leveraging more combat power in the places where we are actually fighting a shooting war? What's more, the country is bankrupt - after 70+ years, isn't it time these fuckers started paying for their own defense? They don't want us there anyway, so I say we oblige them.

EWURanger wrote:

Pwns wrote:
You mean the same kind of isolationism that most every other developed country practices, CM? How about we stop being the f***ing policemen of the world and protect our own damn country and borders for once. We don't need a bazillion military bases overseas protecting ungrateful countries that spit in our face on the international stage.

This x 1000. I'm not sure we need front the cost to defend these countries while they compete with us economically. Not anymore, anyway. Let them figure it out, we've got our own shit to worry about.

What is China doing? I don't really care much about other countries.

The last two attempts of isolationism has led the USA being involved with foreign wars. We are in Korea, Japan, Australia, Guam for a reason...China.

EWURanger wrote:

catamount man wrote:
You're right. Let's just give up having forces in Japan and South Korea so Chaz Bono can run amok over those 2 countries. Same with the ferret running Iran.

Why not? Iran is a slightly different issue, but I could honestly care less if I woke up tomorrow to find out South Korea had been over-run. How is it our responsibility to defend these countries in this day and age? Our military is over-stretched with the current commitments in Afgh. Why not pull our forces out of places like S. Korea, Japan, etc. to allow us a little more flexibility in leveraging more combat power in the places where we are actually fighting a shooting war? What's more, the country is bankrupt - after 70+ years, isn't it time these **** started paying for their own defense? They don't want us there anyway, so I say we oblige them.

I don't believe the U.S. should police the world but I do think there are benefits in maintaining stability.
1) How much has the U.S. benefited from the relative stability and resulting trade over the last 60+ years?
2) If the U.S. didn't provide a certain level of security/stability, would other countries? Would some countries be willing to help underwrite the costs? And if nobody stepped up, what would be the likely result if the U.S. pulled back?
3) If we want to pull out of certain countries to save money and reduce the strain on our military, should we pull our of S. Korea, Japan, etc. or should we pull out of Afghanistan?

catamount man wrote:Paul means well but crazy notions of eliminating the EPA, et al, just make me shake my head. He seems like a total isolationist which in theory, especially in the 21st century, won't work. I understand the complaint for smaller govt, however, government has in effect given the average citizen daily things that we take for granted and if removed would be very noticeable. Romney is not a right wing evangelical pew jumping wack job either which is why he'll get my vote.

I could almost imagine holy rollers breaking out the tongues and snakes should Perry or Bachmann win. HOLY SHITE!!!

Congrats YT on being accepted to Wofford. I know ole Joe had a tear in his eyes.

Actually listen to the man and you'll hear that he is not an "isolationist." He actually is against intervening in other countries' affairs. There's a big difference between the two. Do your homework on his foreign policy and you'll quickly realize, in that regard, he is the conservative of the group. I supported RP in 2008, and I'll admit that I don't agree with him on everything, but his foreign policy beliefs are spot on in my opinion.

I'm not an SC voter, but you have to imagine that Slick Rick Santorum will start seeing more support in the other Carolina. I don't get why anyone would support him, but I also don't see why a "conservative" would support Romney. I think Huntsman is the best candidate of the group, but he just doesn't have a chance.