Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

gatlingun6 wrote:
You might just be right since most economists say that it may take 8 to 10 years to fully recover from what the last guy did. You remember him, right? President Bush?

And now you want to extend that for another 4 to 8 years by electing the French speaking aristocrat Mitt Romney? A guy who has never lived in the real world his entire life? And whose economic program is the same as what got us into this mess?

I do remember, and in no way do I think Bush was a conservative. Much of the wrong-headed domestic policy we have in place now was started or continued by him, including encouraging people to buy homes they couldn't afford and winking at the constitution on the Patriot Act.

Nor do I have any illusions that Romney is the philosophical heir to Goldwater or Reagan. I have heard the argument that whether everything falls apart in 2 years under Obama or 6-8 years under Romney or Gingrich, we will still end up in the same place. And that may be true.

But, do we REALLY want to just hand the election to Obama, whose administration has proven more inept than Carter and more corrupt than Nixon? Do we REALLY want to have Obama picking two or three more Supreme Court justices? We may be faced with taking a bad choice over a terrible choice.

clayinva wrote:

gatlingun6 wrote:
You might just be right since most economists say that it may take 8 to 10 years to fully recover from what the last guy did. You remember him, right? President Bush?

And now you want to extend that for another 4 to 8 years by electing the French speaking aristocrat Mitt Romney? A guy who has never lived in the real world his entire life? And whose economic program is the same as what got us into this mess?

I do remember, and in no way do I think Bush was a conservative. Much of the wrong-headed domestic policy we have in place now was started or continued by him, including encouraging people to buy homes they couldn't afford and winking at the constitution on the Patriot Act.

Nor do I have any illusions that Romney is the philosophical heir to Goldwater or Reagan. I have heard the argument that whether everything falls apart in 2 years under Obama or 6-8 years under Romney or Gingrich, we will still end up in the same place. And that may be true.

But, do we REALLY want to just hand the election to Obama, whose administration has proven more inept than Carter and more corrupt than Nixon? Do we REALLY want to have Obama picking two or three more Supreme Court justices? We may be faced with taking a bad choice over a terrible choice.

***************************************************************************************
Wow CLAYINVA tell us how you really feel? Please provide the proof of at least some of your assertions. More inept than Carter? How so? Exactly what do you mean?

And more corrupt than Nixon? That's really pulling one out of thin air. I hope you are old enough to remember that President Nixon had to resign or be impeached for CRIMES against the nation.

For History's sake lets review:
1. President Nixon had an enemies list and used the power of the federal government against them. Phones were wire tapped, mail was opened, burglaries were authorized.
2. President Nixon's VP was taking money under the table and had to resign. Remember that guy VP Spiro Agnew.
3. President Nixon lied when he said that no one in the White House was involved in the Watergate break-in.
4. President Nixon's burglars referred to as plumbers broke into a doctor's office to try and steal damaging evidence on Daniel Ellesberg the analyst who leaked the Pentagon papers.
5. Nixon employed a team of dirty trick specialists during the Presidential election campaign.
6. Nixon's FBI Director resigned after admitting that he destroyed Water Gate Evidence.
7. Four of Nixon's top White House aides resigned for their roles in the coverup.
8. After Nixon attempted to fire the Special Prosecutor to prevent his tapes from coming out. The House of Representatives initiated Impeachment proceedings against the President in which he was charged with 1. Obstruction of Justice; 2. Abuse of Power and 3. Contempt of Congress.

All of this, plus every other dastardly deed committed by President Nixon is a matter of public record. Let's not forget that Nixon came to power stating that he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War, when he had none. It was Nixon who authorized the invasion of Laos, that ultimately led to the rise of the murderous Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot.

A third of our 45,090 battle deaths in Vietnam occurred on Nixon's watch, some 15,183.

So pray tell where are the articles on Impeachment against President Obama. Do you doubt that the Republican House would hesitate to do so if they could? What crimes has the President and Vice president committed? Where are the officials who have been tried and convicted and jailed in this administration. What official has resigned after destroying evidence in a criminal investigation.

I get it that you don't like some of the President's policies, but to say he and his administration are corrupt is a huge leap into an abyss.

If this administration is corrupt, what was the last administration? And why do you say that President Bush, who received high marks from the National Conservative Union, was not a conservative?

I do agree that the Plutocrat Romney is not a philosophical heir to Goldwater or Reagan. He is not a heir to anything except maybe a chameleon, the man seems soulless politically. But neither are any of the other candidates running for the Republican Presidential nominee the philosophical heirs, they are all far to the right of both Reagan and Goldwater.

If anything, this President and most economists under estimated the sorry state of the American economy. It took over 30 years to get into this mess. In every year of that 30 plus years, but 3, we ran a deficit. Over that period every President but one increased spending in every year, but 3.

President Obama had the misfortune of coming to power just as all those cracks in our economic dam conjoined to break wide open. Why anyone, including the President, would think this could be fixed in less than 10 or more years is beyond me. Especially when you add the fuel of globalization to the fire.

So the question is this: If government drastically reduces spending, and consumers are not spending, and we are not making stuff to export, how does our economy get back on track in the short to medium range?

Gat6

Anybody who likes what we've got is welcome to vote for him again. And say goodbye to America, 'cause I doubt it will be recognizable if we get another 4 years.

face it. no matter who we vote for were all screwed in the end somehow.

One really can't point to any positive thing Obama has done in his entire life. Anyone who is relatively useless throughout their entire life is plenty inept, as well as other things.

Now this completely unproductive man holds the office of President of the United States of America. Both he and his wife have been quoted as saying things that are disparaging to the Nation. He has pointed pointed to the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright (A man who has proven to be both racist and anti-American) as a father figure, though, when called on it, he spinelessly backtracked and threw the "reverend" under the bus. His best friend is William Ayers, an unrepentant, socialist terrorist, who freely (and proudly) admits to the orchestration of a number of bomb attacks on American citizens.

Dictionary.com defines "Inept" to mean 1)without skill or aptitude for a particular task or assignment; maladroit, 2)generally awkward or clumsy; haplessly incompetent. 3)inappropriate; unsuitable; out of place. 4)absurd or foolish.

Obama has managed to hit all four points while holding his current office. So did Carter. But, while Carter may have been a spineless, misguided pacifist, I do believe that he is a Patriot. That makes his time as POTUS slightly less inappropriate, unsuitable, or out of place than that of Obama. Thus, Obama is more inept than Carter.

"Corrupt" is defined as :1)guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked 2)
debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society. 3) made inferior by errors or alterations 4) infected; tainted. 5) decayed; putrid.

Considering the overall uselessness of Obama's existence, along with his unsavory affiliations, and his anti-American attitude, and considering that he STILL has managed to become the President of a nation that he seems to hate, I have to conclude that he fits the definition of "corrupt". Whether or not he is more corrupt than Nixon is a matter of opinion. I believe that Nixon did love the United States, so that sole virtue, in my personal opinion, makes him somewhat less corrupt than Obama.

Now, Gat, in response to the posed question at the end of your post, I will assume the government that you refer to is The US federal government. They've got to do more than just "reduce spending". They've got to let a lot of employees go. This will seem counter-intuitive, as this will increase the ranks of the unemployed by a large number. But, I'm comfortable with that. One good place to start would be the complete removal of OSHA. OSHA is a useless government agency that impedes the work flow.

Which brings me to the next point, government can get the hell out of the way of productive people and companies. The government has no place requiring a minimum wage be met, or advising any company on who or who not should be hired, or demanding wheelchair ramps, or smoke-free environments. All that should be left at the discretion of individual businesses.

When left to their own devises, some businesses fail and others succeed. And, I'm quite comfortable with that. But, virtually everything that government does in regard to private business comes at an unnecessary expense to private businesses. Unnecessary expense is never good for business.

Whether or not this would be effective in the short to medium range remains to be seen. It could be that we are too far behind to be helped by any sort of quick or temporary fix.

And unnecessary expense to private businesses translates to unnecessary expense passed on to consumers as part of the price of the goods or services they provide. Don't overlook that.

Frankly, Gat6, I'm surprised someone who is such an unabashed apologist for BHO can bring himself to own a firearm, much less touch one. I'm beginning to wonder if you're just here to evangelize for the liberal socialist administration.