Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

So a lot of you aren’t impressed with Romney, huh? Any of you who can boast of comparable accomplishments?

Do any of you think an Ivy-League education is a piece of cake – even for a rich man’s son? (And, by the way, are racial preferences in the Ivy League less looked-down-upon than proverbial “gentleman’s C” for rich men’s sons?) No matter who your daddy is, they don’t just give those Ivy–League degrees away, folks.

Of course, the proof of the pudding is what you DO with your degree. Romney was a very successful businessman. He gave away the money he inherited and then proceeded to earn his own fortune. What Bain did/does takes both knowhow, financial and business acumen, and GUTS, in case y’all didn’t know it. Yes, some companies Bain undertook to acquire and turn around didn’t make it. Guess what? They wouldn’t have made it anyway. So at worst Bain’s involvement delayed any economic dislocation and unemployment, and in some cases they actually turned businesses around and preserved jobs. So try not to let the democrats take advantage of your financial naivety with their bullsh!t about how evil Bain Capital was.

He did a pretty credible job as Governor of Massachusetts. Given the entrenched democratic apparatus there and liberality of even the republicans, you have to admit he didn’t have much to work with. What can Obama boast of? Voting “present” during a single partial Senate term?

Romney, by all accounts, did an absolutely stellar job with the Olympics. Nobody ever talks about that. Now why would we want a guy to be POTUS who’d demonstrated he could clean up a corrupt, bankrupt organization? HMMM?

He’s a Mormon. So what? I know a few Mormons. They’re good people. Guess what? That Mr.-nice-guy approach to life Romney gets beat up for all the time is not atypical of those folks. They’ll tell you they are Christians. Some people doubt that. But if Obama gets the benefit of the doubt, then Romney sure as hell ought to. Heck, I know some fundamentalist Baptists here in these hills that are scary weird. Mormonism is no more a legitimate issue this year than Catholicism was when JFK ran. Or Judaism would be if Joe Liebermann was running, KREUTZ!

The so-called gaffe in Britain? Hell, all the man did was tell the truth! The US MSM didn’t say squat until the Brits got their knickers in a twist about it. I didn’t think he was even remotely uncomplimentary in what he said. He just stated a fact. We need a POTUS who will do that. We’ve had e-damn-nuff of one who is such an accomplished liar he doesn’t KNOW the truth.

Romney’s not the kind of guy you’d likely go out and have a beer with. So what? I’m not looking to elect a drinking buddy. I want to see a reasonably (or at least comparably) honest, capable person in the White House. Romney can do that. His experience gained at Bain in cleaning up the aftermath of financial, business and operating mismanagement ought to stand him in much better stead than Obama’s “community organizing” background has him.

Could I pick a few candidates I would have nominated before Romney if it had been my sole decision? You’re damn skippy I could. But so what? Romney’s the best available choice right now.

So I will respectfully suggest that y’all treat this more like a hiring decision and less like picking a fishing buddy. AND FOR GOD’S SAKE VOTE AGAINST OBAMA BY VOTING FOR ROMNEY.

And, by the way, you just THINK you can live with Obama making all those appointments and wielding that veto for 4 more years.

Well said.

dormin...
doubtful anyone'll ever change kreutz's stand, and i don't think it's worth the elevated blood pressure trying...

Let me clarify my position:

I'm not impressed with Romney as a Presidential candidate.

I don't care about his Mormon faith. I prefer that to Muslim or Atheist.

His personal achievements are indeed impressive, I don't dispute that. In fact, I'm not really disputing anything about him. I just don't find him to be an impressive candidate.

Until I compare him to Obama.

Ummmmm

Isn't that the purpose of an election?????

ratherfish wrote:Ummmmm

Isn't that the purpose of an election?????

I think what people want out of an election is to vote for a candidate that they feel passionate about - like dormin is towards Romney. Someone that motivates and inspires them to help rebuild America to the greatness that it used to be. Not to vote for a candidate because they're slightly less bland than the other candidate like SHMIV feels about Romney.

Joe Biden is not Obama...
Hillary Clinton is not Obama...
Nacy Polosi is not Obama...
John Boehner is not Obama...
Eric Cantor is not Obama...
Mitt Romney is not Obama...
Osama bin Laden wasn't Obama...

In fact, the nearly other 7 billion people on the planet are not Obama. Seems like a stupid qualifier to determine my vote.

dorminWS wrote:So a lot of you aren’t impressed with Romney, huh? Any of you who can boast of comparable accomplishments?

Your right...

I didn't raise taxes...oh, I'm sorry "fees" not taxes.

I didn't take over a states healthcare system.

I would get ride of Obamacare 100%, not replace with with Romneycare.

ad nauseam...



The man has done a lot of impressive things in the private sector, but as a politician he's just another statist who will expand the governments power at every turn. FYI, Obama graduated from Harvard, I.e. an Ivy League school, so I'm not sure what your on about there.

When will Republicans learn that the founders core principle, as well as "conservatism," was anti-statism, not anti-Democrat? Regardless of the letter beside a politicians name, belief in the power of the government over the people makes them a statist. You keep voting for them and wonder why the state expands under both Republican and Democrat administrations alike! Hello! The only difference between a Republican statist and a Democrat statist is the details of how to expand the power of government. Bush got the Patriot Act. Obama got health care. What does Romney get?

SHMIV wrote:Let me clarify my position:

I'm not impressed with Romney as a Presidential candidate.

I don't care about his Mormon faith. I prefer that to Muslim or Atheist.

His personal achievements are indeed impressive, I don't dispute that. In fact, I'm not really disputing anything about him. I just don't find him to be an impressive candidate.

Until I compare him to Obama.

Ones a communist,the other is not.You do the math.

Bluntly. He's not nearly conservative enough for me to be his CHEERLEADER!

Neither is Obama...

I expect him to appease like he did as governor of MA... And I want a STRONG leader whose TRULY conservative, not an "appeaser".

But between the "ugly chick" (Obama), and the "ugly chick who owns a liquor store" (Mitt)... I'll take the "ugly chick who owns a liquor store"... Makes it easier when I get screwed.

gunderwood wrote:
When will Republicans learn that the founders core principle, as well as "conservatism," was anti-statism, not anti-Democrat? Regardless of the letter beside a politicians name, belief in the power of the government over the people makes them a statist. You keep voting for them and wonder why the state expands under both Republican and Democrat administrations alike! Hello! The only difference between a Republican statist and a Democrat statist is the details of how to expand the power of government. Bush got the Patriot Act. Obama got health care. What does Romney get?

Can't argue that. Also, can't answer the last question. You are absolutely right.

Realistically speaking though, I see two choices in November. I see a candidate who is already in office and shown that he fails, and I see a candidate that might be just as bad as the current President.

zerodown1 wrote:

SHMIV wrote:Let me clarify my position:

I'm not impressed with Romney as a Presidential candidate.

I don't care about his Mormon faith. I prefer that to Muslim or Atheist.

His personal achievements are indeed impressive, I don't dispute that. In fact, I'm not really disputing anything about him. I just don't find him to be an impressive candidate.

Until I compare him to Obama.

Ones a communist,the other is not.You do the math.

Do you want grape or orange flavored kool-aid to go with your statism? Mere details of how to increase the power of government. Communism, facism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, etc. are all just particular brands of statism. Liberty will never be expanded by any brand of statism, including Romney's.

SHMIV wrote:

gunderwood wrote:
When will Republicans learn that the founders core principle, as well as "conservatism," was anti-statism, not anti-Democrat? Regardless of the letter beside a politicians name, belief in the power of the government over the people makes them a statist. You keep voting for them and wonder why the state expands under both Republican and Democrat administrations alike! Hello! The only difference between a Republican statist and a Democrat statist is the details of how to expand the power of government. Bush got the Patriot Act. Obama got health care. What does Romney get?

Can't argue that. Also, can't answer the last question. You are absolutely right.

Realistically speaking though, I see two choices in November. I see a candidate who is already in office and shown that he fails, and I see a candidate that might be just as bad as the current President.

Same arguement was made when there were many people running..."Romney is the only one who's electable." It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

Realistically we can break this cycle of nominating statist Republicans by letting Romney fail hard. Yes, it will hurt, but so will electing him. At least if he fails we stand a much better chance of getting a real candidate in 2016. In the long run, taking the stand now against another statist Republican is the only way to take back the party.

gunderwood wrote:
Same arguement was made when there were many people running..."Romney is the only one who's electable." It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

Realistically we can break this cycle of nominating statist Republicans by letting Romney fail hard. Yes, it will hurt, but so will electing him. At least if he fails we stand a much better chance of getting a real candidate in 2016. In the long run, taking the stand now against another statist Republican is the only way to take back the party.

Even looking at it that way, the options still suck. Even if Romney loses, there is still no guarantee of a great candidate for 2016.

gunderwood wrote:Realistically we can break this cycle of nominating statist Republicans by letting Romney fail hard. Yes, it will hurt, but so will electing him. At least if he fails we stand a much better chance of getting a real candidate in 2016. In the long run, taking the stand now against another statist Republican is the only way to take back the party.

like who?

Two men enter. One man leaves.
Two men enter. One man leaves.
Two men enter. One man leaves...

ShotgunBlast wrote:

ratherfish wrote:Ummmmm

Isn't that the purpose of an election?????

I think what people want out of an election is to vote for a candidate that they feel passionate about - like dormin is towards Romney. Someone that motivates and inspires them to help rebuild America to the greatness that it used to be. Not to vote for a candidate because they're slightly less bland than the other candidate like SHMIV feels about Romney.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
#1: Dormin IS NOT passionate about Romney. He is passionate about Obama. He passionately wants his ass out of the white house.

#2 Romney is not " slightly less bland than the other candidate ". Good God, man, Obama is a flat-out socialist! Romney is an unexciting but competent candidate. Obama is the ruination of the republic on two legs.

gunderwood wrote:Joe Biden is not Obama...
Hillary Clinton is not Obama...
Nacy Polosi is not Obama...
John Boehner is not Obama...
Eric Cantor is not Obama...
Mitt Romney is not Obama...
Osama bin Laden wasn't Obama...

In fact, the nearly other 7 billion people on the planet are not Obama. Seems like a stupid qualifier to determine my vote.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Gotta say that's a pretty silly argument, Gunderwood. None of those people are Obama, but none of those people are running for POTUS, either.

zerodown1 wrote:

SHMIV wrote:Let me clarify my position:

I'm not impressed with Romney as a Presidential candidate.

I don't care about his Mormon faith. I prefer that to Muslim or Atheist.

His personal achievements are indeed impressive, I don't dispute that. In fact, I'm not really disputing anything about him. I just don't find him to be an impressive candidate.

Until I compare him to Obama.

Ones a communist,the other is not.You do the math.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Reverenddel wrote:Bluntly. He's not nearly conservative enough for me to be his CHEERLEADER!

Neither is Obama...

I expect him to appease like he did as governor of MA... And I want a STRONG leader whose TRULY conservative, not an "appeaser".

But between the "ugly chick" (Obama), and the "ugly chick who owns a liquor store" (Mitt)... I'll take the "ugly chick who owns a liquor store"... Makes it easier when I get screwed.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT. Maybe I'd say "ugly chick that really means well and works hard and owns a liquor store".