Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Remek wrote:So, basically, I think we all know where we are from the last few posts.

The end game must be to get competent people in the state offices then.

Now you make me want to vote for Sarvis no matter what! Dang it!

That's an interesting note. I'm definitely a libertarian and I encourage you to vote your conscience, but I've not made up on mine yet for governor. Despite what us libertarians get accused of by party hacks (on both sides), we really do consider the candidates. The difference is, I won't vote for an R simply because I'm scared of the other guy. Voting out of fear simply encourages the party to continue running poor candidates and shutting out better options via party tricks. Thus, I'm not afraid to register my dissent by voting for "a candidate who can't win" or whatever else the party hacks are pushing these days. My vote still counts and it registers that I won't let it be taken for granted by either party and they must actually earn my vote with good candidates.

Simply put, I vote for the best candidate and I encourage everyone to do the same. Again, despite what we are often accused of, I'm not looking for a perfect candidate, I'm simply looking for the best of the available options and have no problem writing in a candidate when there are none. (for this reason I really like to add a no confidence option) Not the best that can win or whatever, the best man or woman for the job. If there are none, then there are none.

I haven't made up my mind yet because while I agree more with Sarvis (not 100%) and Cuch has some issues I don't agree with, I'm concerned also about the ability to perform the job. Sarvis seems to be lacking in this area (IMHO). Generally, since I consider most politics and politicians to be corrupt, I like my candidates to by "outsiders." However, outside the corruption, but with demonstrable leadership skills. E.g. while I don't agree 100%, I generally approve of politicians like Ted Cruze and Rand Paul.

Do what is right and let the party hacks worry about scaring the base into voting for someone who doesn't represent them anyways, regardless of the party involved.

gunderwood wrote: I haven't made up my mind yet because while I agree more with Sarvis (not 100%) and Cuch has some issues I don't agree with, I'm concerned also about the ability to perform the job. Sarvis seems to be lacking in this area (IMHO). Generally, since I consider most politics and politicians to be corrupt, I like my candidates to by "outsiders." However, outside the corruption, but with demonstrable leadership skills. E.g. while I don't agree 100%, I generally approve of politicians like Ted Cruze and Rand Paul.

I hear that, and that's the only thing the Richmond Times-Dispatch could knock Sarvis on while they were not endorsing any candidate for governor this year. It's funny because any other time we would be denouncing career politicians because they're so out of touch with America, but here we are knocking Sarvis for having no political experience.

Eh, it's governor. Even better, it's governor of a state that's not even in the dumper where you have to spend your entire term trying to rebuild the rubble. Sarvis has a law degree, a masters in economics, has started a business, and has clerked for a federal judge. I think he has the real world skills that would fit nice in Richmond. TM doesn't have any political experience that would make him more qualified for this position and a win for KC would just give us more cross-pollination between the legislative and executive branches.

ShotgunBlast wrote:

gunderwood wrote: I haven't made up my mind yet because while I agree more with Sarvis (not 100%) and Cuch has some issues I don't agree with, I'm concerned also about the ability to perform the job. Sarvis seems to be lacking in this area (IMHO). Generally, since I consider most politics and politicians to be corrupt, I like my candidates to by "outsiders." However, outside the corruption, but with demonstrable leadership skills. E.g. while I don't agree 100%, I generally approve of politicians like Ted Cruze and Rand Paul.

I hear that, and that's the only thing the Richmond Times-Dispatch could knock Sarvis on while they were not endorsing any candidate for governor this year. It's funny because any other time we would be denouncing career politicians because they're so out of touch with America, but here we are knocking Sarvis for having no political experience.

Eh, it's governor. Even better, it's governor of a state that's not even in the dumper where you have to spend your entire term trying to rebuild the rubble. Sarvis has a law degree, a masters in economics, has started a business, and has clerked for a federal judge. I think he has the real world skills that would fit nice in Richmond. TM doesn't have any political experience that would make him more qualified for this position and a win for KC would just give us more cross-pollination between the legislative and executive branches.

I think this idea of "experience" may have to go by the wayside if our favorites are ever to gain a real foothold in politics. Sarvis has an impressive record with law and business. That's great experience to me. The only question is whether he knows how to "lead". Having seen him, I'd say yes.

ShotgunBlast wrote: I hear that, and that's the only thing the Richmond Times-Dispatch could knock Sarvis on while they were not endorsing any candidate for governor this year. It's funny because any other time we would be denouncing career politicians because they're so out of touch with America, but here we are knocking Sarvis for having no political experience.

Eh, it's governor. Even better, it's governor of a state that's not even in the dumper where you have to spend your entire term trying to rebuild the rubble. Sarvis has a law degree, a masters in economics, has started a business, and has clerked for a federal judge. I think he has the real world skills that would fit nice in Richmond. TM doesn't have any political experience that would make him more qualified for this position and a win for KC would just give us more cross-pollination between the legislative and executive branches.

I think this idea of "experience" may have to go by the wayside if our favorites are ever to gain a real foothold in politics. Sarvis has an impressive record with law and business. That's great experience to me. The only question is whether he knows how to "lead". Having seen him, I'd say yes.

"Let me ask the question simpler...

What do you plan to do once you pass your "Liberty Amendments" and the Feds continue ignoring them just like they do for the current Constitution?"

As I said read the book. There will be a number of options to deal with the despotic.

Guess it's not that important to you.

You think you can elect enough libertarians to change things?
Even if you do it won't matter unless the Constitution is strengthened.

Seems many don't want a way out, just a chance to whine a whimper.

Look at the polls.

Sarvis can do NOTHING but elect MacAwefull!

Here we go again.

Remek wrote:

ShotgunBlast wrote:

gunderwood wrote: I haven't made up my mind yet because while I agree more with Sarvis (not 100%) and Cuch has some issues I don't agree with, I'm concerned also about the ability to perform the job. Sarvis seems to be lacking in this area (IMHO). Generally, since I consider most politics and politicians to be corrupt, I like my candidates to by "outsiders." However, outside the corruption, but with demonstrable leadership skills. E.g. while I don't agree 100%, I generally approve of politicians like Ted Cruze and Rand Paul.

I hear that, and that's the only thing the Richmond Times-Dispatch could knock Sarvis on while they were not endorsing any candidate for governor this year. It's funny because any other time we would be denouncing career politicians because they're so out of touch with America, but here we are knocking Sarvis for having no political experience.

Eh, it's governor. Even better, it's governor of a state that's not even in the dumper where you have to spend your entire term trying to rebuild the rubble. Sarvis has a law degree, a masters in economics, has started a business, and has clerked for a federal judge. I think he has the real world skills that would fit nice in Richmond. TM doesn't have any political experience that would make him more qualified for this position and a win for KC would just give us more cross-pollination between the legislative and executive branches.

I think this idea of "experience" may have to go by the wayside if our favorites are ever to gain a real foothold in politics. Sarvis has an impressive record with law and business. That's great experience to me. The only question is whether he knows how to "lead". Having seen him, I'd say yes.

If it wasn't clear in my post, that is my concern (I'd be interested in what you've seen, etc.). We all know people that look good on paper.

ratherfish wrote:"Let me ask the question simpler...

What do you plan to do once you pass your "Liberty Amendments" and the Feds continue ignoring them just like they do for the current Constitution?"

As I said read the book. There will be a number of options to deal with the despotic.

Guess it's not that important to you.

You think you can elect enough libertarians to change things?
Even if you do it won't matter unless the Constitution is strengthened.

Seems many don't want a way out, just a chance to whine a whimper.

Why attack me when I was merely asking an honest question? Stop being a partisan hack for just a few posts. Please.

Why do we have to pass more amendments in order to exercise those "number of options to deal with the despotic?" Why not exercise those options now vice after you go mucking with the Constitution? Besides, "read a book" is only a valid answer when you can adequately explain why I should read a book. Explain what is in the book that makes it valuable or useful to read. (FYI, I've read his work before and he has an agenda he doesn't wholly admit to IMHO...your whine and whimper comment isn't far off, but total misses the mark).

You keep ignoring the argument that making new rules doesn't change anything when the status quo is ignoring the existing rules. It's far more rational to figure out how to enforce the existing rules and then make changes, rather than vice versa.

gunderwood wrote:You keep ignoring the argument that making new rules doesn't change anything when the status quo is ignoring the existing rules. It's far more rational to figure out how to enforce the existing rules and then make changes, rather than vice versa.

Change this to an argument about gun control and everyone will be on board with enforcing the current laws instead of creating new laws.

gunderwood wrote:

ratherfish wrote:"Let me ask the question simpler...

What do you plan to do once you pass your "Liberty Amendments" and the Feds continue ignoring them just like they do for the current Constitution?"

As I said read the book. There will be a number of options to deal with the despotic.

Guess it's not that important to you.

You think you can elect enough libertarians to change things?
Even if you do it won't matter unless the Constitution is strengthened.

Seems many don't want a way out, just a chance to whine a whimper.

Why attack me when I was merely asking an honest question? Stop being a partisan hack for just a few posts. Please.

Why do we have to pass more amendments in order to exercise those "number of options to deal with the despotic?" Why not exercise those options now vice after you go mucking with the Constitution? Besides, "read a book" is only a valid answer when you can adequately explain why I should read a book. Explain what is in the book that makes it valuable or useful to read. (FYI, I've read his work before and he has an agenda he doesn't wholly admit to IMHO...your whine and whimper comment isn't far off, but total misses the mark).

You keep ignoring the argument that making new rules doesn't change anything when the status quo is ignoring the existing rules. It's far more rational to figure out how to enforce the existing rules and then make changes, rather than vice versa.

Try doing your own homework rather than expecting someone to condense a very studied and researched book for you. I don't intend to write "The Liberty Amendments for Dummies"

The only partisan hack comment I see is from libertarians......

Yep i'm a proud member of the CONSERVATIVE PARTY!

Equally against RINO's and wild eyed libertarian hacks.

Want a review, you'll find it here;

http://vagunforum.net/politics/election ... ml#p177602