Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Sometimes the not so polished and political correct folks make the best leaders. I understand that some here do not like Sarah and others her do like her, and I happen to like her.

I posted the stories because I thought:
1. the first story was very funny considering that it went to that damn red coat, and
2. I happened to agree with what Sarah said about letting allah sort that mess out in Syria.

Do I see that in the future that Sarah would for office? Probably not and I am not sure why she would want or need to.

Comparing Sarah to Cruz and Paul or any of the so-called political folks up on capital hill is like comparing Apples to Oranges Yes they are both fruits but that is where the comparison stops.

In my mind every incumbent that holds political office on the federal level at this moment needs to be voted out of office and new blood that has a fair measure of Common Sense and a good dose of Honor and Integrity needs to be voted in to replace them to get this great country of ours back on track.

Vote them all out

dorminWS wrote:

Remek wrote:I did not mean to twist your words. I just don't care what people say, my opinion is formed and I stick with it at this time. Its just my opinion of where I am on the subject.

My opinion of Palin is grounded in hearing her talk. Its hard to put it into wording, but I'd suggest just listening to the facts and logic of people like Cruz or Paul, and comparing to Palin. While the former two will cite case law and talk about statute and how it works with logic or how it does not follow logic, Palin tends to rely only on logic, and it comes across as pre-planned and taught to her, not something she has felt and believes in per se.

Finally, I admit, _some_ of this may be coming from the fact that she was in a reality TV show. That really turns me off.

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

So it would appear you are more persuaded by legalistic arguments. Do not overlook that lawyers are in the business of making those arguments in a compelling manner whether they believe a word of it or not.

I don't mean that Cruz and Paul are insincere, just that lawyers can be without appearing to be. Palin's admitted lack of polish is unfortunate, but it does not necessarily bespeak a lack of depth or gravity. I could live with Paul in the White House. Not so much Cruz - I don't agree with opening up to illegals.

Fair enough, but I've been to law school. Its easier for me to discern and double check statements. However, its actually easier for you to do than you think; you simply must pick apart the arguments, what the rely on, and discern whether it is true or not. For the most part, I know when lawyers are blowing smoke, and when they aren't. Its an axiomatic truth of our inherited English and Roman law that a law that cannot be understood is not law at all. When you look at what is happening in our government these days, you immediately know that what they are doing is illegal. That's also why they resist (even the Rs) Paul and Cruz at every step.

I'd also note that Paul is not a lawyer, and Cruz has not been found by me to be making arguments that are incorrect.

I guess I am getting a little far from the original statements, so let me head back to Palin.

You've got me reassessing what I know of her now. Wow, now that's something.

I see something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRTRAS1kfBc

Here I see a single good point, but its also a bad point. She hammers on the fact that bad guys do not follow the law, so new laws won't change things. At the same time she says she is for the already-present laws. The flaw here is that her argument is that she should be open to considering removing already-present laws. Okay so she didn't go into why the "present" laws are good, but it is simply inconsistent to say they are good, then argue that new ones are not needed because bad guys ignore the law.

Next, we see her argue the same argument for the question "[why does anyone have a need for [large] magazines? why does anyone need to be able to rapid fire so many rounds?]" Her answer being the same is poor in the sense that while true, it comes across as being prepped beforehand how to argue. She should have gone into the fact that the police are not always around, and therefore, the person needing to protect themselves from the same people the police are going to take care of when they get there, requires that they be similarly able to defend themselves with the same firearm.

I would accept, however, that perhaps I am being too harsh on her because of her venues, compared to those of Cruz and Paul, who are generally seen while making substantive argument on the floor.

Thanks for needling me, I will think further on it.

By the way, I would go equally as harsh on her critics from the left. They hammer her and turn her into a caraciture of herself as a nut.

Remek wrote:
Fair enough, but I've been to law school. Its easier for me to discern and double check statements. However, its actually easier for you to do than you think; you simply must pick apart the arguments, what the rely on, and discern whether it is true or not. For the most part, I know when lawyers are blowing smoke, and when they aren't. Its an axiomatic truth of our inherited English and Roman law that a law that cannot be understood is not law at all. When you look at what is happening in our government these days, you immediately know that what they are doing is illegal. That's also why they resist (even the Rs) Paul and Cruz at every step.

I'd also note that Paul is not a lawyer, and Cruz has not been found by me to be making arguments that are incorrect.

................................................
Well bless my soul; what a coincidence! I've been to law school, too. But I have been so fortunate as to not have to practice law for a living. I found something that was much more fun. So we both know the score on "thinking like lawyers" and all that other buzz. And you're right; I forgot Paul is a doctor. Pretty level headed for a doctor, too. But still a smart guy who can and has picked up the legislative language and speaks it fluently. Of course, he has no choice.
........................................................

Remek wrote:
I guess I am getting a little far from the original statements, so let me head back to Palin.

You've got me reassessing what I know of her now. Wow, now that's something.

I see something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRTRAS1kfBc

Here I see a single good point, but its also a bad point. She hammers on the fact that bad guys do not follow the law, so new laws won't change things. At the same time she says she is for the already-present laws. The flaw here is that her argument is that she should be open to considering removing already-present laws. Okay so she didn't go into why the "present" laws are good, but it is simply inconsistent to say they are good, then argue that new ones are not needed because bad guys ignore the law.

Next, we see her argue the same argument for the question "[why does anyone have a need for [large] magazines? why does anyone need to be able to rapid fire so many rounds?]" Her answer being the same is poor in the sense that while true, it comes across as being prepped beforehand how to argue. She should have gone into the fact that the police are not always around, and therefore, the person needing to protect themselves from the same people the police are going to take care of when they get there, requires that they be similarly able to defend themselves with the same firearm.

I would accept, however, that perhaps I am being too harsh on her because of her venues, compared to those of Cruz and Paul, who are generally seen while making substantive argument on the floor.

Thanks for needling me, I will think further on it.

By the way, I would go equally as harsh on her critics from the left. They hammer her and turn her into a caraciture of herself as a nut.

.....................................
Yeah. I wonder if this might just as likely be an indication that Sarah is not well enough prepared as that she is over-prepared with canned answers. Do you really think she has a full-blown staff to digest all that and can answers (or even put together briefs and position papers) on all that stuff like Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Barry O must surely have? I doubt she had those resources even when she was the Vice Presidential candidate. I forget whole points of my argument on point B because I got sidetracked on point A myself. And God Knows I've written stuff on my hands to try not to do that. To me, she comes across like average people. Hell, some of the things she has said that have been lampooned the most (like, for instance that she can see Russia from her house) are things that I might have said myself. Normal people say stuff like that just to break the tension and self-impressed elitists like the pressitutes in the MSM take cheap shots at it and ridicule them because they uttered one sentence that was less than stunningly profound. (All the while completely ignoring it when Barack Obama and Joe Biden say stuff that is stupid as hell) Just because they don't deliver a polished presentation doesn't mean they haven't formed a well considered and informed opinion. Over the years I've found a lot of wisdom in the unpolished thoughts of run-of-the-mill folks. I think maybe it's time our Washington politicians and bureaucrats paid more attention to the people like that who are, after all, paying the damned bills. So maybe I'm just disposed to be overly tolerant of Sarah's more pedestrian utterances. I guess maybe I see her as the ragged-assed waif declaring that the Emperor has no clothes. She may not be fully apprised of the latest in fashion trends, but she knows a bare ass when she sees one. Know what I mean?

Finally, please know that I do not intend to harangue or preach to you; I just got off on a rant about the dignity that I feel ordinary folks should be, but are not, accorded by the elite bastards in our federal government who have appointed themselves to decide what is good (or frequently what is good enough) for us.

dorminWS wrote: ................................................
Well bless my soul; what a coincidence! I've been to law school, too. But I have been so fortunate as to not have to practice law for a living. I found something that was much more fun. So we both know the score on "thinking like lawyers" and all that other buzz. And you're right; I forgot Paul is a doctor. Pretty level headed for a doctor, too. But still a smart guy who can and has picked up the legislative language and speaks it fluently. Of course, he has no choice.
........................................................
.....................................
Yeah. I wonder if this might just as likely be an indication that Sarah is not well enough prepared as that she is over-prepared with canned answers. Do you really think she has a full-blown staff to digest all that and can answers (or even put together briefs and position papers) on all that stuff like Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Barry O must surely have? I doubt she had those resources even when she was the Vice Presidential candidate. I forget whole points of my argument on point B because I got sidetracked on point A myself. And God Knows I've written stuff on my hands to try not to do that. To me, she comes across like average people. Hell, some of the things she has said that have been lampooned the most (like, for instance that she can see Russia from her house) are things that I might have said myself. Normal people say stuff like that just to break the tension and self-impressed elitists like the pressitutes in the MSM take cheap shots at it and ridicule them because they uttered one sentence that was less than stunningly profound. (All the while completely ignoring it when Barack Obama and Joe Biden say stuff that is stupid as hell) Just because they don't deliver a polished presentation doesn't mean they haven't formed a well considered and informed opinion. Over the years I've found a lot of wisdom in the unpolished thoughts of run-of-the-mill folks. I think maybe it's time our Washington politicians and bureaucrats paid more attention to the people like that who are, after all, paying the damned bills. So maybe I'm just disposed to be overly tolerant of Sarah's more pedestrian utterances. I guess maybe I see her as the ragged-assed waif declaring that the Emperor has no clothes. She may not be fully apprised of the latest in fashion trends, but she knows a bare ass when she sees one. Know what I mean?

Finally, please know that I do not intend to harangue or preach to you; I just got off on a rant about the dignity that I feel ordinary folks should be, but are not, accorded by the elite bastards in our federal government who have appointed themselves to decide what is good (or frequently what is good enough) for us.

You actually sound like me. And don't worry, I do not take offense. If I do, its because I havent slept enough or am sick from my kids bringing home colds left and right. I will admit to being off the wall every now and again.

I am often the first guy to preach that the joe that lives next door is the best candidate for office. I agree with much of what you say about Palin, and also believe she is lampooned by the press. Pretty much EVERY completely sane person I have seen running for office gets so-lampooned. Its the medias way of getting rid of people. They cannot win on the issues, so they make you look insane.

Meantime, I will continue to rethink my position on her, and will definitely be watching her more closely in the future, but I continue to stand with Rand and Cruz.

Reagan was not a lawyer either. You never heard him cite case law or the details of statutes. Neither was G. Washington.

No, I'm not writing a hagiography of Palin. Merely pointing out that legal skills are not a job requirement of the Presidency. In fact, they may be a demerit.

If you read the things she writes, so that the voice and face don't distract you, you might develop a better opinion of her.

FiremanBob wrote: Reagan was not a lawyer either. You never heard him cite case law or the details of statutes. Neither was G. Washington.

No, I'm not writing a hagiography of Palin. Merely pointing out that legal skills are not a job requirement of the Presidency. In fact, they may be a demerit.

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

Point well taken. What it boils down to is that a legal education can be a big advantage to a POTUS (or, for that matter, to most other people in any job you'd care to mention). It all depends on how you use it.

Reminds me of a story my Pappy used to tell about HIS Pappy, Big Joe:

Big Joe is supposed to have once observed that you could take a feller who started out with some sense to begin with and send him to school and make a better man out of him; but you could take a damned fool and send to school for his whole life and you'd still have a damned fool when you were done with him. Big Joe was of the opinion that there were way too many educated fools in Washington, DC. I believe Big Joe knew whereof he spoke. A lot of them are lawyers, I'll bet.

dorminWS wrote:
...Just because they don't deliver a polished presentation doesn't mean they haven't formed a well considered and informed opinion. Over the years I've found a lot of wisdom in the unpolished thoughts of run-of-the-mill folks....

There's a lot of truth in this. Actually, I think there's a lot of truth in the converse statement: just because they have a polished presentation doesn't mean that they are making sense. Too many people I know will vote for the person who speaks the best, without thinking about what they actually said.

^^^ this

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Palin never said that she could see Russia from her house.

Tina Fey, while impersonating Palin for a SNL skit, said that. That skit got way more coverage than the video clip in which Sarah Palin pointed out that you could stand on a particular spot in Alaska and actually see Russian land.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sara ... nkcall.htm

You may remember the prank call Palin took thinking she was speaking to then French president Nicholas Sarkozy.

Someone aspiring to be VP should have known Sarkozy didn't speak English.

In any event I suspect some of the Palin fans here are more enamored with the idea/persona of palin than the actual person.