Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

scrubber3 wrote:How did voting for a libertarian go the last time? That's right, 4 more years of our country going to hell. Wake the F up folks. See the forest for the trees.

If you're only voting for sarvis because your worried about not being able to have buttsex, then you need to rethink your morals. Much more is at stake than buttsex and blowjobs.

You sir are a poet.

I've been following this thread and I think it's pretty assinine. These can't be legitimate concerns. Laws such as these are rarely invoked, and when they are, they are only applied when some nasty POS commits a heinous act and deserves to have the book thrown at them.

Anyway, this all seems to be more of the same liberal agenda. Throw out a completely off-the-wall, smear-your-enemy topic and watch the sheep move towards it in utter fascination. Republicans will lose the Governor race, mark my words. Democrats are far better organized and lately it seems more intelligent, as far as scheming goes.

@rev - holy double negatives, batman!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Between Beets, or Spinach? Yeah, but you know what? I can make you Spanakopita (Greek Spinach Pie), and you will EAT that Spinach, and LOVE IT!

Especially with some Tziki.

Beets? Yeah, F'ck Borscht.

GeneFrenkle wrote:@rev - holy double negatives, batman!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

So a couple of forum members are single-issue voters who are willing to de facto support McAuliffe because they don't like one thing that Cuccinelli did out of the hundreds of things that he did in his public service career. It isn't as though Cuccinelli has been arresting people by the thousands for breaking this statute.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

To the comment above that Cuccinelli should have initiated a change in the law, I have two points:

1. It is a legislator's job to change the law. The AG's job is to enforce existing law. Write to your delegate and senator and ask them to introduce a bill.

2. You have been sucked in by a diversionary tactic of the Democrats; you have been fooled; and you are reacting in exactly the way the Democrats wanted you to. While you are feeling all ideologically pure and righteous on the inside, on the outside you look like an idiot.

For anyone that is wondering how Virginia became a "Blue-as-a-Smurf" state, you should read all three pages of this thread.

Reverenddel wrote:I'm a Libertarian, but I'm also a realist.

I like Ken Cuccinelli for one reason, he does what he says. I may disagree with him 89% of the time, but I don't agree with T-Mac maybe 2%...

Why would I vote my "conscicous", knowing that I'm going to get the guy in office whom I disagree with MORE!?!?

That's like saying I hate Spinach, and I hate Beets, but I'm gonna not eat because I have no other choice.

You keep getting sucked in by the ones that said if all those people who voted 3rd party would have just voted for Romney he would have won. Um, no.

Vote your conscious man. Whatever happens is going to happen and you're vote ain't gonna be the one that tips the scales. At least you can feel good that you stood up for your principles. That's gotta count for something, right? After all, if the Republican was worth a damn you'd vote for him because he's worth a damn and not just because he's less worse than the other guy right?

So here's another thing that's going to split the Republican vote: Bill Bolling keeps teasing a write in candidacy. From what I hear there are quite a few people that would vote for him too. At least I advocate for voting for someone on the ballot.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/08/da ... 92711.html

Republican party is screwed.

Fireman Bob, look at legislstive action regarding that one thing around 2004. Someone wasn't the AG then, and they worked against revised legislation borh in committee and on the gab floor.

Keep foolin' yourself that the dems are sabotaging his campaign because he's done a fine job of it himself... and I've voted R down the line since 84.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

There are things with which I find myself in disagreement when it comes to all three candidates. I can vote KC and still "vote my conscience". The other two are wrong on a couple of key points where KC is right. I covered that lightly in the sister thread to this thread.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

So I get it, SI. You're one of those single-issue voters. I stand by my comment.

I think those in favor of KC are trying to dismiss this as a single issue whereas the people who have concerns are using this issue to extrapolate KC's stance on overall personal freedoms. No one is going to the polls thinking about what the next governor is going to do about BJs, but if KC's willing to do what he's done on this specific issue, what else will he want to control in regards to how we live our life?

Who's right or wrong?

No Bob. I am a 2 issue voter, and Sarvis wins on both counts.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

...which doesn't even go into smalk gov't, individual accountability, and free market advocacy. Sarvis wins there also.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

dorminWS wrote:Y'all ever notice how political issues elevate the level of discussion here?

It has just bumped us up from God-given Second Amendment rights to buttsex and blowjobs. How inspiring.

Politics has a way of bringing out the positions that normally aren't part of typical conversation in most social circles. Sex, as a political issue, has affected elections in the past, but to my knowledge not to the extent that it affects the outcome. Only in the last decade or so have we seen it come more to the fore. That became very apparent when Clinton changed the Oval Office to the Oral Office. I wonder why this seems to be the case?

Might be because the voting public doesn't pay attention anymore to the issues that really matter. Apathy, as a tool to change and re-focus public opinion, seems to be the new norm in political discourse. The media have become experts at changing public opinion, and it appears to me to be so easy for them because people are apathetic about politics.

The GOP tries to play this game, but fails miserably, I think, because of the players in the right-leaning media outlets. Face it, we don't have the media on our side, so we have to find another way to cut through the general apathy in the public. Getting our message out is mission critical. The GOP has been sowing the seeds of its own destruction for decades by not paying attention. Now all of a sudden they have discovered they're a lot further behind than they thought. They missed the boat and are trying to find a way back on. Good luck.

If you want to see what happens when there are three or more political parties, just look around the world at those countries where this occurs. What do the get for voting their conscience? They have arrived at the destination we are heading for. None of them are democracies. They're all ruled by left-wing dick-taters who have been successful at what the left, and to some extent the right, in this country is doing. The vast majority of the population is on the public dole getting "free" stuff, and those in power know full well that it doesn't matter that its a barb-less hook. Once the hook is set the willing morons clamp down hard and won't let go.

Those places are our future, and it's arriving faster than we think. I'd love to see the republicans and libertarians get together. Sure, there are differences, but if this country is to survive we have to compromise amongst ourselves if we are ever going to have any hope of turning the tide. Then when we get back in power there can be NO compromise with the left.

Heaven help us if we miss the boat again.

Go read Song of Solomon and get back to me, m'kay?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Swampman wrote:If you want to see what happens when there are three or more political parties, just look around the world at those countries where this occurs. What do the get for voting their conscience? They have arrived at the destination we are heading for. None of them are democracies. They're all ruled by left-wing dick-taters who have been successful at what the left, and to some extent the right, in this country is doing. The vast majority of the population is on the public dole getting "free" stuff, and those in power know full well that it doesn't matter that its a barb-less hook. Once the hook is set the willing morons clamp down hard and won't let go.

Those places are our future, and it's arriving faster than we think.

I don't think this is a political party issue, it's a human being issue. Most great civilizations conquered themselves from within before finally being conquered by others. Rome had it's free bread and games just like Western Civilization does now. People have always wanted their hearts desires without working for them. It works for awhile as the wealth of the previous generations is squandered, but at some point it collapses. While generic countries have lasted for centuries, most have actually experienced the rise and fall of several civilizations. Just look at:

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasties_ ... se_history
France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#History
UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#History
Rome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome#History
Etc.

I think we mistakenly think of these countries as one continued existence, but that really only applies in geography and even then very generically. e.g. we think of the Roman Empire, but really it went through many phases to include a republic.

1 - n political parties won't solve that. When the societal ties that harness the common ideal dissolve, so too does the civilization. This country was a great experiment in limited self government via a republic based on liberty. However, the central thread of liberty is mostly extinguished on all fronts. Everyone wants the Federal government to regulate everyone else (while complaining about the regulations imposed on them). We hate firearm regulations for many very valid reasons, but the antis claim they are doing it to remove the societal problems guns may be part of. How is this different than the War on some Drugs which so many on here support 100%? It's not. Everyone is pro their liberty and anti others liberty because of <insert whatever here>.

The common thread of liberty has been broken for several generations now and the average American doesn't really want it back...they only want their liberty back, which in the end means none of us will have it. Liberty once compromised for convenience always leads to tyranny.

FiremanBob wrote:So a couple of forum members are single-issue voters who are willing to de facto support McAuliffe because they don't like one thing that Cuccinelli did out of the hundreds of things that he did in his public service career...

...on the outside you look like an idiot.

This arrogance is why the R party is alienating more voters. It's a losing strategy to blame the voter for the R's losses.

Dr g. gives his diagnosis and prescribes the bitter pill of truth...

gunderwood » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:33 am

trailrunner wrote:

FiremanBob wrote:So a couple of forum members are single-issue voters who are willing to de facto support McAuliffe because they don't like one thing that Cuccinelli did out of the hundreds of things that he did in his public service career...

...on the outside you look like an idiot.

This arrogance is why the R party is alienating more voters. It's a losing strategy to blame the voter for the R's losses.

There is much truth in this; if a product fails miserably it is lunacy to blame the would be customer, it's best to critically look at your product itself.