Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Palladin wrote:

dems4guns wrote:

Yarddawg wrote:Ummm...I wouldn't be so sure that it would not injure/kill/maim a neighbor. Are you aware of just how far a bullet can travel? Just a lowly .22 can travel well over a mile!

Yes, I am aware. I agree it is debatable whether you SHOULD fire a warning shot, but if you did, you shouldn't be arrested for improper discharge of a firearm.

Nobody seems to be commenting on the brandishing part....this can be just as serious a charge. You could hold a firearm on an unarmed burglar and he could complain to the police you were brandishing and you could be arrested for brandishing.

Dems4Guns

Brandishing is Hollywood BS. The fool that brandishes in a life or death situation is just waiting to die.

Just my humble opinion...

Warning shots... Seriously?!!

You are all missing the point.....the point is that merely brandishing a firearm IS a violation of the law unless you are in mortal fear of your life or (more risky) someone else's life is in danger. The question is not whether brandishing or warnings shots are effective as a tactic, but protecting US from prosection for doing either.

And yes, I DO think brandishing and a warning shot would be effective in some cases...not all mind you. Anyone who has seen action knows that every situation is different. What do you think the police manual says....Shoot first and ask questions later? No. They pull their firearm (brandish) and attempt to get the suspect to give up. Now, I am not trying to be a police officer in this situation, but the tactic works or police would not do it.

Dems4Guns

dems4guns wrote:
The Officeholder IS President Obama. By insulting HIM you ARE insulting the office. You show disrespect for the electoral process and for the American system of government and good old fashioned American civility. Not to mention good manners.

You are just playing with words, but the disrespect and insult makes your comments unpatriotic, unAmerican, and inappropriate. It is perfectly fine to disagree, it is quite another to label him a communist and someone who wants to hurt America. He is trying his best to help America.....you just disagree with HOW he is doing that.

I disagreed with HOW George W Bush was running the government, especially when it came to torture. But I never called him names and never insulted him the way you have insulted our current President...who is the officeholder of the Office of President of the United States....not just the Blue States, but the Red States as well.
Dems4Guns

I am glad you were so kind during the previous administration, but most democrats I know were not. Name calling--which you seem to object with such vigor to-- was the least of it. As far as it being an insult to say his policies are communist--well how about marxist--do you like that better? That is what a great deal of the polices he seems to favor, and the advisers he appoints are awash in. As far as good manners go--well I am a from Texas and my husband is from NY in both places we call it like we see it. A spade is a spade and a rattlesnake had better be called such because it is not a fluffy bunny rabbit. To mince words is to put yourself and others in danger. Crassness is not always needed, but if the president's policies are putting our country in danger (angering our most faithful allies and refusing to see that a grandma is not the same level of threat as a 20 year old man from Yemen (TSA!)), our lives in danger (getting rid of guns under the radar), and our livelihoods in danger(spending ourselves into oblivion, and economic policies that hamstring those that make most of the jobs in this country small business). Then we had better say with all fortitude that this president and his polices have been a disaster and have caused unspeakable harm to millions of Americans.

I would imagine that your anger with Bush on torture was real. Imagine how much more real the anger of a father who lost his job because of the policies enacted by this president when he can't keep a roof over the head of his children and food in their bellies. Imagine the anger of a person who can no longer pay their mortgage because both the husband and wife lost their jobs and they are 55 years old with 7 years left on their mortgage and they have to watch their life savings go down the drain. That type of anger is real and intense and those who love them and have had to watch them go through terribly hard times from no fault of their own are upset as well.

True liberalization of gun laws in Va won't exist until these three things happen:
1.) Full Auto doesn't require an "ATF PROSTATE" exam, nor a wait for a "background check".
2.) Full carry ANYWHERE, and EVERYWHERE without being disturbed.
3.) Unlicensed concealed carry without any riders attached.

Until then? We have "gun control".

"Politicians come as a package deal unfortunately. Until we get to National and State Referendum's or allowing each of us to vote on legislation rather than going through politicians, we are going to continue to have this problem. And, Republican politicians have the same problem....they come as a package deal. I don't agree with every position President Obama's administration takes. I don't agree with every position Warner and Webb take. And, Republicans are in the same situation...constitutents don't always agree with the votes of their Republican politicians.

But, when I look at each politician, I have to consider all their positions, not just the ones on guns or gay rights, for instance. But here is the thing: There is a better chance of changing a Virginia Democrat to support gun liberalization than there is in asking a Republican to support gay rights, for instance. It's all a matter of working with their staff and key constitutents. But, publicly calling them socialists and communists and insulting them and clobbering them with hate will alienate them and you can forget about it.

In short, I care about the specific issues and I don't care whether there is a Democrat or Republican label on their nametag. As for Illinoi, well, I don't live there. I live in Virginia. If that State wants to more tightly regulate firearms, that is up to them. States Rights....you can't have it both ways.
Dems4Guns"


I don't see you addressing a single point I brought up. I see a total dodging of the question with some fantasy about a National Referendum (wha?) and changing the topic to ghey rights.

NONE of the Democrats I named have done anything but prevent advancement of firearms freedoms. Would you care to really apply yourself and try again?

for reference:
Ok, your turn. Let's review the conflicts presented in support or compromise offered by Democrats versus firearms freedoms:

1) Rectumfy for us how you can support Timmah Kaine and also place a high priority of firearms freedoms, after his veto of any pro gun bill that hit his desk.

2) Explain how you can extoll the virtues of the second amendment, yet also wave your Democrat card given the status of gun rights in such democrat bastions as the District of Calamity and Chitcago, ILL ANNOY.

3) Tell me how you can defend the support both Warner and Webb gave to the nominations of both Kagan and Sotomayor. It was clear to all honest observers how they would decide 2A cases, and history has born that out. How did the Dems advance or even accept the now decided and always clear meaning of the right of individual firearm ownership and carry with these nominations?

4) Tell me how we are should believe that you or any other committed Democrat truly believes in the 2nd A while promoting the current president, given B.O.'s long history of anti firearms votes, statements and recently "we will go after guns under the radar."

Your answers to this will go far in convincing me where you are coming from.


As far as I know, Chocolate Jebus' position on ghey marriage is identical to GWB's as well as most republican candidates.
"Not gonna happen" - Netanyahu

Yet this is a reason to totally abandon your "claimed" support of firearms freedoms? I'm not buying your convictions. I submit to you that no major politician has attempted to deny rights to people based on what gender they fornicate with this week or lifetime. I also submit that a ghey person who is armed has a much better chance of living free to live their life if they are permitted to carry a loaded weapon. I am much less likely to be the victim of violent crime as a straight white male than most negroes or ghey peeps, yet these two subsets of Americans consistently vote to disarm us all. Foolish.

I have seen nothing that makes me think your list of priorities has firearms freedom even on the top 3. Here is another chance to convince us, on a GUN BOARD. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to claim that I am making a partisan attack, when your very name is partisan. I am tired of your already numerous attempts to limit how and why I can state my positions or argue my issues with you.

dems4guns wrote:

zephyp wrote:The office of president always deserves respect not the person who occupies it...

The Officeholder IS President Obama. By insulting HIM you ARE insulting the office. You show disrespect for the electoral process and for the American system of government and good old fashioned American civility. Not to mention good manners.

You are just playing with words, but the disrespect and insult makes your comments unpatriotic, unAmerican, and inappropriate. It is perfectly fine to disagree, it is quite another to label him a communist and someone who wants to hurt America. He is trying his best to help America.....you just disagree with HOW he is doing that.

I disagreed with HOW George W Bush was running the government, especially when it came to torture. But I never called him names and never insulted him the way you have insulted our current President...who is the officeholder of the Office of President of the United States....not just the Blue States, but the Red States as well.
Dems4Guns

Oh come on dude, I'll bet you and I loathed Dubya as much as these folks loathe Obama. Just the way it works.

Algernon Sidney wrote:Liberty cannot be preserved, if the manners of the people are corrupted

Sir John Vanbrugh wrote:Good manners and soft words have brought many a difficult thing to pass

George W Bush wrote:Today we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's promise through civility, courage, compassion and character.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy wrote:So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.

I can't hear you when you are filling your posts with uncivility, insult, accusations, contempt and bad manners.

Robert A Heinlein wrote:An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

But, I have found so far that the most staunch gun owners have the worst manners on this forum. This quote is therefore not true.
Dems4Guns

Tweaker wrote:"Politicians come as a package deal unfortunately. Until we get to National and State Referendum's or allowing each of us to vote on legislation rather than going through politicians, we are going to continue to have this problem. And, Republican politicians have the same problem....they come as a package deal. I don't agree with every position President Obama's administration takes. I don't agree with every position Warner and Webb take. And, Republicans are in the same situation...constitutents don't always agree with the votes of their Republican politicians.

But, when I look at each politician, I have to consider all their positions, not just the ones on guns or gay rights, for instance. But here is the thing: There is a better chance of changing a Virginia Democrat to support gun liberalization than there is in asking a Republican to support gay rights, for instance. It's all a matter of working with their staff and key constitutents. But, publicly calling them socialists and communists and insulting them and clobbering them with hate will alienate them and you can forget about it.

In short, I care about the specific issues and I don't care whether there is a Democrat or Republican label on their nametag. As for Illinoi, well, I don't live there. I live in Virginia. If that State wants to more tightly regulate firearms, that is up to them. States Rights....you can't have it both ways.
Dems4Guns"


I don't see you addressing a single point I brought up. I see a total dodging of the question with some fantasy about a National Referendum (wha?) and changing the topic to ghey rights.

NONE of the Democrats I named have done anything but prevent advancement of firearms freedoms. Would you care to really apply yourself and try again?

for reference:
Ok, your turn. Let's review the conflicts presented in support or compromise offered by Democrats versus firearms freedoms:

1) Rectumfy for us how you can support Timmah Kaine and also place a high priority of firearms freedoms, after his veto of any pro gun bill that hit his desk.

2) Explain how you can extoll the virtues of the second amendment, yet also wave your Democrat card given the status of gun rights in such democrat bastions as the District of Calamity and Chitcago, ILL ANNOY.

3) Tell me how you can defend the support both Warner and Webb gave to the nominations of both Kagan and Sotomayor. It was clear to all honest observers how they would decide 2A cases, and history has born that out. How did the Dems advance or even accept the now decided and always clear meaning of the right of individual firearm ownership and carry with these nominations?

4) Tell me how we are should believe that you or any other committed Democrat truly believes in the 2nd A while promoting the current president, given B.O.'s long history of anti firearms votes, statements and recently "we will go after guns under the radar."

Your answers to this will go far in convincing me where you are coming from.


As far as I know, Chocolate Jebus' position on ghey marriage is identical to GWB's as well as most republican candidates.
"Not gonna happen" - Netanyahu

Yet this is a reason to totally abandon your "claimed" support of firearms freedoms? I'm not buying your convictions. I submit to you that no major politician has attempted to deny rights to people based on what gender they fornicate with this week or lifetime. I also submit that a ghey person who is armed has a much better chance of living free to live their life if they are permitted to carry a loaded weapon. I am much less likely to be the victim of violent crime as a straight white male than most negroes or ghey peeps, yet these two subsets of Americans consistently vote to disarm us all. Foolish.

I have seen nothing that makes me think your list of priorities has firearms freedom even on the top 3. Here is another chance to convince us, on a GUN BOARD. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to claim that I am making a partisan attack, when your very name is partisan. I am tired of your already numerous attempts to limit how and why I can state my positions or argue my issues with you.

dems4guns wrote: The first time someone shoots an unarmed and nonthreatening person under your proposal, the entire nation will come down on you like a sledgehammer. Virginia law right now says you have to fear for your life (or potentially the life of another). That implies there is a weapon in his/her hand and he/she is acting threatening. But the mere presence of a stranger in your home is not nearly enough justification to kill him/her. It could also be an unarmed burglar just looking for something to steal. As soon as they are detected, they are gonna run. You get to shoot them in the back because they were in your home? That is repulsive and murder IMHO.

Ever read the Bible? Exodus 22:2, specifically?

"If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.

(New American Standard Bible). Does that repulse you?

There's a gazillion issues with your "what-if" scenario above - most of which, making those assumptions, will get you killed. The law does not imply that they have a weapon in his/her hand, where do you come up with this stuff? Ever heard of disparity of force? (i.e a 225 lb 6'3" man breaks into a womans house who happens to be 4'9" and 95 lbs - ergo, he doesn't need any weapon, and the mere act of breaking in is threatening enough for me - if he doesn't respect her property, you really think he's going to just leave and respect her wishes because she caught him?) And where do you get off fortune telling the actions of the perpetrator "as soon as they are detected"? You know for a fact they are gonna run?

dems4guns wrote: You are all missing the point.....the point is that merely brandishing a firearm IS a violation of the law unless you are in mortal fear of your life or (more risky) someone else's life is in danger. The question is not whether brandishing or warnings shots are effective as a tactic, but protecting US from prosection for doing either.

And yes, I DO think brandishing and a warning shot would be effective in some cases...not all mind you. Anyone who has seen action knows that every situation is different. What do you think the police manual says....Shoot first and ask questions later? No. They pull their firearm (brandish) and attempt to get the suspect to give up. Now, I am not trying to be a police officer in this situation, but the tactic works or police would not do it.

Dems4Guns

So you think everyone just flashing a gun is going to solve problems... that's your point? It should be legal to shove your gun into someone's face if they look at you the wrong way and you can claim "Oh, he had camo on and drove a pickup truck with a BUSH sticker on it!!" and therefore you're completely legal because brandishing is cool?

Really???????? You preach kindness and soft words, but think everyone having the ability to flash a gun is going to defuse some situations.... how exactly is that going to work?? Tell you what - next time you get pulled over ,go ahead and point your gun at the cops and let me know how that works out for you...

The only warning shot I'm going to give is the sound of the first guy falling in case there's a second one behind him. That's the only warning shot that's worth anything.

dems4guns wrote:

zephyp wrote:The office of president always deserves respect not the person who occupies it...

The Officeholder IS President Obama. By insulting HIM you ARE insulting the office. You show disrespect for the electoral process and for the American system of government and good old fashioned American civility. Not to mention good manners.

You are just playing with words, but the disrespect and insult makes your comments unpatriotic, unAmerican, and inappropriate. It is perfectly fine to disagree, it is quite another to label him a communist and someone who wants to hurt America. He is trying his best to help America.....you just disagree with HOW he is doing that.

I disagreed with HOW George W Bush was running the government, especially when it came to torture. But I never called him names and never insulted him the way you have insulted our current President...who is the officeholder of the Office of President of the United States....not just the Blue States, but the Red States as well.
Dems4Guns

I merely call it as it is and IMHO I am a true blue American loving patriot through and through...the same country that I continue to serve today taught me to fight and resist socialism at every opportunity and that is precisely what I am doing...you cant teach someone over a couple of decades that socialism is wrong and must be eradicated only to pop up one morning with a "oh, never mind and besides we kinda screwed up our previous description of socialism and this aint it...carry on."

Dont cut it for me....

Oh, and you wanna talk about insults....to quote you "but the disrespect and insult makes your comments unpatriotic, unAmerican, and inappropriate..."

If that isnt a good example of an insult then I missed that school day when it was discussed....

And, I've served my country since March 1977...faithfully...kinda gives me the RIGHT to be critical about how our country is being ran....

Btw, have you ever served?

CCFan wrote:"If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.(New American Standard Bible). Does that repulse you?

Yes, it does. We don't live by Biblical law here in America. We live by common laws, and the laws are pretty clear that just because a thief breaks into your home does not justify killing him/her. The punishment clearly doesn't fit the crime.

CCFan wrote:There's a gazillion issues with your "what-if" scenario above - most of which, making those assumptions, will get you killed. The law does not imply that they have a weapon in his/her hand, where do you come up with this stuff? Ever heard of disparity of force? (i.e a 225 lb 6'3" man breaks into a womans house who happens to be 4'9" and 95 lbs - ergo, he doesn't need any weapon, and the mere act of breaking in is threatening enough for me - if he doesn't respect her property, you really think he's going to just leave and respect her wishes because she caught him?) And where do you get off fortune telling the actions of the perpetrator "as soon as they are detected"? You know for a fact they are gonna run?

I don't know how an intruder is going to react....that is why I want every option available to me to be a LEGAL OPTION. I am not inclined to kill an intruder just because he/she is on my property or in my home. That is my personal decision whether or not you agree. I am the one who has to live with their death at my hand. I will assess the situation, and act accordingly. IF I choose to pull a firearm in order to protect myself and to get the person to leave the property, and they leave the property, then I should not be prosecuted for brandishing or threatening deadly force. IF they refuse to leave or act violent or pull a weapon or I feel threatened, ONLY THEN do I pull the trigger. Your personal choice is up to you. All I am proposing is whatever I do in that situation, I should not be prosecuted for it. And, that is what I am hoping we can agree to. I repeat:

dems4guns wrote:The question is not whether brandishing or warnings shots are effective as a tactic, but protecting US from prosecution for doing either.

CCFan wrote:So you think everyone just flashing a gun is going to solve problems... that's your point? It should be legal to shove your gun into someone's face if they look at you the wrong way and you can claim "Oh, he had camo on and drove a pickup truck with a BUSH sticker on it!!" and therefore you're completely legal because brandishing is cool? Really???????? You preach kindness and soft words, but think everyone having the ability to flash a gun is going to defuse some situations.... how exactly is that going to work?? Tell you what - next time you get pulled over ,go ahead and point your gun at the cops and let me know how that works out for you...

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have not suggested this kind of behavior. Do you think its honorable to lie and insult and exaggerate and misrepresent what I said ? Is that ethical and neighborly and dignified? Please don't do that again.

CCFan wrote:The only warning shot I'm going to give is the sound of the first guy falling in case there's a second one behind him. That's the only warning shot that's worth anything.

Then you and I would handle the situation differently...that is your choice and my choice. I just hope you can look the jury in the eyes when you tell them it was justified.
Dems4Guns

"I can't hear you"

That's because I'm typing, Francis! You may as well be sitting there at your laptop in your coffee shop drinking your latte with your pinky out with it jammed into your ears and humming to keep out the mean mean man's words.

At some point, do you suppose you will run out of LAME excuses to refuse to justify your support of a complete roster of Democrats who have done everything possible to strip away the firearms freedoms you CLAIM to support?

I don't think you will. I think you are completely full of crap.

Democrats that you love created a paradise like Chitcago, where only the criminals are armed. I was a victim of multiple crimes there, and never had the option of protecting myself. I left and took my tax revenue with me.

Democrats you love attempted to prevent giving me the means to defend myself at my workplace, even after 3000 people were killed there, having been denied a firearm to easily deny the attackers their murderous intentions.

I don't give a damn about your high and mighty, uptight bullcrap reasons to CONTINUE TO DODGE EVERY SINGLE CHALLENGE TO DEFEND DEMOCRATS on the topic of firearms rights. This is about life and death, and you are simply being as evasive as any other POS politician. It is appropriate that Democrat is in your name.

Here is another opportunity to explain how you support gun banning politicians yet CLAIM to place a high priority on self defense civil rights, Tristan.

It's rather simple. If you break into my home I can only presume you are there to harm me.


I've also learned from this thread that everyone but dems4guns is a rude, uncivilized, disrespectful, and unneighborly. Seriously, you should all be ashamed of yourselves!

+1 to Garrett!

It amazes me how it is ok for dems to call everyone else all manner of names, but if someone insults his glorious leaders, we are all unpatriotic, unamerican, and seemingly unhuman.

Yep, dems and gat are off of my "respond to" list. It just ain't worth it to waste my time with them!

mamabearCali wrote: I would imagine that your anger with Bush on torture was real. Imagine how much more real the anger of a father who lost his job because of the policies enacted by this president when he can't keep a roof over the head of his children and food in their bellies. Imagine the anger of a person who can no longer pay their mortgage because both the husband and wife lost their jobs and they are 55 years old with 7 years left on their mortgage and they have to watch their life savings go down the drain. That type of anger is real and intense and those who love them and have had to watch them go through terribly hard times from no fault of their own are upset as well.

I have to ask what Obama has done ("policies") to unemploy people? And the mortgage mess started under Dubya.

People move here, act like we're supposed to change our views to fit their beliefs, change the whole structure of our genteel society to fit them.

That's just rude. Seriously.

You made a mistake, you should have moved to Maryland if you're liberal.

NoVa, and Tidewater are the "liberal" bastions around here, but they're more "Purple" than "Blue". And in truth? Quite a few in the Commonwealth LOATHES their views.

If you moved here because your "company" closed up in a Blue state, it's your fault. You voted for gun control, higher taxes, and the guv'mint nutz to rest on your chins, and taints.

I didn't, I don't want it, and I don't appreciate your insults. Hate us? Move. No one is making you stay but your weak excuses. Leave. Find somewhere that fits your views better.

However, winning an arguement on the internet is like winning the special olympics, even if you win? Yer still "special".

@Kreutz,

Was it not Obama that promised less than 8% unemployment if we just spent billions of $$? His complete and utter lack of economics and the act of surrounding himself with tax cheats and socialists have cost many a job.

Oh. By the way, Clinton started the housing mess by forcing banks to lend to people who had no business buying a house. Bush tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie but the democratically controlled Congress wouldn't act. Nice try, though.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Reminds me of the area of New York I lived in. Big farming area.... People from the cities would move down because of the lakes and the rural/ safe atmosphere. But they bitched and tried to get laws enacted against farms spreading manure.

We had horse and buggy Mennonites and others riding horses around. They complained about the hitching posts taking up parking spaces and the horse manure on the street!

My letter to the editor was "Scoop the poop off the street yourself then, put it in your rose garden.. you got free fertilizer!"

Sigh.... just like the folks who build a house next to an airport or military base.... WWwhhhhaaaaaaaaa...

Kreutz wrote: I have to ask what Obama has done ("policies") to unemploy people? And the mortgage mess started under Dubya.

The mortgage mess was started by Clinton, "Dubya" tried to have Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reigned in, but of course the democrats in congress (Barney Frank) said "oh no, everything is just fine! Then a year later the room comes crashing in. So I don't see how that is Bush's fault. It happened and he was there, however he tried to stop it from happening.

How have Obama's policies cost jobs? This is just off the top of my head.
Obamacare, or the affordable health care act, and the fear over the uncertainty that will follow, has cost jobs--my dad can vouch for that one. The various alphabet agencies have issued so many regulations that I had to close up a small business for the expense of complying with nonsense regulations. A stimulus program of 787 billion dollars that ended up being mostly a stimulus program for unions and has added to our debt and decreased the value of the dollar. Stalling on extending the current tax rate and constant talk about taxing those making over $250K even more has made business unwilling to hire. Instead they do what you and I do when we are facing uncertain times, we hold our resources tightly to our chest and prepare (keep cash on hand instead of hiring another worker). The refusal to grant drilling permits combined with the declining dollar (certainly not assisted by the mounds of debt we continue to pile up) making everything more expensive, thus again companies must use their resources elsewhere other than hiring.

I hope that answers your question. You may disagree of course, but that is how I and many others see it.

This does not even go into the jeopardy they put our lives in when they "work on gun control under the radar." Nor does it go into the danger he puts our country in when he snubs our best allies, and helps out heaven only knows who in Libya--last I heard some of the "militants" we were assisting are Al-Queada.

Kreutz wrote:

mamabearCali wrote: I would imagine that your anger with Bush on torture was real. Imagine how much more real the anger of a father who lost his job because of the policies enacted by this president when he can't keep a roof over the head of his children and food in their bellies. Imagine the anger of a person who can no longer pay their mortgage because both the husband and wife lost their jobs and they are 55 years old with 7 years left on their mortgage and they have to watch their life savings go down the drain. That type of anger is real and intense and those who love them and have had to watch them go through terribly hard times from no fault of their own are upset as well.

I have to ask what Obama has done ("policies") to unemploy people? And the mortgage mess started under Dubya.

Well, let me take a stab at this one:

After the BP oil spill Obama instituted a moratorium on deepwater drilling and shut down all of the oil rigs, how many jobs have been lost because of this action? Not jus the oil rig workers but all of the residual jobs as well were and still are affected. The court ruled that he was in the wrong not once but twice and now Obama's policies are "Slow Boating" permits so it can't happen.

Case in Point

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obam ... /id/390546

http://www.speaker.gov/Blog/default.aspx?postid=241749

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2010/ ... jobs-died/

You guys are so...so...so...UNAMERICAN!

mamabearCali wrote: How have Obama's policies cost jobs? This is just off the top of my head.
Obamacare, or the affordable health care act, and the fear over the uncertainty that will follow,

What uncertainty? Its been very clearly communicated what the law entails and much of it is still 3 years from implementation.

has cost jobs--my dad can vouch for that one. The various alphabet agencies have issued so many regulations that I had to close up a small business for the expense of complying with nonsense regulations.

US companies are posting record profits (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... ucing-jobs), so you can't blame the administration...you could always try and have the Prez force companies to hire and stop outsourcing, but thats just SOCIALISM!

People are losing jobs because payroll is the biggest expense, corporations are greedy, and desperate people are easily exploited to work as hard as two people for the pay of one. Oh, and throw in automation and foreign competition, hence, high unemployment. Likely permanently-these people are just no longer needed.

A stimulus program of 787 billion dollars that ended up being mostly a stimulus program for unions and has added to our debt and decreased the value of the dollar.

Ah yes, those stimulus funds, which were a direct continuation of the Bush bailout system. Amazing how those deficits only matter when a democrat signs off on them.

Stalling on extending the current tax rate and constant talk about taxing those making over $250K even more has made business unwilling to hire.

If a very slight (hypothetical no less) increase in taxes really affects your outlook that much, you're probably in bad shape financially anyway.

Its also worth noting it would have only applied to personal income taxes, not exactly a strong factor in payroll decisions for a C corp. On the corporate side, many pay little to no tax at all anyway, so taxes are again a non-issue in hiring.

Instead they do what you and I do when we are facing uncertain times, we hold our resources tightly to our chest and prepare (keep cash on hand instead of hiring another worker).

They go to China. Though, these days the Chinese are getting uppity and want to be "paid" for working, so the new hotspots are real hellholes like Cambodia and Vietnam.

The refusal to grant drilling permits combined with the declining dollar (certainly not assisted by the mounds of debt we continue to pile up) making everything more expensive, thus again companies must use their resources elsewhere other than hiring.

And the reason oil drilling off the Gulf had to be suspended was lax safety regs due to poor regulation. Deregulation is never the answer. Government must be able to enforce the laws to properly govern a society.

How many jobs were lost by disallowing oil rig operations, compared to all the economic harm done by that oil spilling thanks to idiotic lax regulation?

This does not even go into the jeopardy they put our lives in when they "work on gun control under the radar." Nor does it go into the danger he puts our country in when he snubs our best allies, and helps out heaven only knows who in Libya--last I heard some of the "militants" we were assisting are Al-Queada.

Wait, we have allies? Our "allies' strike me as parasites.