Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

We need to get Romney elected ,,,Granted he's no superstar but the alternative is frightening,.The last thing we need is to allow Obama possibly 3 SCOTUS appointments and the chance to push ANY of his Bull$hit policies...GUN control will become a constant thing with the big eared goof among other "How to screw the working class people" while lying your ass off things..If he's got 4 more years he'll hold nothing back,..No we do not need him and need to be vigilent in out efforts to see to it that he does not get the chance to do any of it.

VBshooter wrote:We need to get Romney elected ,,,Granted he's no superstar but the alternative is frightening,.The last thing we need is to allow Obama possibly 3 SCOTUS appointments and the chance to push ANY of his Bull$hit policies...GUN control will become a constant thing with the big eared goof among other "How to screw the working class people" while lying your ass off things..If he's got 4 more years he'll hold nothing back,..No we do not need him and need to be vigilent in out efforts to see to it that he does not get the chance to do any of it.

...............................................

Hallelujah!

VBshooter wrote:
We need to get Romney elected ,,,Granted he's no superstar but the alternative is frightening,.The last thing we need is to allow Obama possibly 3 SCOTUS appointments and the chance to push ANY of his Bull$hit policies...GUN control will become a constant thing with the big eared goof among other "How to screw the working class people" while lying your ass off things..If he's got 4 more years he'll hold nothing back,..No we do not need him and need to be vigilent in out efforts to see to it that he does not get the chance to do any of it.

Which would be why I'd vote for him even though he does not impress me as a candidate.

One of the greatest threats to the security of this country is our overall debt. Just getting that under control should be a high priority for all concerned citizens. Very high. Given the Romney history of fiscal responsibility, he gets my vote.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

mamabearCali wrote:awww and I was just headed out to get the

On the Mormon note. I disagree with much of Mormonisms historical claims. I made a cursory study of it in college and found things that would disquiet me if I was a Mormon. I am not, however I am a Baptist in most things. However Mormons themselves are usually good decent people who are very pro-family and pro-America including the 2nd amendment. So him being a Mormon does not disquiet me in the least. Now you want to talk about something disquieting, look up Obamas "conversion" story....now that is disquieting.

Like I said, they seem great on the surface, but its when you dig deeper (or live around them long enough-i.e. the apartment under you so you hear everything whether you want to or not that had three (!) seperate LDS families rotate through it) you see its a facade.

All but one were like Romney (robotic and downright creepy), the sole exception was a drunk who would get into screaming matches with his wife on the front lawn, thats the only one I became friends with naturally.

They refer to all other Christian churches as "abominations", which is similar enough to "infidel" for me. This has pretty much run its course, but Google it if you wanna. I'm just saying, all that glitters isnt gold.

Well perhaps one of the differences is that I have not heard of a Mormon community murdering the local baptist church members (look around Egypt a bit).

Yep there is weird stuff there (studied it some, read the book of Mormon cover to cover). It would say from simply a historical perspective what the book contains is factually incorrect. Their holy underwear I find particularly humorous in a 7 year old snicker sort of way. However I see nothing dangerous in it. It is all just a mixture of wired and incorrect with a bit of misunderstood KJV. Which is understandable when you consider the orgins of the faith.

Now when you have the FLDS, they get super strange. I see what they teach as somewhat dangerous, but on a personal level (very young marriages/plural marriages). However Romney is not FLDS.

Now Obama was "converted" in a church that teaches "black liberation theology". It sounds very innocent, after all we want all people to be liberated, yes. But the theology is very very far from what most of us understand as historical Christian faith. I find what it teaches as dangerous to us all.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I think a person who believes one religion saying words like "weird" and "strange" to describe stuff in another religion is hilarious!

dorminWS wrote:

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.

There were lots of other candidates who were running for POTUS along with Romney. Technically since the convention hasn't been held there still are, but that's beside the point. A large portion of the pro-Romney camp made the same argument when there were a field of candidates.

dorminWS wrote:Obama vs. Romney is not comparable to orange vs. grape flavored Kool-Aid. It's DOG TURD vs. orange flavored Kool Aid. (Romney's orange, by the way)

You're worried about advancing statism. So am I. But I've always been told that when you're Butt-deep in alligators, that's no time to hold a meeting about how to drain the swamp. The overriding concern for this election is that Obama is doing damage that will be difficult (perhaps impossible) to undo. Another term for him may take us beyond the point of no possible return (assuming we are not already there). So it is essential that we not cast a protest vote againmst Romney and for Obama and give Obama another term. It's sort of like that green slimey worm medicine my mother used to make us take every spring. It left a horrible taste in our mouths, but the alternative was to be slowly eaten from the inside out by worms.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, eh?

Kreutz wrote:The last pre-Keynesian Prez was Hoover, whose market based solution to the Depression (i.e. ride it out) cost him the election. In hindsight he was right, but at the time people demanded "something be done".

That's a bit of fiction new dealer's made up to make it sound like they were doing something different. Hoover interviened immensely. Read a history book once in a while or at least the WSJ:

Far from a free-market idealist, Hoover was an ardent believer in government intervention to support incomes and employment. This is critical to understanding the origins of the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt didn't reverse course upon moving into the White House in 1933; he went further down the path that Hoover had blazed over the previous four years. That was the path to disaster.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html

Shotgun, you are entitled to your opinion, and so am I. I find the description of elephants in s. America a bit strange.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The liberals are very upset and afraid.