Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

This is not going to be easy come November.

Sure, it will be an easy vote.

Plunging a toilet is easy, too.

Neither are pleasant.

SHMIV wrote:Sure, it will be an easy vote.

Plunging a toilet is easy, too.

Neither are pleasant.

Perhaps the reason we keep getting awful candidates, like Newt and Romney, is because too many people are willing to hold their nose and vote for the guy in their party rather than send a message. Obama pushed through a major overhaul of the medial system (overhaul is being polite), but Newt pushed through the largest welfare program increase in our lives. Yes, one has a D and the other an R, but if you look at what Newt has actually done he's almost big government as Obama. Their objectives are different, but both believe in government as the solution.

How is it that the Tea Party loves this guy? Seriously, he's like the biggest big government R we had laying around. His welfare "reform" makes Romneycare look like peanuts.

gunderwood wrote:

SHMIV wrote:Sure, it will be an easy vote.

Plunging a toilet is easy, too.

Neither are pleasant.

Perhaps the reason we keep getting awful candidates, like Newt and Romney, is because too many people are willing to hold their nose and vote for the guy in their party rather than send a message. Obama pushed through a major overhaul of the medial system (overhaul is being polite), but Newt pushed through the largest welfare program increase in our lives. Yes, one has a D and the other an R, but if you look at what Newt has actually done he's almost big government as Obama. Their objectives are different, but both believe in government as the solution.

How is it that the Tea Party loves this guy? Seriously, he's like the biggest big government R we had laying around. His welfare "reform" makes Romneycare look like peanuts.

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

We can't afford to send a message at the expense of giving Obama another 4 years. Even if your message were received, by 2016 the country and the economy will be too far gone to fix. And sadly, it doesn't matter whether Ron Paul is right about all his positions and allegations; he's not electable. Much as I'd like to give the RINOs the finger, I'm not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face.

I agree we are in the shits apparently,,but Obama has to be booted out no matter what so we may get a less than desirable candidate... Heres a little more fire fuel to make liking Newt a little harder...http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/13/unb ... ndy-stern/ SOB just can;t keep it shut and Obamas camp is loving it.

It not "less desirable", it's almost the exact same candidate. Send the message while you can and don't let the Republican establishment believe that they can continue to support these candidates. If you gonna to elect one of the RINOs you might as well just reelect Obama there are little differences between the two.

Jakeiscrazy wrote:It not "less desirable", it's almost the exact same candidate. Send the message while you can and don't let the Republican establishment believe that they can continue to support these candidates. If you gonna to elect one of the RINOs you might as well just reelect Obama there are little differences between the two.

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

Jakie, that's like saying, "if I've got to have this ingrown toenail, I might as well just blow my brains out".

dorminWS wrote:

Jakeiscrazy wrote:It not "less desirable", it's almost the exact same candidate. Send the message while you can and don't let the Republican establishment believe that they can continue to support these candidates. If you gonna to elect one of the RINOs you might as well just reelect Obama there are little differences between the two.

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

Jakie, that's like saying, "if I've got to have this ingrown toenail, I might as well just blow my brains out".

No it's not. An ingrown toenail would represent a minor problem with a canidate. But Newt has constantly supported liberal policy's so was the point in supporting a candidate that has supported the current administration. There is no other way to effect change in the party unless you all or nothing support a candidate that is truly different.

Jakeiscrazy wrote:

dorminWS wrote:

Jakeiscrazy wrote:It not "less desirable", it's almost the exact same candidate. Send the message while you can and don't let the Republican establishment believe that they can continue to support these candidates. If you gonna to elect one of the RINOs you might as well just reelect Obama there are little differences between the two.

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

Jakie, that's like saying, "if I've got to have this ingrown toenail, I might as well just blow my brains out".

No it's not. An ingrown toenail would represent a minor problem with a canidate. But Newt has constantly supported liberal policy's so was the point in supporting a candidate that has supported the current administration. There is no other way to effect change in the party unless you all or nothing support a candidate that is truly different.

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

THE POINT IS that if you give Obama another 4 years in the White House just so you can "send a message to the republicans" that you don't consider their candidates ideally chosen, there won't be any country left to govern even if the republicans DO wake up. The USA as we have known it will no longer exist and there will be no recovering it. If Obama puts even one more person on the Supreme Court (and another term could enable him to appoint 2 or 3), WE'RE SCREWED! It has to be anybody but Obama for any libertarian, conservative or anybody of similar stripe who doesn't want to cut off his nose to spite his face.

dorminWS wrote:
THE POINT IS that if you give Obama another 4 years in the White House just so you can "send a message to the republicans" that you don't consider their candidates ideally chosen, there won't be any country left to govern even if the republicans DO wake up. The USA as we have known it will no longer exist and there will be no recovering it. If Obama puts even one more person on the Supreme Court (and another term could enable him to appoint 2 or 3), WE'RE SCREWED! It has to be anybody but Obama for any libertarian, conservative or anybody of similar stripe who doesn't want to cut off his nose to spite his face.

There is no difference between electing Newt or electing Obama. Newt has flip flopped so many times on times on so many issues that nobody really knows where he truly stands anymore. At least with Obama you know which way he's going to fall on an issue. You really think he can even win? America is going to embrace a candidate that can't even make up his mind on some as important as the individual mandate? The guy has had 3 wives and cheated all of them but the last(as far as we know) and even left one for his mistress while she was battling cancer! Don't even start with the "It's water under the bridge." or "What's that's have to do with politics." We all know that his the opposition will ram home his infidelity and it won't matter what he says because the point will be made that Newt couldn't be trusted to stay faithful to his own wife then he certainly can't be trusted to be faithful to his campaign promises. Then they'll go out and find one of those nice clips of him just like Bush did for Kerry and create another "Windsurfer" style ad. Any idiot could run a campaign against Newt.

Nobody is holding out for the perfect canidate because you won't find one. But Newt doesn't even begin to come near what is desired. Not even close.

You can hate whoever the republicans nominate all you want to; whoever it is will still be preferable to Obama. There are right now 4 members of the Supreme Court that voted against recognizing the second amendment as guarenteeing a personal right to keep & bear arms for personal defense. They joined in dissenting opinions and at least one has even said that someday a "wiser" court may reverse all of the SCOTUS' recent 5-4 decisions. One more SCOTUS appointment is all it will take to put you back in the slingshot business, my boy.

dorminWS wrote:THE POINT IS that if you give Obama another 4 years in the White House just so you can "send a message to the republicans" that you don't consider their candidates ideally chosen, there won't be any country left to govern even if the republicans DO wake up. The USA as we have known it will no longer exist and there will be no recovering it. If Obama puts even one more person on the Supreme Court (and another term could enable him to appoint 2 or 3), WE'RE SCREWED! It has to be anybody but Obama for any libertarian, conservative or anybody of similar stripe who doesn't want to cut off his nose to spite his face.

You people said the same thing with FDR, country survived up till now didn't it? The sky isnt falling and this country is gonna hobble along for at least another generation or two.

If Romney is the next old white guy in line, it's a moot point anyway. It does seem to be Romneys turn. Sucks that it works that way.

There are 4 virulently anti-2nd Amendment Justices on the SCOTUS. If Obama gets one more appointment, you can get ready to turn your guns in to the government. we don't dare NOT vote for whoever the republicans decide to run. I don't like it, either; but that's just the way it is.

dorminWS wrote:We can't afford to send a message at the expense of giving Obama another 4 years. Even if your message were received, by 2016 the country and the economy will be too far gone to fix.

Interesting...same argument different years. I thought 2008 was the year and why we had to support McCain...how did that work out for you?

I predict the same statements in 2016, 2020, 2024...you get the point.

VBshooter wrote:Heres a little more fire fuel to make liking Newt a little harder...http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/13/unb ... ndy-stern/ SOB just can;t keep it shut and Obamas camp is loving it.

That's basically my point and the point of this thread. Newt has been all over the place ideologically over the years, but he's been very consistent in at least one way...belief in big government. He's the antithesis of the Tea Party small government ideas, but the talking heads are pushing him hard and trying to sell the American people a false bill of goods.

Jakeiscrazy wrote:

dorminWS wrote:

Jakeiscrazy wrote:It not "less desirable", it's almost the exact same candidate. Send the message while you can and don't let the Republican establishment believe that they can continue to support these candidates. If you gonna to elect one of the RINOs you might as well just reelect Obama there are little differences between the two.

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

Jakie, that's like saying, "if I've got to have this ingrown toenail, I might as well just blow my brains out".

No it's not. An ingrown toenail would represent a minor problem with a canidate. But Newt has constantly supported liberal policy's so was the point in supporting a candidate that has supported the current administration. There is no other way to effect change in the party unless you all or nothing support a candidate that is truly different.

+1

Exactly! Like I said, we were told the same thing by the same people in 2008, 2004, 2000, ad nauseum. Paul isn't a perfect candidate (none of them are), but of the candidates who represent real change (e.g. Huntsman, possibly Bachman, but she's still so new) Paul is polling the highest. Neither Newt nor Romney stand for limited Constitutional government.

dorminWS wrote:There are 4 virulently anti-2nd Amendment Justices on the SCOTUS. If Obama gets one more appointment, you can get ready to turn your guns in to the government. we don't dare NOT vote for whoever the republicans decide to run. I don't like it, either; but that's just the way it is.

And you think Romney or Newt are going to put a strong 2nd Amendment supporter on the SCOTUS? (5 of 5)

That's seriously the funniest thing I've heard all month.

Edit: Here's what you will get if Newt or Romney get the chance to put a justice on the SCOTUS: a limp, floppy, unprincipled justice who's just going to side with those 4 antis 2/3's of the time. Congrats, you've legally retained 1/3 of your rights, but you're guaranteed to loose those in 2016 or 2020 when the D's probably win because of the ineptitude of the R administration.

gunderwood wrote:

dorminWS wrote:There are 4 virulently anti-2nd Amendment Justices on the SCOTUS. If Obama gets one more appointment, you can get ready to turn your guns in to the government. we don't dare NOT vote for whoever the republicans decide to run. I don't like it, either; but that's just the way it is.

And you think Romney or Newt are going to put a strong 2nd Amendment supporter on the SCOTUS? (5 of 5)

That's seriously the funniest thing I've heard all month.

Edit: Here's what you will get if Newt or Romney get the chance to put a justice on the SCOTUS: a limp, floppy, unprincipled justice who's just going to side with those 4 antis 2/3's of the time. Congrats, you've legally retained 1/3 of your rights, but you're guaranteed to loose those in 2016 or 2020 when the D's probably win because of the ineptitude of the R administration.

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

Fine. Let Obama be elected because independants, conservatives and libertarians refuse to vote for an "inept" republican, and he'll stick another Kagan on the SCOTUS; then you'll have failed to retain your rights 3/3rds of the time. You think that's better? Now THAT'S funny.