VA-ALERT: Attorney General Cuccinelli responds

TFred said:

And the only answer that makes any difference is that we can trust Cuccinelli FAR more than we can trust McAuliffe on guns. This election, as with EVERY election in the foreseeable future is a two way race. Voting for anyone OTHER than Cuccinelli is a vote for McAuliffe.

TFred

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you. Sure, this is a gun forum, but the statement is not completely true without the addition.

TFred said:

And the only answer that makes any difference is that we can trust Cuccinelli FAR more than we can trust McAuliffe. This election, as with EVERY election in the foreseeable future is a two way race. Voting for anyone OTHER than Cuccinelli is a vote for McAuliffe.

TFred

Click to expand...

Indeed, and a McAuliffe win is bad for all gun owners. Similarly, the democrat attorney general candidate Mark Herring proudly supports all kinds of restrictions on our 2A rights.

Don't turn Virginia into Maryland!

Tess said:

Fixed it for you. Sure, this is a gun forum, but the statement is not completely true without the addition.

Click to expand...

Please don't ever "fix" my posts. I say exactly what I mean 99.99% of the time, and that 0.01% is usually a typo. When I do make mistakes, I am quite open to own up to it, upon discovery. If you want to say something different, say it yourself, don't insult me by presuming you can "correct" what I wanted to say.

You are right, this IS a gun forum, therefore, when a comment is made about a particular candidate or candidates, one may assume it is the context of guns or RKBA or some very similar topic.

When you add the phrase "on guns" you take what I said and make it NOT about guns. We choose to disagree on the candidates stand on non-gun issues, YOU are the one who took what I said and made it not about guns, and speaking on non-gun issues would technically be a violation of the forum rules, if you want to get all rulesy about it.

I would appreciate it if you do not do that in the future.

V/R,

TFred

TFred said:

Please don't ever "fix" my posts. I say exactly what I mean 99.99% of the time, and that 0.01% is usually a typo. When I do make mistakes, I am quite open to own up to it, upon discovery. If you want to say something different, say it yourself, don't insult me by presuming you can "correct" what I wanted to say.

You are right, this IS a gun forum, therefore, when a comment is made about a particular candidate or candidates, one may assume it is the context of guns or RKBA or some very similar topic.

When you add the phrase "on guns" you take what I said and make it NOT about guns. We choose to disagree on the candidates stand on non-gun issues, YOU are the one who took what I said and made it not about guns, and speaking on non-gun issues would technically be a violation of the forum rules, if you want to get all rulesy about it.

I would appreciate it if you do not do that in the future.

V/R,

TFred

Click to expand...

No problem. You're free to be as incorrect as you please.

Tess said:

No problem. You're free to be as incorrect as you please.

Click to expand...

Not the reply - or attitude - I would expect from a long-time member here.

Are you sure you want to turn this board into a general political forum?

More importantly, do you think John or Mike want you to turn this board into a general political forum?

Disappointed.

TFred

Sweet Baby Jeebus on a pogo stick!

"FIFY" or "Fixed It For You" has been recognized by most folks as the way in which one internet commando expresses their slight/major difference of opinion regarding the opinion stated by a previously posting internet commando.

If someone has posted something factually wrong the response is along the lines of "You are wrong. XYZ clearly states A where you state B." That is not a difference of opinion situation, but along the lines of #1 saying you must have a CHP while OCing in a car because the vehicle "conceals" the handgun from view by the public and police officers. #2 responds "You are wrong. [gives full, detailed explanation including cites to code section, the last 250+ years of case law, and the history of the common law back at least as far as the first Roman Empire)."

TFred says we can trust Cuccinelli FAR more than we can trust McAuliffe. Tess suggests that statement is true as regards guns (firearms-related issues) but not necessarily true for all other matters/issues. TFred throws a hissy fit.

Looks like someone needs a hug and maybe a glass of milk. (I'd offer a cookie, too, but am afraid the sugar might set off even more stuff.)

stay safe.

This has all the earmarks of a long, long thread:lol:

Tess certainly has the right to her opinion. She just never says exactly what it is, only that Cuccinelli needs tar and feathers.

TFred, likewise is entitled to his and does express the reasons for it.

Others only post "Screwed by the Cooch" but no specifics.

I'm not voting because I ain't showing ID...so I'm part of the problem too.

Blind hate makes interesting reading but poor politics.:uhoh:

As I've said before...we're liable to end up with a Government complex next year, that has a sign on the iron gates. "Welcome to Hell".

peter nap said:

This has all the earmarks of a long, long thread:lol:

Tess certainly has the right to her opinion. She just never says exactly what it is, only that Cuccinelli needs tar and feathers.

Click to expand...

I've said many times, in many ways, how I disagree with the AG, and why I think he's downright BAD for Virginia. I'm goign to list a few here, to counteract the "I've never said" (and I've NEVER indicated he needs tar and feathers - he simply doesn't deserve a vote because of these things.)
- His wishy-washy stance on gun rights - though it's better than McAuliffe's, it's NOT a strong stance.
- His assertion he doesn't have to follow or enforce laws he doesn't think are constitutional.
- His disdain for a woman's right to choose the medical procedures she and her doctor may discuss.
- His disdain for recognition of a contract defining with whom one wants to share a life.

Many of these have sub-heads.

TFred, likewise is entitled to his and does express the reasons for it.

Others only post "Screwed by the Cooch" but no specifics.

I'm not voting because I ain't showing ID...so I'm part of the problem too.

Blind hate makes interesting reading but poor politics.:uhoh:

As I've said before...we're liable to end up with a Government complex next year, that has a sign on the iron gates. "Welcome to Hell".

Click to expand...

Now, my hijack is over. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.