Attn Northern Virginians!

If we boycot all that voted for Obama, we will find not so many places to spend our money as a lot of folks seem to have voted for him.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it's possible you'd have trouble finding many businesses to boycott. Look up the campaign donations of the owners/executives of all the establishments you patronize. The views of business leaders are likely not representative of those of the general population.

Cast your vote in private and dont tell seems to be the way to stay out of trouble. Sad situation that.
Click to expand...

Exposing your vote is a two-edged sword. Maybe the revenue he'll gain from, say, ardent healthcare reform voters will outweigh the revenue he loses from ardent gun rights voters. Maybe not. It's up to you. If you think the situation is sad, do more than talk about it. Express solidarity by making a purchase at this guy's shop.
 
It would take more than how someone voted for me not to

do business with them.. like bad service or poor quality workmanship.

On top of that, If I remember correctly, putting aside the NRA's glowing endorsement, McCain was very anti gun, seems most of you folks were voting for the lesser of two 'evils'.
 
On top of that, If I remember correctly, putting aside the NRA's glowing endorsement, McCain was very anti gun, seems most of you folks were voting for the lesser of two 'evils'.
Click to expand...

I fail to grasp why so much of America views voting as some kind of moral symbol rather than a strategic action. Maybe this view arises because one vote isn't much out of 100 million.

Imagine the only two candidates are Lothar and Wolfgang. Lothar promises to execute one child in every household. Wolfgang promises to execute two children in every household. One of them is certain to win. The polls show the vote will be close. Imagine that you have two children of your own.

Do you abstain from voting on the moral grounds that voting for a baby killer would be "wrong?" Do you vote for Wolfgang because, hey, it's gonna turn out bad either way? Or do you vote, donate and put signs in your yard for Lothar in the hopes of saving one of your children.

This is an outlandish example, but the answer is clear. If you have a high priority objective, strategy demands supporting the lesser of two evils. In fact, if one were really serious about boycotting over any particular issue, also boycotting those who "conscientiously abstained" from the vote would be legitimate. Harsh but true.
 
Didn't need this additional reason to avoid doing business with BRA.
Still it just tells me I made the right decision in the past.
 
"I really don't see the correlation between the chicks and this."


"I've got it and I'm pretty sure I'm made it clear I've got it."

No, you obviously don't have it.

You're still not drawing the clear connection between one individuals action and a second individuals right to react to the first individual's action.

All you can do is patter on about how horrible we big bullies are for holding someone accountable for actions that we find to be incompatible with our beliefs and to alerting others who may be of the same belief.

But but but but but but but... He may have a different reason for voting for Obama?

So what? That still doesn't mean the he can't and shouldn't be held accountable for something that offends our beliefs.

All you're doing is engaging in a morally bankrupt game of "everything everybody does is OK because they believe in it, and no one has the right to say anything to them about it."

That kind of cowardly thinking is, in large part, why the United States is where it is politicially today. Morally bereft politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator in an effort to protect not their constituents or their nation, but their jobs, has become the norm.

God forbid anyone take a stance on anything or be responsible for anything because it upsets the lowest common denominators who collectively buy into that crap.

It's disgusting, it's reprehensible, and it's bereft of character.

But, then again, those are strong beliefs, and under the "new" mindless morality strong negative beliefs aren't allowed because they might damage the flow of the new neutral collective morality.
 
All you're doing is engaging in a morally bankrupt game of "everything everybody does is OK because they believe in it, and no one has the right to say anything to them about it."

That kind of cowardly thinking is, in large part, why the United States is where it is politicially today. Morally bereft politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator in an effort to protect not their constituents or their nation, but their jobs, has become the norm.
Click to expand...

There is much wisdom here.

"The new neutral collective morality." Great term. Sums up our doomed Zeitgeist perfectly.
 
That kind of cowardly thinking is, in large part, why the United States is where it is politicially today. Morally bereft politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator in an effort to protect not their constituents or their nation, but their jobs, has become the norm.
Click to expand...

You know, I can almost agree with a lot of what you're saying in this thread, but I can't help but point out that a large part of where the U.S. is politically is also due to blatant pandering to single-issue (or near-single-issue) voters...again, in an effort to protect jobs rather than constituents or nation. McCain was no less guilty of this than most, and this entire thread is an example of why it happens. On both "sides."

EDIT: Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with spreading this information, or reacting accordingly, I just don't think the moral high ground you seem to be trying to occupy is all that high or moral.
 
I never liked their attitude or prices. I don't shop or shoot there any how. After I was told I should ditch my sissy Glock27 for a 1911 I never went back.

Every action has a reaction it can be good or bad. Someone who makes money off the second amendment should have been a little smarter than omitting that. No not all dems are anti gun but they have historically made that an issue and there's no denying that.
 
Last edited:
This is why I voted for mickey mouse (no joke)
Now I will say I would be less inclined to buy something from a gun store that I knew the owner voted for obama. But that is my personal choice just as his vote was his personal choice.
 
Hellbilly5000

You make a good point, but since Mickey is on the Disney payroll,
you just voted for an anti-gun candidate. (sorry, just couldnt pass
that one up) :)

Seriously, I'm really enjoying this thread and have learned a lot about
a few things. Thanks.
 
I never liked their attitude or prices. I don't shop or shoot there any how
Click to expand...

+1

Blue ridge Arsenal has been notorious for years amongst the NoVA gun community for crap service and high prices.

I and many others would actually have to have been willing to ever patronize the place a second time in order to join a boycott now over the owner's support for Obama. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top