The Rickster is certainly gun friendly, but the WH is above his pay grade. But I will say he keeps good company at the range - that is none other than Todd Hodnett of Accuracy 1st: Home
The Rickster is certainly gun friendly, but the WH is above his pay grade. But I will say he keeps good company at the range - that is none other than Todd Hodnett of Accuracy 1st: Home
So ya'll really didn't vote for her solely because she had her own personal opinion about the events of 9/11. Even with the good things she mentioned right before? Just because she has personal doubts about 9/11, she didn't even explicitly state the government was directly involved, just that we haven't seen all the evidence. Would ya'll do the same if a candidate had personal doubts that all the info on JFK's murder hasn't been released (which it hasn't and much of it is "missing") or MLK's muder which in 1999 a court unanimously agreed (with quite sufficient evidence) that multiple government agencies had large roles in that assassination?
Yes, I didn't vote for her solely because of her answer about 9/11. When you are asked that question as a politician - and make no mistake, a libertarian leaning politician will be asked it - there are two and only two acceptable answers: "NO" and "HELL NO". That's it. When it comes to the 9/11 crap, anything else is a deal killer for me.
And yeah, I'd most likely feel the same about a Kennedy/MLK/Sandy Hook/Bildeberger conspiracist. But a truther is absolutely unfit to hold office as far as I'm concerned.
There is 2 problems with her answer. One it was tin foil hat material implicating a popular (in texas politician) 2 even if she thinks it, she needs to be smart enough to say no and he'll no, do a little belly laugh and say see this is exactly the problems we're facing as a party. Then go into why the media is biased
9/11 was not an inside job. It was not a conspiracy. The US government, George Bush, Dick Cheney, the CIA or Halliburton did not set it up. That's beyond lunacy and anybody who believes otherwise cannot be trusted with public office. Period.
9/11 was not an inside job. It was not a conspiracy. The US government, George Bush, Dick Cheney, the CIA or Halliburton did not set it up. That's beyond lunacy and anybody who believes otherwise cannot be trusted with public office. Period.
So ya'll really didn't vote for her solely because she had her own personal opinion about the events of 9/11. Even with the good things she mentioned right before?
Just because she has personal doubts about 9/11, she didn't even explicitly state the government was directly involved, just that we haven't seen all the evidence.
Would ya'll do the same if a candidate had personal doubts that all the info on JFK's murder hasn't been released (which it hasn't and much of it is "missing") or MLK's muder which in 1999 a court unanimously agreed (with quite sufficient evidence) that multiple government agencies had large roles in that assassination?
9/11 was not an inside job. It was not a conspiracy. The US government, George Bush, Dick Cheney, the CIA or Halliburton did not set it up. That's beyond lunacy and anybody who believes otherwise cannot be trusted with public office. Period.
Sorry to spur such an argument about this, but I VERY RARELY see anyone actually disputing conspiracy theories with anything other than Ad Hominem attacks, much like the liberals that say we only carry guns because we have small dicks.
Only because I've found that particular stance to be a good way of separating people who are grounded in reality from people who aren't. Credulous, easily fooled people who look at what happens around them and deny what actually happened are not people who belong in positions of power.