And just like that Ben Carlson would no longer have my vote

[AustinN4]

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

 

[rushthezeppelin]

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 needs to learn how to use eye pro....it's a good thing he wasn't using a can otherwise the gas blowback woulda been a bitch on them poor poor peepers.

 

[Dash Riprock]

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.

 

[stdreb27]

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

 

[rushthezeppelin]

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

So basically you wanted them to lie about what they think? And you really think this type of thing is whats splitting our party? Last I checked it was RINOs either making bad laws or standing by while the liberals do so and yet die hards continue to support them. Cuz we all know the government will never lie on a massive scale (cough NSA cough) and we all know that no other totalitarians (which is what the dems are and IMO many of the RINOs) have never performed false flags on their people that didn't get exposed for decades. I'm sorry but do you guys even research into this stuff enough to at least admit a possibility of conspiracy or do you automatically shut it out, stick your fingers in your ears and yell tin foil hats? I could understand if she talked about hiring a state AG to specifically start investigating the Feds on these but most of us "tin foil hat" libertarians know that will go nowhere that the best thing to do at this point is to just get back to small government first and foremost. Sorry to sound so harsh but I really want to speak my mind about that instead of hiding off in the shadows in fear of redicule....now let the flaming commence.

 

[Dash Riprock]

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.

 

[Younggun]

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.

Lol.

I would prefer a politician that questions the motives of the government. The less trust the better. Trusting the gov got us where we are today. Everyone trusting the gov to have their best interests at heart and take care of them.

No, I wouldn't care one but if someone questions the motives of the gov or a particular politician, no matter which state they are from.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

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.

They sure as hell aren't saints either. At the very least you have to admit that Georgie boy's expansion of executive power has allowed Obama to get away with what he has done without major threat of impeachment yet. He set a precedent that certainly helped us get in the situation we are in today.

 

[M. Sage]

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?

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.

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.

She did say that there are "good arguments." There aren't. Anybody incapable of figuring out that the truther arguments are utter crap really should stay the hell away from the office of governor.

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?

Depends what they said. If they said they believed theories conceived by crackheads (like, say, Oswald was brainwashed by the CIA to murder Kennedy), then damn straight I'll take my vote elsewhere.

On the King thing, I'm pretty sure we know that the feds had turned the eye of their illegal COINTELPRO operation on him at one point.

See, that's one of the big differences. One of these instances, there's evidence, and evidence always comes out over time. So many years after 9/11, there's never been any credible or solid evidence to support the retarded truther ramblings.

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.

Ding ding ding.

I'd also like to see them disqualified from voting, but you can't have everything...

 

[rushthezeppelin]

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. I've seen a few of these people have valid arguments that create doubt in certain parts of some conspiracy theory but never one that I believe truly, concretely and concisely pummels any one of them into the ground. Just one example for you, and I'm not using this to explicitly shoot down all other conspiracy deniers just ones on this particular conspiracy, but how do you dispute the 1999 civil court findings about the MLK assassination. In case you have never done research, here's an article that links to the complete transcripts of the trial FLASHBACK: Jury Finds MLK Was Killed by Government Conspiracy, King Family Agrees - The End Run.

I don't want to be at odds with you guys but I'm flabbergasted at how yall can shoot down someone who otherwise shows to be very competent in understanding the need for real liberty in this country for someone who will sell your rights down the river just because they ain't a truther. Seriously do you see us shooting down libertarians who don't believe in conspiracy because we don't think they are grounded in reality? Hell no we happily will vote for anyone who understands what liberty means regardless of their views on these subjects, at least we could move the country in the right direction and away from these nihilistic bastards even if we don't get to prosecute them.

 

[M. Sage]

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.

I'll admit that I actually do that. Why? Frustration. You can only point out facts and see them discarded so many times before you throw your hands in the air, say "**** it" and tell the other party to eat a hearty bowl of dicks. After a few years of "discussions" going exactly the same way every time, you just jump straight to that point.

Here's a fun discussion I got to see happen: Truther vs a former Army 18C who trained to be an airline pilot after he got out. One has professional experience and education, but the truther literally told him that he didn't know what he was talking about.

If I hop straight to the ad hominem, it's because I've decided that actual debate isn't worth the time, because after easily poking holes in every single truther theory I've come across only to be told that I'm the ignorant, easily fooled one (wait, weren't you just saying... never mind) I'm just not gonna play anymore.

Truthers can go eat their bowl of dicks and leave the rest of us alone already.

 

[Younggun]

Wah

 

[Younggun]

.

 

[London]

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.

Damnit. It's too bad we aren't allowed to discuss religion...