[pissant]

See the debates. She more than holds her own against the RINOs. So even a “crazy” person is better, especially if she didn’t say she was a “truther”, and since she’s not.

[Brugmansian]

I accepted what she said to Beck when she explained later. Chalked it up to being a newbie. But then she told ABC she questioned why no policemen and so many firemen were killed in the Towers on 9/11. Good grief. I would like new people in too but not anyone who is that thoughtless and shallow.

[Grunthor]

“See the debates. She more than holds her own against the RINOs. So even a “crazy” person is better, especially if she didn’t say she was a “truther”, and since she’s not.”

Unless the question had been asked, no one would have known for sure. There is nothing wrong with asking tough questions of those seeking power.

[Larry Lucido]

Soemtimes a crazy person is better. But not this one. Truthers are poison. Get rid of the bitch.

[GLDNGUN]

Nice try. Look at the question she was asked by Beck and ask yourself if that is the answer that would be given by someone who believes it was Islamic terrorists only and that our government was not involved. It was a softball question (NOT a “beanball”) for anyone who’s not a “truther”. She may not be a truther, but she sure was trying to play footsie with them. It is over. She is done.

[MichiganConservative]

But what does she think about the mafia’s involvement in the JFK assassination? You know, that happened in Texas!

Perry and Hutchison are “Establishment Approved”! You must vote for them!

What would she do differently as governor of Texas if she though 9/11 was an inside job or not?

What’s the problem questioning the government about possible 9/11 coverups? Are we supposed to blindly believe the government? Jefferson didn’t think so.