Hillary's health

[dusty88]

You do know that Secret Service protection is provided at the will of the protectee, don't you? If offered, a person can turn it down. She's not President....yet.

Are you saying she is paying for the protection? It looks to me like we are paying for it, then she gets to make the rules.

The other point is that she is applying for the job right now, and supposedly showing us how she would behave. We get the message.

 

[Cameramonkey]

ZOMG!!!! KILLARY A NO-SHOW! IS SHE DYING? IS SHE DEAD AND USING A DOUBLE?

Yeah, absolutely no way this issue could not be spun by the GOP...

Maybe its been asked before and I missed it.

Based on your post history, you seem to be quite the Hillary apologist.

Are you actually planning on voting for her?
If so, what is your justification as a gun owner?
If not why do you appear to be a cheerleader for her?

No, you dont owe me answers, and you are welcome to your opinions. I'm just curious how anyone here who presumably owns and carries guns and thinks their liberties and constitutional rights will be better off under her. (or ANY progressive Democrat for that matter) Not to mention the shady dealings of the foundation, email server, the tendencies of those surrounding her to die in mysterious circumstances, classified info on private servers accessible by non-cleared staff (and hackers), etc, etc, etc.

Either you are unable to see how corrupt she is, or you may be the most subtle, hyper focused, single minded troll in INGO history. Not calling names, mods, just labeling perceived behavior since I have never seen anyone more of an apologist of hers here in... well... ever. The blind devotion just seems to defy logic for someone who would hang out here.

Or are you part of the "guns are great for the range and hunting, but nobody needs to carry one around or own certain kinds of guns" crowd?

 

[churchmouse]

 

[Restroyer]

"Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 report, actually identifies nine key moments in Clinton’s presidency when a different decision might have led to bin Laden’s death. “On every one of these nine choices there are people who believe the President could have made a different choice,” Zelikow said. “And, in each case, there are people who believe the President made the right call.”

"It is worth recalling that when the first operation was discussed — in May 1998 — bin Laden actually had not even been indicted yet. That did not happen until a month later. (It was a sealed indictment and not made public until November, 1998.) Clinton initially only approved a plan to capture bin Laden, and even when he amended that to allowing bin Laden’s death, his intentions were not broadly understood by the CIA." [Emphasis mine]

"Three of the rejected operations involved intelligence on bin Laden’s location and might have led to his death; a fourth was only intended to capture him and bring him to the United States for trial. In at least one instance, intelligence later indicates bin Laden had already left the targeted location. In a fifth case, Clinton did order a strike against targets — but bin Laden apparently was missed by a few hours."

Hindsight is 20/20.

Did we have an AUMF in place? When you say, "A few years later Osama orchestrates the 9/11 attacks.", who was President then? Did GWB not have the same info Bill had? Finally, we couldn't use a Predator; they weren't operational with armed with Hellfire missiles until after 9/11.

YAWN.....I usually never respond to you david, but I never mentioned anything about a "Predator" in my post, did I? Do you always feel the need to add words to everyone's post in a twisted manner to further your liberal agenda? No need to answer - it's a rhetorical question.

 

[bwframe]

 

[KG1]

Interesting.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Maybe its been asked before and I missed it.

Based on your post history, you seem to be quite the Hillary apologist.

Are you actually planning on voting for her?
If so, what is your justification as a gun owner?
If not why do you appear to be a cheerleader for her?

No, you dont owe me answers, and you are welcome to your opinions. I'm just curious how anyone here who presumably owns and carries guns and thinks their liberties and constitutional rights will be better off under her. (or ANY progressive Democrat for that matter) Not to mention the shady dealings of the foundation, email server, the tendencies of those surrounding her to die in mysterious circumstances, classified info on private servers accessible by non-cleared staff (and hackers), etc, etc, etc.

Either you are unable to see how corrupt she is, or you may be the most subtle, hyper focused, single minded troll in INGO history. Not calling names, mods, just labeling perceived behavior since I have never seen anyone more of an apologist of hers here in... well... ever. The blind devotion just seems to defy logic for someone who would hang out here.
It defies logic that anyone could be so blind, not just gun owners.

Or are you part of the "guns are great for the range and hunting, but nobody needs to carry one around or own certain kinds of guns" crowd?

And this is exactly the crowd of which he is a part. He has said this very thing. Of course he says he owns the "bad" guns (and evil high capacity mags), but that he would be only too happy to turn them over (if he were properly compensated ) to his overlords.

 

[Hawkeye]

i'll believe that when I see a pic of your hat hanging there.

also, please remove your blinders and look for context. I'm supporting the concept of not admitting people with pneumonia to the hospital. I was actually supporting the queen's position, but please, continue being argumentative with those who occasionally support what you are saying.

Dont feed the Troll.

 

[Hawkeye]

YAWN.....I usually never respond to you david, but I never mentioned anything about a "Predator" in my post, did I? Do you always feel the need to add words to everyone's post in a twisted manner to further your liberal agenda? No need to answer - it's a rhetorical question.

Dont feed the Troll. Maybe he'll do away if we ignore him...

 

[david890]

at 21 E. 26th St.

i'll believe that when I see a pic of your hat hanging there.

You don't believe I live in an apt.? Really? You need "proof"? I could provide a picture, but then there would be 12 posts saying "Photoshop!"

also, please remove your blinders and look for context. I'm supporting the concept of not admitting people with pneumonia to the hospital. I was actually supporting the queen's position, but please, continue being argumentative with those who occasionally support what you are saying.

The context was that you said send people with pneumonia "home", yet exclude an "apt" as being a "home". Does a single-wide trailer count as a "home"? An RV? A tent? If I came to you with pneumonia, and you "sent me home", where should I go?

If you were "supporting the queen's position", perhaps you could (and should) have stated, "In some cases, a hospital is not appropriate for those with pneumonia, as their immune systems are already compromised, and hospitals harbor some bad germs." At the very least, "A hospital is not appropriate in ALL cases of pneumonia; resting at home makes the best sense from a medical standpoint."

BTW, have you Googled Chelsea's "apt"? It's 5,000 sq. ft., cost she and her husband $10.5M. "Apt" has a different meaning in NYC or other equally large metro areas...

 

[david890]

Are you saying she is paying for the protection? It looks to me like we are paying for it, then she gets to make the rules.

No, she is not paying for SecSer protection; it is provided at no cost by the US government. It is not required that she accept such protection. As far as personal security comes, yes, she gets to make the rules. If she wants to work a crowd line, the detail backs off and lets her shake hands, no matter how uncomfortable they may be with such actions.

THEY work for HER, not the other way around.

 

[Woobie]

If we are paying for it, they work for us.

 

[Ericpwp]

 

[david890]

Are you actually planning on voting for her?

Yes. Trump has zero experience, and everything I've seen to day demonstrates his desire to increase his own wealth at all costs.

If so, what is your justification as a gun owner?

To support and defend this nation when morons like Trump and Bevin suggest the "2A folks take matters into their own hands" if she is elected President.

I'm just curious how anyone here who presumably owns and carries guns and thinks their liberties and constitutional rights will be better off under her. (or ANY progressive Democrat for that matter)

My liberties and rights may not be better under her leadership, but I have no doubt they will be worse under Trump.

Not to mention the shady dealings of the foundation, email server, the tendencies of those surrounding her to die in mysterious circumstances, classified info on private servers accessible by non-cleared staff (and hackers), etc, etc, etc.

And what of the Trump "Foundation"? The RNC e-mail server under GWB? Etc., etc., etc. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who has done construction in NYC has NOT made deals with the Mob regarding concrete, trash removal, etc? What of Trump's taxes, or a better medical report than that hack Dr. Oz?

Either you are unable to see how corrupt she is, or you may be the most subtle, hyper focused, single minded troll in INGO history. Not calling names, mods, just labeling perceived behavior since I have never seen anyone more of an apologist of hers here in... well... ever. The blind devotion just seems to defy logic for someone who would hang out here.

Or are you part of the "guns are great for the range and hunting, but nobody needs to carry one around or own certain kinds of guns" crowd?

That phrase is not suited to a binary, "Yes/No" answer. Guns are great for the range and hunting. Deer pose a credible threat to drivers, and herds in populated areas need to be culled on occasion. Some folks may need to carry one on occasion; others - due to mental issues, past crimes, etc. - shouldn't have access to them at any time. "Certain kinds of guns"? Yes. No one "needs" a Ma Deuce in their arsenal. Welding over the gas port in the barrel of every AR-15 wouldn't radically alter how they're used now.

 

[david890]

I never mentioned anything about a "Predator" in my post, did I?

No, you didn't, but I suspect a lot of folks think we had the option of using a Predator back in 1998. All we had was a cruise missile; no "real-time" video on that weapon to make sure OBL was in the cross-hairs, or that lots of civilians hadn't congregated at the target.

 

[MCgrease08]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...l-trump-hrc-2016-general-election-thread.html

 

[david890]

Dont feed the Troll. Maybe he'll do away if we ignore him...

Click on my username to select my profile. Click the "Add to ignore list". You won't have to deal with my posts anymore.

 

[david890]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...l-trump-hrc-2016-general-election-thread.html

Perhaps the mods should lock this thread and merge it with the one above...

 

[Hawkeye]

Click on my username to select my profile. Click the "Add to ignore list". You won't have to deal with my posts anymore.

Don't the Troll. Maybe he'll get tired and go way.

 

[1DOWN4UP]