FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY FIRED

President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey today. Since Comey’s role is the presidential election pleased no one, lot of people expected this much sooner.

Is Comey a great guy? I don’t know. My guess is that Trump did not think Comey sufficiently dependable under pressure. When I say that, I don’t mean it as a putdown of Comey. I could not handle that job either. Few people could.

During the presidential election, the shenanigans of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration put Comey under enormous pressure. The fact his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, met privately with Bill Clinton on same airport tarmac in Phoenix on June 27, 2016 surely did not help (Loretta Lynch ‘regrets’ Clinton meeting aboard plane: ‘I wish I had seen around that corner’ (washingtontimes.com)).

Unfortunately, Democrat Liberals don’t seem to want to give up their war against Trump. So they are using Comey’s firing as another absurd excuse to call for a special prosecutor. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is happily leading the charge. CSPAN has the video here (Senator Schumer Remarks on Director Comey Firing (c-span.org)). Of course, as usual, Schumer is effectively lying (see Flashback: Schumer was against Comey before he was for him (washingtonexaminer.com)).

Consider that Schumer is doing his absolute best to pressure the Deputy Attorney General to appoint an independent prosecutor when no one has ever presented any evidence that one is needed. Yet the Democrat Liberal media will do what Schumer just did. They will try to make it appear that Trump fired Comey as part of a coverup.

When we partake of the news media, we must understand the meaning of this word.

innuendo

noun, plural innuendos, innuendoes.
1. an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.

2. Law.

a. a parenthetic explanation or specification in a pleading.
b. (in an action for slander or libel) the explanation and elucidation of the words alleged to be defamatory.
c. the word or expression thus explained.

Without any evidence, Democrat Liberals are trying to destroy the reputation of President Trump and officials in his administration. When ordinary citizens do this sort of thing to other ordinary citizens, we call it spreading gossip. The fact that supposedly honorable politicians and respectable journalists do this sort of thing, gossip against people they oppose, does not make it any more acceptable.

Advertisements

50 thoughts on “FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY FIRED

  1. I’m not surprised at all Comey was fired, I think his handling of the Clinton email scandal was horrible, even though I do agree he was put in a no win situation. He hasn’t done much better with the Trump/Russia investigation either.

    Bill O’Reilly had an interesting take in that he thinks it might have to with the recent discovery of Clinton aid Huma Abedin having shoveled thousands of emails to her husband Anthony Weiner and that something was discovered that prompted the firing. The only thing we can know for sure right now is that Democrat heads will continue to explode for a long time to come over this.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @Tricia
      Comey made the mistake of not separating the situation from himself. It is not easy to have the humility to realize “it” is not about me. Me — my responsibility — is to respond appropriately, as I would expect someone who knows what to do would. Comey did not do that.

      The only thing we can know for sure right now is that Democrat heads will continue to explode for a long time to come over this.

      Yep! Yet we both know the leaders of the Democrat Liberals are faking it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Citizen,

        I am inclined to think that he was indeed a Clinton hack because after going on national television and laying out of Hillary’s crimes he did absolutely nothing.

        He also did not put an end to the absurd notion that Russia hacked the 2016 presidential election.

        Comey turned out to be a total disgrace.

        Like

        1. @silenceofmind

          I don’t read minds so I can only guess, but I don’t see how Comey did anyone any favors.

          Comey as much as said H. Clinton was guilty. Then he refused to prosecute. What was that all about? Why do that? I think he wanted it both ways, to have and eat his pretty cake too.

          Instead of just doing his job, I believe Comey tried to look good. He wanted to “appear” neutral, but even though the situation required he feared stepping into the middle of a presidential campaign. Can you imagine the furor taking a major party candidate to court would have created? The was almost no chance he would get a conviction, particularly when the sitting president was backing the person he needed to arrest.

          So instead of just shutting up and doing nothing (the wisest course of action for a plain, ordinary coward), Comey took controversial actions that pleased absolutely no one. So now he is toast.

          So it is that I doubt Comey is especially corrupt. I just him foolish like the rest of us. When he very much needed it, he forgot to pray for divine guidance.

          Like

        2. You can call Comey a hack, but I don’t see how you can call him a Clinton hack. It would seem he did as much damage to her campaign as he did good, perhaps more.

          And as far as the notion that Russia’s attempt to meddle in the 2016 election is ‘absurd’ – not only is it not absurd, it is just a fact. If you mean that they didn’t SWAY the outcome of the elections – that’s a matter of debate, and I’m inclined to agree.

          But to say they are not ‘hacking’ democratic elections all over the world – trying to access emails of candidates, releasing emails that would damage one candidate but not the other, running disinformation campaigns – well, they are indeed doing all of those things. That’s not an opinion – it is a fact verified by intelligence agencies in our own country and abroad.

          Would the election have turned out differently if the Russians didn’t get involved? I don’t think so. I think the impact was minimal. But that doesn’t matter – I still want to know if anyone on the Trump campaign team COLLUDED with Russia in any way. Not because I’m still sore over the last election, but because collusion with a foreign power in an election is treason.

          Like

        3. Don,

          The Russians didn’t hack the election.

          It is impossible to hack the Electoral College.

          Plus, there is absolutely no evidence of that the Russians did such a thing.

          But I do stand corrected on Comey being a Clinton hack.

          Apparently, he was just a flake who became too full of himself.

          Liked by 2 people

        4. The Electoral College? That is one level of protection I usually don’t bother to mention. It would be a mess if members of the Electoral College felt compelled to overturn the popular vote in their state because the voting system had been hacked.

          Really, there is no good reason for such a thing to happen. Voting online would be lunacy. Anyone who is unwilling to go to their polling station or fill out an absentee ballot and mail it in should not be voting anyway. They don’t care enough.

          Like

        5. Ha. I agree that the Electoral college wasn’t hacked. Nor were any voting machines, etc. But it’s indisputable that the Russians tried to influence the election. We have at least 4 people in Mr Trump’s inner circle who failed to disclose having meetings with or receiving payoffs from the Russians. From a purely non-partisan, anti-communist point of view, I think an investigation into whether there was any collusion between members of Trump’s team and the Russians is warranted.

          Like

        6. Well, with all due respect, I’d say you need to turn off FOX News and do a bit of investigation for yourself. This claim has been widely debunked by a number of reputable sources. Politifact, Snopes, etc. have called the accusation mostly untrue. There may still be some things that bother me in that deal, but it takes about 120 seconds to find out that there were a number of cabinet members involved – DC business as usual. You may think Hillary epitomizes what’s wrong with Washington, but I think you’ll find that DC is a Hydra.

          Truth is that a Canadian company already owned 20% of American uranium capacity – not 20% of the uranium we have – and several people signed off on a Russian government-owned company buying out that share.

          Like

        7. Don,

          Politifact and Snopes are mouthpieces for the Left.

          The wouldn’t know a fact is it kissed them on the cheek.

          On the other hand, Hillary’s incompetence and criminality have been part of the public record for decades.

          Like

        8. Facts are facts. I’m tempted to ask, ‘What are the facts, silenceofmind, in your opinion?” But that’s pretty ridiculous. As far as I understand, at least nine cabinet members or heads of departments had to sign off on the deal. It’s been a long time, but I think I read that in the National Review – no lefty mag there, mind you. (Amazing how all the Trump-kissers say liberals need to ‘get over it, Trump won’, but can’t defend their man without referring to Clinton, Obama, or some other event even further in the past). I’m not saying it was the right thing to do – I do not see, however, how it’s connected to Comey’s firing.

          Like

        9. Don,

          The fact is that you are full of hatred.

          Your news sources continually play you people like bongo drums in their war against American democracy.

          THE Donald won fair and square against a zombie.

          What is frightening is that 1/2 of America’s voters, vote zombie every election and turn to pure hatred whenever they lose.

          Like

        10. Wow. I’m offended that you would come to such a conclusion. You do not know me, you have obviously read nothing of what I’ve written online on my own blog. There is absolutely NOTHING in my comments that are hateful or full of hatred. Other than the fact that I disagree with you and that you are quite inept at defending the assertions you make in a rational way, there is nothing in my comments, sir, to warrant such an accusation. Do you call yourself a Christian?
          You make assumptions about how I vote. You make assumptions about what I think – that Donald Trump did not win fairly.
          Your are blinded by your love for a politician and a political view – I have never been guilty of that, nor of hatred.
          Without an apology on your part, sir, our conversation is over.

          Like

        11. Don,

          You just proved my point.

          I am not offended by anything you have to say, yet your hatred demands redress whenever someone makes note of it.

          Besides, I know leftists like the back of glorious naked bottom.

          You people think so uniformly it’s as if you were all mass produced in some brainwashing factory.

          Like

        12. OK – one more redress, then I’ll let whatever you have to say be the last word.
          I did not prove your point – I challenge you to point to one sentence I’ve written that shows I’m ‘full of hatred’. Of course you are not offended by what I said, because I did not accuse you of anything, other than being inept at defending your opinions. That’s the only conclusion any reader could come to based on your comments. Even the readers of a conservative blog such as this one would have to agree.
          I have NO idea what you mean – leftists and glorious naked bottoms? Now you’re illustrating my point.

          Like

        13. Tom, because many of your conservative friends like to post profanity in my comments section, I’ve been forced to turn moderation on when I’m away from the computer. You may remember that I live abroad, which means my site might be inactive when yours is in primetime.
          If by thin-skinned you mean that I have a low tolerance for BS, you are correct.
          Your brilliant, insightful comments now appear on my site.

          Like

        14. I have friends who use profanity? Conservatives tend towards Christianity, and there is a commandment or two Bible that prohibits misuse of the tongue.

          Most of the blogs I frequent have moderation turned off. The spam filter catches most profanity, unless it is turned off.

          Like

  2. I just assumed that Comey’s firing would be one of the first things on Trump’s to do list—but it seems, Trump actually showed restraint and patience in the matter…which was more than I would have done.
    I find it almost funny that the democrats, who were loathing this guy just prior to the election for his “lack of judgement in timing”, are now finding him to be some sort of martyr…this incident is just one more glaring glitch of how the democrats really feel about the sitting President…one minute they hate a guy and now he’s going to be their personal fall guy—-the absurdity just never stops!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Julie (aka Cookie)

      The lies they tell are astonishing! It is amazing the Democrat Liberal rank an file cannot — refuses to — see these lies for what they are. I think the best response is to calmly point out they are lying and to express some heartfelt pity.

      I too, like someone seen to have suffered misfortune, might have suffered a similar fate, but for God’s mercy. — John Bradford (1510–1555)

      When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, was not their choice equally absurd?

      Like

    1. Are there any conservatives out there that are offended by the idea that TASS was given better access than American media? Same thing happened when the PM of Japan visited – Japanese press given access, American media weren’t. I mean – not even FOX. What kind of message does this send to the tinpot dictators of the world bent on suppressing media in their own countries? Why isn’t this a bi-partisan concern?

      Like

      1. I have been offended by much of the American news media for years. I cannot imagine what I would feel if I were in Trump’s shoes.

        Thanks for the comment. If you what to find out what is going on in this country, sometimes you can find a more objective report in the foreign media. Would not recommend the Russian owned media, however.

        Like

        1. Hi Tom – I live abroad and often have better access to European news sources than I do American ones. But my question is whether you were offended by the fact that – at least twice now – foreign press has had access to top-level meetings while American press has not. I’m guessing the foreign press was there because the visitors from those countries demanded it.

          Like

    2. And that is unusual. Never happened before. Trump is suppose to follow Obama’s example. Obama was a master of diplomacy? As evidenced by what?

      There is no evidence Trump has done anything he should not have done. We have Obama on video kowtowing to the Russians, saying something he should not have said. His treaty with Iran was an absurd giveaway. H. Clinton accepted money from the Russians, and anyone who would give her damn foundation a cent. And I am supposed worry about the ridiculous suspicions about Trump from people who unapologetically supported those candidates?

      Like

      1. Hi Tom – you know part of me feels a bit bad to just jump in and disagree with a lot of what you say on your blog – feel free to tell me to p$%s off if you want to. Haha. Promise I will.

        You’re kinda way off topic here – I’m not arguing the many faults of the Obama administration, nor did I ‘unapologetically’ support Hillary. I criticized them in the past when I disagreed with them. But neither is the current POTUS – so, not germane to the conversation.

        We’ll never know if Trump ‘kowtowed’ to the Russians this week – because the media wasn’t there to cover the event – they were banned. We don’t know if Trump has received money from the Russians, because the investigation has been decapitated by Trump himself a number of times. Nor have we seen his tax returns (we know who Hillary received money from because it’s in her returns) – although he, himself stated at one time that he made a lot of money off of Russian investors in his properties. Obama was no ‘master of diplomacy’ for sure – but even by that low standard, Trump is struggling to keep up.

        But the original issue was that you said you’re not concerned by the fact that TASS was in the room while Trump and the Russian ambassador met, but the American press was not – not FOX, not Breitbart – neither friend nor foe. My original question is this – does that not concern you? I could understand if Partisan Tom didn’t have a problem, but it seems that Citizen Tom would.

        You’re answer is ‘no’ – is that because you don’t care about government transparency in general? Is it because you feel the Russian news agency will report events more accurately than any American news agency? Or are you just supporting Team Republican no matter what they do?

        Like

        1. @Don Henson

          The investigation on Trump started in July when Obama was still president. Supposedly, Trump stole the election from H. Clinton. So both are involved.

          The real crime here is that Obama abused our intelligence resources to “investigate” a political opponent. The real crime here is that H. Clinton had a private email server with classified data on it.

          The real farce here is that our news media is chasing after Trump, and you have admitted there is no evidence. Effectively, all you are doing is complaining Trump won’t plead guilty, anyway.

          The news media is partisan. They are not objective. They are players. The large outfits are owned by big corporations, and those corporations use their news departments to advance corporate interests. Does that upset me? No, but I don’t see much reason to cry when Trump gets upset with a partisan press.

          If the average citizen wants to protect his rights, then he must accept the fact that we have competing factions. Some of the people in these different factions may be noble, but lots of them are not. That is true of the news media as well as politician. Some of those people lie quite expertly.

          You have probably heard that Comey was fired because he requested more money to investigate Trump’s supposed connection with Russia. Here are some examples:

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/10/comey-sought-more-money-for-russia-probe-days-before-he-was-fired-officials-say/?utm_term=.9c11c83ff742

          The story is nonsense.
          http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/acting-fbi-director-refutes-reports-comey-asked-funding-russia-investigation-video/

          Like

        2. Tom, you manage to regurgitate everything you’ve read or heard on your favorite news sites – but haven’t addressed any of the questions I posed. You also managed to repeat a falsehood – that Obama illegally had Trump et al under surveillance – there’s never been a shred of evidence to support that claim.
          I did not admit that there’s no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia – what I said was I don’t believe it to be so – meaning I’m not jumping to any conclusions without evidence. However, as I mentioned before, 4 of his team have been proven to be liars about Russia – I’d just like to find out if that’s as far as it goes, or are there others who’ve met with/ received money from the Russians – why do you fault me for wanting to know? I’m not asking Trump to plead guilty – quite the opposite. If I were innocent, I’d say investigate all you want. That’s what I’d expect to hear from an innocent man.
          You are still posting about Clinton and liberals decrying stolen elections – you’re preaching to the wrong crowd. I’m not one of those people who are upset about all of those things. You wanna lock Hillary up? Well, the Trump administration controls all the levers of government – go ahead and prosecute. I’m not in love with any politicians.
          You write as though you think that the press alone has an agenda – as if politicians like Trump do not – you can’t really believe that.

          Like

        3. If I provide evidence, I regurgitate. If I don’t, you ask for evidence.

          Matthew 11:16-19 New King James Version (NKJV)

          16 “But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, 17 and saying:

          ‘We played the flute for you,
          And you did not dance;
          We mourned to you,
          And you did not lament.’

          18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.”

          Did Obama have Trump under surveillance? Well, it fairly obvious officials in Trump’s campaign were under surveillance, but since you don’t like me regurgitating evidence, ….. If you change your mind, let me know. I bet I can find something on Rush Limbaugh’s website.

          You did not admit there is no evidence against Trump? You just did.

          I did not admit that there’s no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia – what I said was I don’t believe it to be so – meaning I’m not jumping to any conclusions without evidence. However, as I mentioned before, 4 of his team have been proven to be liars about Russia – I’d just like to find out if that’s as far as it goes, or are there others who’ve met with/ received money from the Russians – why do you fault me for wanting to know?

          All you have is this thing about people in his campaign who have supposedly accepted money from the Russians. You don’t know anything else, and you have not even provided a link to your source, but you have judged four people.

          The investigation into Trump’s supposed connection to Russian has been going on for months. Unlike that server in H. Clinton’s basement, it is a joke. Unlike the Clinton Foundation, it is a joke. But you are not upset. You just want to investigate baseless allegations against people –hypocrites you call them — whose policies are at odds with your own.

          Like

        4. Tom, I thought it was common knowledge that four associates of the Trump campaign – Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone – have connections to Russia that they failed to disclose, and are therefore under the scrutiny of congressional investigations. Jeff Sessions also had to recuse himself from the Russia affair because he too lied to Congress about meetings with Russia.
          You’re right, this in itself does not mean that Mr Trump himself has done anything wrong – but it certainly warrants an investigation. This isn’t a partisan issue – or it shouldn’t be.

          And, as I’ve said before – Hillary’s got nothing to do with it. You’d get no debate from me that she should’ve been investigated further.

          Like

        5. @Don Henson

          In other words, all you have is common knowledge of the sort otherwise known as gossip.

          Have you ever called for an investigation of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on your blog? Just curious.

          Like

        6. BTW, when you continue to assert that Obama had Trump under surveillance – a completely unsubstantiated claim, supported by no reliable intelligence source – this is what I mean by regurgitation rather than evidence. It simply just weakens whatever else you have to say when you start with such an obvious ‘alternative fact’.

          Rush Limbaugh – quoting other people’s opinions, people known to be partisan for decades – also not facts.

          Saying ‘your candidate did even worse things’ – maybe fact, maybe not, but certainly does not support the legitimacy of any claim. But Clinton was never my candidate to begin with.

          Like

        7. Michael Flynn was not under surveillance? Are you kidding?
          😆

          Here is just a little bit stuff from Limbaugh.
          => https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/03/30/obama-aide-admits-surveillance-of-trump/

          => https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/04/12/trump-was-right-obama-got-fisa-warrant-to-spy-on-trump-team/

          Mostly what Limbaugh does is review what is prominently reported in the Democrat Liberal media. He makes no pretense to be anything other than being entertaining. He pokes fun at himself — and Democrat Liberals — by pretending to be arrogant. If he actually was as arrogant as he pretends, his audience would fade. People would get tired of three hours of narcissism a day fairly quickly, but he has been on the air for decades.

          Really all Limbaugh does is chuckle and gripe about the news, but it makes for a good report of the highlights. Limbaugh makes a definite distinction between what is known to be factual and conjecture. Then he considers what ought to done. Some of his observations are pretty good.

          Like

  3. Hi Tom – just want to say that not all liberals are on the same page here. I, for one, am of the opinion that Comey would never have been in the position to politicize the Clinton email thing to begin with were it not for Bill Clinton’s tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, forcing her to recuse herself. So when Hillary complains that Comey cost her the election, she has only her hubby to blame.

    I also don’t necessarily believe that Trump fired Comey in order to short-circuit an investigation into any Trump-Russian connections. But no one – and I mean NO ONE, conservative or liberal – really believes that Comey was fired for mis-handling that investigation. It is the President’s prerogative to fire the FBI head for whatever reason he sees fit – even if it’s just because at 6’8″, he makes Trump look tiny when they’re together. But don’t insult our intelligence with such transparent BS.

    However, to anyone but a Trump supporter, the timing of the firing looks suspicious. There’s an old Chinese proverb that says ‘don’t tie your shoes in your neighbor’s melon patch’ – perhaps the Biblical equivalent would be to avoid all appearance of evil. Seeing that this is the third person Trump’s fired who – coincidentally perhaps – was leading an investigation related to him, it doesn’t look good.

    And it shouldn’t look good to you no matter what your politics are, or what your opinion of Comey is. I would be equally suspicious of any politician doing the same.

    Like

      1. The Democrats thought the Benghazi investigations were meaningless too – although a lot of Americans wanted to know exactly what happened. The fact of the matter is you can’t just dismiss questions of impropriety when they are directed at your guy, and pursue them when they’re directed at the other guy. That’s not ‘fair and balanced’ – it’s just purely partisan.

        Like

        1. The impropriety was that the Obama administration pretended that some stupid video caused a bunch terrorist to attack our embassy and kill people. The impropriety was that Secretary of State H. Clinton refused the ambassador’s request for additional security. The fact that Congress would not drop the investigation was plainly stupid. What facts needed to be established were established. The fact that H. Clinton became the Democratic Party’s nominee for president is shameful. After she was caught with that stupid email server, trying to hide her crooked deals, she she should been thrown in jail.

          Like

        2. Sorry Tom – your site only allows for comments to be 3-deep, so I’m having to reply to my own comment in order to keep up with you!

          Yes, a lot of impropriety on the part of Clinton and the Obama administration on the Benghazi attack. You can bet that the reason Obama admin officials were run out to tell the video story is because it happened a couple weeks before the election – clearly dishonest.

          But when Reagan was dishonest about Iran-Contra, there was an investigations. When Slick Willy was dishonest about real estate deals and Monica, there was an investigation. When Hillary and Obama were dishonest about Benghazi, there were at least eight investigations. There was even an investigation into the lies George W told to lead us to war. Should politicians be thrown in jail for lying to the public? Hell, yeah. But Hillary wouldn’t even be the tip of the iceberg.

          I have no desire to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit – the fantasy of Hillary wearing one seems to really appeal to Republicans. I just want to know the truth. I’d like the President to stop interfering with investigations.

          Like

        3. Reagan is dead. So he can’t have anything to do with this.

          The issue here is that the establishment is at war with Trump. Politics is a blood sport, and they are playing it that way. No rules. No ethical considerations.

          Like

        4. Tom do you read my comments or just pick out a couple of words you can riff on. My point is – partisans only care about keeping our leaders honest when their guy is not in office. Citizens know that human nature is not short-circuited by an ‘R’ or ‘D’ after your name – everyone who has power should be suspect.
          Have you ever wanted to see a politician investigated? Hillary, Obama? Then you have to agree that investigations of politicians are warranted. If you want Hillary to be investigated for emails, but you think 4 people in the Trump admin lying about Russia isn’t something to worry about, you’re not a conservative thinker – you’re just a partisan.
          It’s ok to be a partisan – to say that I don’t care if my guy shoots someone down in the street – but just admit it.

          Like

        5. I have no problem calling myself a Conservative Republican. Does that equate to being immoral or blind to the truth? Well, I have done some things I should not have done. I have also been blind, but now I think I see a bit better. Is not God’s grace amazing?

          Still, my moral failures and blindness had nothing to do with being a Conservative Republican, and that is what you want to infer. If I have a political preference, I must be irredeemably and deplorably biased. Yet somehow you are not ideological, I suppose.
          🙄

          Anyway, I try not to make my blog a political defense of me. Since I am still quite imperfect, I cannot make a perfect defense of me. So if my beliefs depend upon my personal perfection, I am wasting my time.

          Have you considered the fact you have the same problem?

          Like

        6. OK – last comment on your site – wow, you were really busy while I slept!

          Of course no one is perfect – certainly I am not. But this talk of ‘moral failures’ and such doesn’t relate to the comment I made. I was talking about partisanship, not human imperfection in general.

          Here’s a nice little test – if a politician you didn’t like had 4 campaign associates that lied about their involvement with Russia – would that upset you? Would you be calling for an investigation? Be honest with yourself. (And I don’t mean ‘you’ in particular, I mean ‘you’ as anyone reading). If you’d want a political opponent investigated, but brush off similar allegations as nonsense when they’re leveled at your guy – that’s partisanship.

          Once you’re a partisan – there’s nothing left to discuss. Because all discussions end with my guy is always right and your guy is always wrong.

          Of course I am ideological – but I’m not a partisan. We don’t actually have need of political beliefs these days to get anything done – we have big data and can pretty much run the numbers on anything we want.

          Would government healthcare take away our economic freedom? Data – from Forbes – says it wouldn’t https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/01/27/conservative-think-tank-10-countries-with-universal-health-care-are-economically-freer-than-the-u-s/#56ea7581137e

          Will tax cuts for the rich spur growth in the economy? Again, numbers don’t back that up https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/16/the-numbers-dont-lie-why-lowering-taxes-for-the-rich-no-longer-works-to-grow-the-economy/#19d5016d4bf4

          My ideology? Throw away all the tired ideas we’ve argued about over the years, look at the facts. My opinion, your opinion, Rush Limbaugh’s opinion are valid only to the extent that they rely less on ‘how I feel’ and more on what statistics can prove.

          I’ll try to wade through your lengthy comments on my site – and then I’ll have to end our conversation, as my time is not limitless. Best of luck to you and your readers.

          Like

        7. Don

          You obviously have not given Limbaugh a serious hearing. Otherwise, it would not be fun to tease you with his name.

          Your Forbes articles don’t support your argument. Here’s why. What some people do is they get locked into the idea that we can fix our problems if we have the right system. Because our problems resides within our own prideful nature, there is no such system. Therefore, what those Forbes articles suggest is a supposedly Conservative system fix to fix a system problem created by Democrat Liberals.

          Think of it this way. The first article makes this observation.

          The reason why U.S. government health care is so big already, without achieving universal coverage, is that we heavily subsidize health coverage for Americans with high incomes, while leaving many Americans with low incomes unsubsidized.

          The smart thing to do would be to stop subsidizing the wealthy. Why waste the money? Instead, knowing people are too greedy to stop robbing the treasury, what is proposed? More robbery. While that may be politically astute, it is not an honest fix, and it certainly is not a Conservative proposal.

          The word “charity” is related to the word “love”. Christians would call it agape love. Without a genuine concern for another person’s welfare, we will not be charitable towards that person. That is why government-run charity does not work. Inevitably, government-run charity become about the welfare of the people running that charity, not the people who are supposed to receive it. Instead, we all try to give to the person to whom we are most likely to be charitable, our self.

          Like

  4. In my opinion, Comey never provided any “beef” of a Russian plot after six months of investigation and Trump decided he was a political baggage, so he fired him.

    dymartinka.com/2017/05/11/king-solomon-comey-whirlwind-storm/

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s