I was not going to post Here Anymore

[albin35]

But this is Funny!

[JohnR]

Comey is the only straight shooter there

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Comey is the only straight shooter there

John, do you still think he is a straight shooter still? especially since more and more comes out about the corruption of this investigation of emails

http://video.foxnews.com/v/514656113...#sp=show-clips

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

John, do you still think he is a straight shooter still? especially since more and more comes out about the corruption of this investigation of emails

http://video.foxnews.com/v/514656113...#sp=show-clips

Name one thing that's corrupt about the investigation.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Name one thing that's corrupt about the investigation.

The immunities handed out like candy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by spence

Name one thing that's corrupt about the investigation.

How is that corrupt?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

It is very clear to me that there is a plot from the top to see to it that Clinton becomes president at all costs to defeat Trump.

Put everything together with open eyes and the answers to questions are right there plain as day. Deny all you want, facts are facts.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Name one thing that's corrupt about the investigation.

Hilary's endless list of lies as the investigation developed (I turned over all work emails, I only used one device, I sent none that were flagged as classified at the time, etc).

Near the end of the investigation, Bill Clinton meets with the AG on her jet. Just after this meeting, the Justice Dept announces no charges. Stunning coincidence.

Just after it's announced that no charges will be filed, team Hilary says they would consider keeping Lynch on as AG (I keep mentioning this, you have not responded that I saw. Are you going to tell me there's no appearance of a quid pro quo there? Seriously?)

It's a tad strange to give immunity to so many people, and have zero indictments to show for it in the end.

Nope, nothing to see here, other than the vast right wing conspiracy.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

It is very clear to me that there is a plot from the top to see to it that Clinton becomes president at all costs to defeat Trump.

Put everything together with open eyes and the answers to questions are right there plain as day. Deny all you want, facts are facts.

So, what facts are you talking about?

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So, what facts are you talking about?

I think he's talking about Trump's tweets.

The part of the conspiracy where the government is forcing all these conservative newspapers to endorse a democrat for the first time is the best part.

Must be that new mind control raygun we got from the Dactarians on Alpha Centuri 9.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

How is that corrupt?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Take your meds
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So, what facts are you talking about?

Bryan, how about Bill Clinton having a private meeting with the AG on her jet, days before the announcement?

How about days after the announcement of no charges, team Hilary announces that they will consider keeping Lynch on as AG? That's not grossly inappropriate? That's not having naked contempt for everyone who isn't an insider? They didn't even try, for a nanosecond, to pretend that there wasn't a give-and-take.

You do seem thoughtful on these things. Are you going to tell us, that these facts that I have mentioned (and they are facts), don't stink? Really?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bryan, how about Bill Clinton having a private meeting with the AG on her jet, days before the announcement?

How about days after the announcement of no charges, team Hilary announces that they will consider keeping Lynch on as AG? That's not grossly inappropriate? That's not having naked contempt for everyone who isn't an insider? They didn't even try, for a nanosecond, to pretend that there wasn't a give-and-take.

You do seem thoughtful on these things. Are you going to tell us, that these facts that I have mentioned (and they are facts), don't stink? Really?

Unfortunately, I think that is politics. Would I love everything to be on the level, of course. I still feel strongly that the FBI wasn't politically motivated in their choice not to indict.

Having contempt for an insider is not a reason to support Trump.

She remains a highly flawed candidate, but given the alternatives I would have loved Biden to run, and could have given serious thought to Kasich, depending on his stances on the supreme court and who his VP would have been.

I was saying to a co-worker recently, Trump's biggest success is that he got folks like me to vote for Hillary...

[Fly Rod]

even her doctor is corrupt, cleared her for very good health when she is a sick puppy....has fainted several times in the past....hope she not around the red button when she faints again and her head hits button on her way to the floor....KA BOOM!!!....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Unfortunately, I think that is politics. Would I love everything to be on the level, of course. I still feel strongly that the FBI wasn't politically motivated in their choice not to indict.

Having contempt for an insider is not a reason to support Trump.

She remains a highly flawed candidate, but given the alternatives I would have loved Biden to run, and could have given serious thought to Kasich, depending on his stances on the supreme court and who his VP would have been.

I was saying to a co-worker recently, Trump's biggest success is that he got folks like me to vote for Hillary...

"Unfortunately, I think that is politics. Would I love everything to be on the level, of course. I still feel strongly that the FBI wasn't politically motivated in their choice not to indict. "

In your first sentence, you say that's how the political machine works. In your third sentence, you say you don't think it was political. Which is it?


"Having contempt for an insider is not a reason to support Trump. "

How about having contempt for someone who (1) goes on and on about how unfair the system is because it benefits political insiders, and (2) milks that system to amass a personal fortune, and to allow herself to break the rules when convenient?

Or having contempt for someone whose slogan is "stronger together", yet she says that 50% of the people who disagree with her, are deplorable? After having said that, I'm supposed to believe that she gives a rat's azz about my concerns?

"She remains a highly flawed candidate"

That's about as fair as I have ever heard a Democrat be. Obviously, Trump is also seriously flawed as a candidate, and even more so, as a human being

I hear a lot of Hilary supporters say they'd have voted for Kasich. Sorry, I don't buy it. Those two don't agree on anything. You'd vote for a pro-life, tax-cutting, union-buster if he was running? But since he's not, you're voting for Hilary? Come on!

For that to be true, you'd be saying that all you care about is the personality of the candidate, that you pay no attention whatsoever to their stance on the issues.

The GOP ran likeable, middle-of-the-road, milk-toast candidates in 08 and 12, and not many registered Democrats voted for them.

Both Hilary and Trump are despicable, morally bankrupt, dishonest scumbags. I truly believe that. What a choice. But his policy stances (at least according to what he is currently saying) are way more consistent with my values, and his choice of VP seems to confirm that.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I hear a lot of Hilary supporters say they'd have voted for Kasich. Sorry, I don't buy it. Those two don't agree on anything. You'd vote for a pro-life, tax-cutting, union-buster if he was running? But since he's not, you're voting for Hilary? Come on!

For that to be true, you'd be saying that all you care about is the personality of the candidate, that you pay no attention whatsoever to their stance on the issues.

Both Hilary and Trump are despicable, morally bankrupt, dishonest scumbags. I truly believe that. What a choice. But his policy stances (at least according to what he is currently saying) are way more consistent with my values, and his choice of VP seems to confirm that.

I would have voted for Kasich as a successful governor, with strong budget experience and a reasonable stance on climate change. I would have disagreed with him on some issues for sure. And yes, some of the personality is relevant.

Trumps VP pick was done ONLY to sway folks like you Jim. Period. Same with his supreme court list. Trump is a trickle down, cut and spend republican hidden behind a lot of bull#^&#^&#^&#^& and rhetoric. But don't worry, he has a plan.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I would have voted for Kasich as a successful governor, with strong budget experience and a reasonable stance on climate change. I would have disagreed with him on some issues for sure. And yes, some of the personality is relevant.

Trumps VP pick was done ONLY to sway folks like you Jim. Period. Same with his supreme court list. Trump is a trickle down, cut and spend republican hidden behind a lot of bull#^&#^&#^&#^& and rhetoric. But don't worry, he has a plan.

"Trumps VP pick was done ONLY to sway folks like you Jim. Period."

Agreed. And that was a very wise move, because his personal conservative bona fides are in doubt, to say the least. He needed to pick someone just like Pence.

"Trump is a trickle down, cut and spend republican hidden behind a lot of bull#^&#^&#^&#^& and rhetoric."

He's also a jerk.

Hilary is a tax-and-spend liberal, who wouldn't recognize a personal ethic or moral if it jumped in her face. Her husband kicked off unbelievable economic growth by doing the same things that the Tea Party endorses (cutting spending, cutting taxes, welfare reform), yet she says those policies only benefit the rich. She SAW the impact of those policies, she KNOWS that most people benefitted, but she can't be honest enough to admit it.

She is also one of the very few liberals on record as supporting partial birth abortion. If she can't get something right that's that morally obvious, why should we trust her with stuff that's genuinely complicated. That's not just wrong, it's almost satanic.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I would have voted for Kasich as a successful governor,

So you concede that the best prescription for a sick economy, is a large dose of conservative economic principles? Because that's exactly what Kasich did, and you concede he has been a successful governor.

Yet you are voting for someone whose economic strategy is the exact opposite of what you say made Kasich a successful governor.

Doesn't make sense. You are voting for someone who will do the exact opposite to the country, of what Kasich did in Ohio, even though you say he was a success in Ohio.

[Slipknot]

I don't tweet or read tweets

you all know the facts, some of you just choose to ignore or interpret them your own ways or excuse the countless lies.

Our freedoms are being stripped right before your eyes people, it's time to elect some candidates who will stand up for what made this country what it is.
Tomorrow we lose more freedom, it's sad if this is not blocked

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...799_print.html

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So you concede that the best prescription for a sick economy, is a large dose of conservative economic principles? Because that's exactly what Kasich did, and you concede he has been a successful governor.

Yet you are voting for someone whose economic strategy is the exact opposite of what you say made Kasich a successful governor.

Doesn't make sense. You are voting for someone who will do the exact opposite to the country, of what Kasich did in Ohio, even though you say he was a success in Ohio.

What I said was between Kasich and Hillary I would have a tough choice. Not so much with Trump.

Kasich has cut income taxes and raised sales tax and I think on cigarettes as well, at least that is what I recall I had read about him before. Trump's plan has income taxes for the rich followed by wishing and praying for growth and repatriated money. Oh, and a huge increase in military spending...

When have we seen tax cuts and big increases in military sending again...?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

When have we seen tax cuts and big increases in military sending again...?

Reagan and the following economic boom. And even Bush II which worked very well until the unrelated bank failures made everything else irrelevent.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Reagan and the following economic boom. And even Bush II which worked very well until the unrelated bank failures made everything else irrelevent.

Now don't go bringing inconvenient facts into this.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Now don't go bringing inconvenient facts into this.

Right. Without that pesky bank failure that war would have paid for itself...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right. Without that pesky bank failure that war would have paid for itself...

The bank failure had nothing to do with military spending. The military had been gutted by Clinton and would have had to be rebuilt without the war. The Bush tax cuts, again not related to the bank failure helped fuel economic growth for most of Bush's administration and would have more than covered the refurbishing of the military. Of course the war made it more expensive. All wars do and have done. You just asked for the last time we have seen tax cuts and big increases in military spending, not massive increases due to war.

You conveniently passed on Reagan.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The bank failure had nothing to do with military spending. The military had been gutted by Clinton and would have had to be rebuilt without the war. The Bush tax cuts, again not related to the bank failure helped fuel economic growth which would have more than covered the refurbishing of the military. O course the war made it more expensive. All wars do and have done. You just asked for the last time we have seen tax cuts and big increases in military spending, not massive increases due to war.

You conveniently passed on Reagan.

You are right, I did. I was thinking of Bush. You can argue the costs of 'refurbishing' the military, but in times of war, historically, taxes went up to cover the cost.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

You are right, I did. I was thinking of Bush. You can argue the costs of 'refurbishing' the military, but in times of war, historically, taxes went up to cover the cost.

Yes, but war is the exception. Spending on military maintenance and improvement are constitutional responsibilities of the Federal Government. The other non-constitutional social obligations that the Federal government has taken on amount to more debt than constitutional spending which includes the military.

You're right, in times of war, taxes usually go up. But, as I said, war is the exception and should not be a factor in the simple question of lowering taxes and normal military spending. And Bush's tax cuts and increased spending on improving the military would not have hurt the economic boom. Had you mentioned war, the answer might have been different.

On the other hand, the continued good economy could have eventually, and not too long, have paid for the war. The collapse of the economy changes all that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The bank failure had nothing to do with military spending. The military had been gutted by Clinton and would have had to be rebuilt without the war. The Bush tax cuts, again not related to the bank failure helped fuel economic growth for most of Bush's administration and would have more than covered the refurbishing of the military. Of course the war made it more expensive. All wars do and have done. You just asked for the last time we ahave seen tax cuts and big increases in military spending, not massive increases due to war.

You conveniently passed on Reagan.

There's so much wrong with this post. Clinton didn't gut military spending, he held it steady after a decline by Reagan and Bush 41.

The Bush tax cuts mostly just increased the deficit while economic growth was driven by a real estate bubble.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

So if Comey is such a straight shooter, why is he asking for immunity?


there's that word again, IMMUNITY

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

You are right, I did. I was thinking of Bush. You can argue the costs of 'refurbishing' the military, but in times of war, historically, taxes went up to cover the cost.

Tax revenues collected, hit an all time high after the Bush tax cuts. Tax revenues did not decrease. Not sure you can say for sure, that higher tax rates would have resulted in higher tax revenues collected.