Rob's House

It didn't. Tibs the troll started it and for some reason people are feeding him by having a serious discussion in it. Now that we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did not get a fair trial the odds are high that he will eventually delete the thread.

If I'm Jerry & Dak's holding out for $40m/yr, I'd be inclined to let him walk, draft his replacement, and sign a veteran stopgap. Brady, Brees, Bridgewater, Rivers, & Winston are all free agents, and I'd feel pretty good about my chances of getting one of them for a hell of a lot less than $40m, and feel just as good, if not better, about my chances this year. Dak's Scottie Pippin demanding to be paid like he's Michael Jordan.

What the hell does any of this have to do with whether Jordan Phillips gets the tag? ADHD Motherfu¢kers.

I'd be more inclined to pay Shaq and tag Phillips. Shaq's probably more affordable. I just wonder if Phillips is really as good as his sack total suggests. Hate to let a guy like that go, but I'd like a bigger sample size before giving him a contract with big guarantees.

Apparently he just dipped out of the blue. I don't think there's any backstory that's made its way into the pages of the board. However, if you look and know what to look for you can still find his musings in other corners of the interwebs.

I was vaguely familiar with him before he got smacked with all this bull *****, but I don't really know much about him. What's the knock on him?

No personal animosity, just shooting straight. Perhaps I should have said "you guys" instead of "you." For all I know you were outraged by the DOJ covering for Hillary. If I had to bet I'd sooner place a wager on Rush Limbaugh winning an NAACP image award, but who knows. I will say that your insinuation that the President publicly tweeting his disapproval of an outrageous miscarriage of justice against a civilian who did nothing of consequence but is being railroaded for no legitimate reason is even in the same ballpark as, much less worse than, the DOJ secretly conspiring to run cover for the Secretary of State who was caught knowingly compromising national security for nefarious purposes and then lied and destroyed evidence to cover it up is ... well, I don't really have to say what it is. It speaks for itself. I will add that the corruption involved in the investigation and selective and aggressive prosecution of Roger Stone is far more egregious than anything Roger Stone may have done.

I had a barbecue stain on my white T shirt She was killing me in that mini skirt Skipping rocks on the river by the railroad tracks. She had a sun tan line and red lipstick I worked so hard for that first kiss And a heart don't forget something like that

This is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the legal underpinnings of the Mueller investigation and everything that comes from it. I can't vouch for all of the author's analysis, although the majority of it appears fairly sound, but the most important information is in the quoted material. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/02/wow-president-trump-torches-corrupt-evil-judge-amy-berman-jackson/

You're actually making the point you're arguing against. The Lynch/Clinton meeting on the tarmac was the nail in the coffin of any argument that the DOJ "investigation" was anything other than a coordinated effort to subvert SOP to shield the former Secretary of State and then Presidential candidate from very serious charges of which she was clearly guilty. This current situation is the reigning in of an illegal attempt by the US Attorney's Office to subvert SOP and the law to drastically increase the sentence of a civilian who they have already selectively prosecuted, based on political association, for a relatively minor offense. This is not disputable. All the while they've declined to prosecute several Democrat affiliated government officials for similar and significantly more egregious offenses, with no rational explanation for the disparate treatment. The real kicker is that when the Democrat run DOJ intervened on behalf of Hillary without any legitimate legal or moral justification, and in regard to far more serious and consequential matters related to the official duties as a high ranking member of the sitting administration, you and yours did not give one single, solitary fu¢k. There were no calls for recusals, investigations, prosecutions, or impeachments. No hand wringing over the dereliction of the "rule of law." In fact, any such suggestions were openly mocked. You defended and continue to defend the actions of all who were involved. But now that it's politically convenient you claim to have suddenly developed a rigid set of principles that previously eluded you. Now you feign deep concerns and strong principled opposition to DOJ having any involvement in any case even tangentially connected to the administration, even if it is merely correcting a corrupt and unconscionable process that sought to further persecute a 67 year old civilian who did nothing of consequence and has already received significantly harsher treatment than would any other similarly situated individual. Your positions are irreconcilable, thus your selective piety is unconvincing. Your only guiding principle is unconditional and unwavering support of Democrats and everything they do.

Looks like Pocahontas is near the end of the road. I'm kind of surprised. I said she's a straight shooter with Commander in Chief written all over her.

This guy is terrific

I'm not taking it as anything more than a rumor, but I thought I'd share it just in case it proves to be true. I've been assuming he'd wait until after the election, and the conventional part of my mind thinks it would be politically risky, but this might be another brilliant Trump move. Doing it now would solidify him as a hero to a lot of the base that wants it done yesterday, and there probably wouldn't be much downside. It'll piss off the left, but what are they going to do? Really REALLY not vote for him? They can scream cover-up, corruption, and collusion til they're blue in the face, but no one's listening. The normals are desensitized to it by now, and the last thing the Dems should want is more light shed on this story. Plus, if he does it now it will be old news by the time the election rolls around but the base won't forget. He's already laying the groundwork and President Trump is a man of action. This could really happen.

FWIW Jacob Wohl Scoop: President Trump will pardon Roger Stone and Gen. Flynn and commute the sentence of Paul Manafort on Friday evening

I'm trying to get back to the day When my miss came running from the dead end way I was holding her close in my arms And my world was doing fine Fading away, breaking away as I try To sell her lies

I could go for that. I'm not usually a fan of taking a RB in the first, but it's a late first, and if the talent level is there, go for it. A big bruiser to complement Singletary would make for a dangerous backfield. And you can never have too many good DEs.

I hope you're right. Picking for need is how you end up with Aaron Maybin and EJ Manwell.

Do you guys think we go WR in round 1 or wait until round 2 on account of the depth at the position this year?

I do appreciate you putting in a good word for me. I'm really not cut out for gulag life. To clarify (although I think I was pretty clear), I'm not suggesting Bernie Sanders could be the next Stalin even if he wanted to be. I am suggesting that his views are a lot more extreme than most of his supporters think. His support of Communism goes back a long way. A few examples - he was a fan of Castro, honeymooned in the USSR, supported the Sandinistas, & spoke highly of Hugo Chavez. He's done nothing since to convince me he's softened his stance and is now just pursuing a stronger social safety net as opposed to a command economy. My main concern, again, is not him ushering in the Soviet States of America, but the potential shift a Bernie Presidency could have on American politics going forward. He's already had a significant effect regardless of the outcome. As I told my self-avowed Marxist friend, and devout Bernie Bro, as he was mourning the result of the 2016 primary, Bernie is to socialism what Goldwater was to conservatism. Goldwater lost the election, but in the process he mainstreamed the ideas that would eventually lead to Reagan. Bernie is doing that by taking the stigma out of socialism. A large segment of the country has already gone pretty far down that path in a relatively short period of time (which you alluded to in your other post and I will attempt to address here). I have a number of theories as to why that is, but I'll just name a few. Progressives have dominated both entertainment and news media, public school curriculum, and academia for years. The gradual push towards progressive policies is undeniable. The history of socialism is whitewashed or blacked out in the schools and even glorified in Hollywood with movies like Evita that glamorize socialists like the Perons who took Argentina from a thriving economy to a pit of stagnation. Additionally, most of those advocating for socialism don't have a functional understanding of basic economics. Some do and understand that they're accepting a trade off between economic growth and equitable distribution, but they tend to be more moderate. The hard core Bernie Bros can't be burdened with such trivialities. The fact that economics has been removed from the curriculum and replaced with sociology hasn't helped. Also, people tend to take what we have here for granted. They see only that which is imperfect while assuming everything good that we have just happened, thus making the perfect the enemy of the good. They speak of the tremendous wealth of the country without acknowledging how it came to be. The reckless abandon paired with the lack of self awareness with which many of these people seek to "fundamentally transform" a system that has created unprecedented wealth and innovation should concern anyone who values the freedom and standard of living we enjoy. Again, I'm not worried that Bernie could enact such sweeping changes on his own. But as I said before, incremental steps down the road to socialism can lead us unsuspectingly into a web we can't back out of. The danger is that once you create social programs you create dependence on those programs and it becomes difficult if not impossible to undo them. Take Medicare for example. Certainly some people are better off for its existence, but the desirability of Medicare is not the point of this example. If Medicare never existed in its current form, many people who are now dependent on it would have other health care plans. Those plans do not currently exist because of the effect Medicare has on the market. But now that it's established you can't just pull the rug out from under those people because the alternatives that would otherwise exist are not available to them. The point is not necessarily to say there should be no social programs, but simply that they should be well thought out and very cautiously undertaken, if at all. Now, if we were just talking about Medicare for all, or student debt relief, I may oppose it, but I wouldn't be as concerned. But add to that government imposed price controls (i.e. doubling Fed min wage), abolishing private insurance outright, free college, expanding social security, de facto open borders, and the albatross that is the green new deal, and the picture gets really clear. And that's just what they're talking about right now. Where does it end? Do we really believe if they were able to enact everything I just listed that it would end their push for more government control? The key question that no one ever asks is when will it be enough? It seems the answer is never. The reality is that there's no way to pay for even that. Raising the top marginal tax rate on the 1%, closing "loopholes," and trimming the defense budget isn't going to cut it. In fact, it won't even put a dent in it. Neither would the Warren wealth tax (which is unconstitutional anyway). We're already running a nearly $1 trillion deficit with over 2/3 of the budget going to transfer payments. Taxes, like all things, are subject to the law of diminishing returns. You can't just double the tax rate and get double the revenue. So what happens as we move further down the road to socialism? Is it hard to envision a scenario where the desired outcomes have not been achieved and those who see socialism and the power federal government as the mechanism for addressing economic inequality begin to nationalize industry? Because that's where you take the step from Swede to Soviet. When the economy suffers a depression, can you envision a charismatic socialist leader scapegoating industry leaders, confiscating their businesses, and running them as government entities, thus making all people government workers? When all people are government workers, and thus the government necessarily dictates your station in life, do the people have any bargaining power or choice? If not, is there a meaningful distinction between that and slavery? These are things to consider. I'm clearly not saying this is the inevitable outcome of a Bernie Sanders Presidency, but I am saying this is a realistic scenario should we continue down that path, and we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because we assume others share our sensibilities. Also, if you're looking for a man, I'd recommend checking out some MAGA bros if you're into the whole political thing. Unfortunately, I'm not available, but there are plenty of handsome young men with the confidence to forge their own way in the world that I'm sure you would find far more satisfying than a jaded Bernie bro. I can even return the favor and put in a good word for you.

Did you consider the possibility that we do see them and do care, but don't believe Federal social programs are the best solution to the problem?

Rule #1 of PPP: Never engage in serious discussion in a thread started by Tibs. The thread will just be deleted when it proves inconvenient to him.

Have you ever cringed so hard it hurt?

A related point that gets overlooked is the view of race, ethnicity, genetics, and nationality that existed throughout the developed world in the decades leading up to that point. The way it's taught you'd think these theories just popped up out of the blue. There are a lot of parallels between the evolution of those ideas and those of the dominant global theory that prevails today. It runs in the opposite direction, but is running to such an extreme that it threatens to become just as destructive as that which it runs from, just as right-wing authoritarianism (as it is widely defined) is virtually indistinguishable from left-wing totalitarianism. The primary distinction is that the former was defined by the belief of racial/ethnic distinctions as the primary foundation of culture and value, and a goal of genetic and cultural purity, and relative hegemony of the superior group(s). The latter is defined by a categorical rejection of genetic racial/ethic distinctions with a goal of suppressing the dominant culture and subjugating those racial/ethnic groups who are perceived to be part of that culture. We are coming full circle as rhetoric about the inherent evils of whiteness become more prevalent in our discourse, particularly in traditional propaganda outlets such as mass media and institutions of education, starting in elementary school. It takes no great stretch of the imagination to see the parallels between Nazi propaganda about Jews and US propaganda about consevatives, 1%ers, and white supremacists (the definition of which is being expanded to include virtually all white people). The message is clear: all your problems are caused by these people taking advantage of you. Public schools look increasingly more like a more subversive version of the Hitler youth. Children are indoctrinated by the state with left-wing ideology from a young age. The ideology is taught as fact and critical thinking is actively discouraged. The primary difference is that the Hitler youth were taught to follow the party and the leader whereas the leftist youth are taught to follow the ideology. The leftist youth are brought into the fold more subversively so as to provide plausible deniability. Despite extensive coverage on Nazi Germany, these lessons are largely lost as the curriculum focuses on racism, white supremacy, and genocide for the purpose of creating a visceral moral aversion to all things associated with Nazis - like the "right-wing" and "white supremacists." The cultural and political aspects of that situation are a minor footnote.

That's true. A lot of them look like this.

I find it interesting that Nazi Germany, which is subversively referred to as "right-wing," is taught in great depth, and in such cartoonish & moralistic fashion that nothing of value could ever be gleened from it, but the history of the Soviet Union, which was equally if not more brutal in measure, and far more deadly in scope, barely gets a mention. I assume some of that is due to the fact that the Soviets were our allies and post-war propaganda always sensationalizes the evils of the enemy & downplays that of allies, but I don't think that explanation is sufficient. I find it far more likely that the leftists who control the curriculum do not want to shed light on the horrors and atrocities of a government born out of a "workers" revolution, that cannot be described as anything other than "left-wing."