Rob's House

Bernie is dangerous. I know the DNC & the Rick Wilsons of the world think he's a sure loss in the general election, but I'm not so sure. He's the only one with passionate supporters, he's appealing to those who reject the establishment, and the TDS crew will fall in line behind whoever gets the nomination. The casual Bernie Bros seem to think "Democratic Socialism" means raising the minimum wage and raising taxes on the super rich so everyone can have free healthcare and college, while still retaining what is essentially a market based economy. Why they're so confident that a western European style mixed economy is the end game is a mystery to me. Given Bernie's history and rhetoric, I think something more akin to Chinese or Soviet style Communism is a more likely goal. That may seem extreme, but no one's going to admit to that goal outright. It's a slow incremental approach. Recall a few years ago it was considered the height of absurdity to suggest that Obama (and by extension, the Dems) was a socialist. Fast forward just a few years and they're openly advocating for it. Forgetting for a minute that governments seldom if ever cease to pursue power, Bernie's own words are cause for concern. He says he wants to "fundamentally transform" our society. That's not language to be taken lightly. That's the kind of talk that starts with a free and prosperous society and millions of corpses later ends in oppression and poverty. Most of the Bernie Bros care about policy, but few really understand those policies or the history of their effects. The basis for their belief that these things will work the way they envision is that they want them to. Many of the hardcore Bernie Bros who are deep in it and have been from the start are self-avowed Marxists. I was not the least bit surprised to see that some of his paid staffers we're caught on tape defending Soviet gulags. Diving into Bernie's history shows us a guy who was enchanted with Marxist ideology, and there's no indication that he's veered from that course. It's not hard to see him trying to implement a command economy. Fortunately Presidents don't have the power to make such drastic changes, but with the level of indoctrination in media, entertainment, and academia, he could start us down that path. It's a dangerous path to go down, because you don't have to go very far before you can't walk it back. As one fella said, you can vote your way into Communism, but you have to shoot your way out. Tingles of all people raised a similar point, but I doubt it gets much traction. Follow the link to see his take:

It struck a nerve because it was true.

Time goes slowly, but carries on And now the best years have come and gone You took me by surprise I didn't realize that you were laughing

You can't save me, You can't change me, Well I'm waiting for my wake up call, and everything's my fault. You can't save me, You can't blame me, Well I'm waiting here to take a fall, and everything, and everything's my fault.

I'm walking in the rain Tears are falling and I feel a pain Wishing you were here by me To end this misery

You forgot racist, sexist, homophobe, and Nazi. Looks like you need to brush up on your Liberal Douchebag Handbook.

That's the rub. It was all a partisan political operation enacted under the guise of principle. We know for sure that if the shoe was on the other foot the pious Dems would say exactly what the Reps are saying now. The total lack of any semblance of concern or even curiosity over Biden/Burisma and the FISA scandal proves that. The Reps would would likely see this in a different light too. I sincerely doubt it would ever go this far, but I could see the Hannity wing trying to make hay out of it. The fact that this is devoid of substance, along with his explanation, is why I don't believe Romney voted according to his conviction. Everyone up to and including Adam Schiff knew exactly what this was. And Romney is not a stupid man. It's not possible that he genuinely believed that there was sufficient evidence of sufficient wrong doing to warrant removal. But he did it anyway. His explanation, to my mind, was the nail in the coffin of his credibility. The part that struck me was when he said this kind of "corruption of an election" was as bad as anything he could imagine. The absurdity of that hyperbole aside, the idea that the accusations, even if true, amounted to cheating or "corrupting" an election is so preposterous that I found myself in awe of Schiff's sociopathic ability to say it with such conviction. The crux of the "crime" is whether the President conducted foreign policy against the interest of the U.S. for personal gain. The alleged benefit is a political advantage, but in this situation whether it's a political advantage or some other personal benefit is immaterial. The issue is just a matter of establishing that it was, in fact, a personal benefit. Romney is smart enough to understand this as I'm sure you are too. The only way the alleged action would affect an election is if it turns out that Biden was involved in corrupt dealings and public knowledge of that cost him votes. Therefore, Romney's stated position is that exposing the corrupt dealings of a politician to the public amounts to "corrupting an election." That's an absurd position. Romney is smart enough to understand all of this, but that was the explanation he gave. Based on that, I believe his statement was insincere PR rather than an honest statement of his reasoning. As I don't find it plausible that an intelligent man could come to his conclusion in earnest, and I believe Romney is an intelligent man, and I find his explanation incredible, I'm left with the conclusion that he had ulterior motives. Given that conclusion, and factoring in the recent history between Romney and President Trump, I find it more likely than not that his motivations were personal. That's my take, anyway. BTW, Good to see you posting.

And a peeker.

That's a wrap.

They're just upset because those are Obama's cages and they don't want anyone else using them.

By "all accounts" I mean the accounts of those I've heard from who have ever known him personally. I disagree with your premise that he has belittled and ridiculed so many people. Sure, he criticizes and makes fun of politicians and media figures, but they're fair game, and he doesn't do it in a way that exceeds (or even reaches) the level of anything you'd see on CNN or MSNBC every night of the week. And I'm not surprised people who don't like him (mostly on reputation, I might add) aren't overwhelmed with empathy, but those people could have the decency to keep their thoughts to themselves. It's nice that you kept it classy, although I'm curious as to how accurately you could describe what it is he stands for.

"Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter" I want to address this sentence, not in relation to Bob personally or even his post specifically, but to this rhetorical device generally. If someone is accused of raping my daughter I am not going to be rational. I am going to be fueled by emotion rather than reason. If an argument requires me to be irrational to accept it then it isn't a good argument. Were those people Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko?

You posted a series of quotes that are taken out of context to make it appear that he conveyed sentiments he clearly did not. If you want to stand on that then you do you. I know that class and decency are antithetical to left-wing fundamentalist ideology, but perhaps you could give it a try.

The list is a bunch of ***** intended to snow the rubes who don't know any better. Half of those quotes are tongue in cheek, satirical, or taken completely out of context. Others (like the Michael J Fox bit) are factually accurate statements. Over 30 years of speaking without a script for 3 hours a day and THAT is the best they got. Says it all, really. It is good of you to weigh in with your opinions of a man who you admittedly haven't attempted to familiarize yourself with. It's impressive that despite that lack of familiarity, and apparent inability to distinguish him from Alex Jones, you've been able to form your own independent opinion that totally wasn't spoonfed to you by left-wing media.

No. Let the scumbags show themselves.

Rush Limbaugh is a legend, but he's more that that. He's more than a talk show host, political figure, or icon. He is a man of conviction who has meant so much to so many people. He is a man of integrity who speaks from the heart and truly believes in the values he espouses. He's a guy from Missouri with traditional American values. He cares about family, God, country, and freedom. Not everyone shares his views and that's okay. Decent people can appreciate others who have different outlooks. By all accounts, this is a good and decent man who treats others with courtesy, kindness, and compassion. In addition to being a great talent, he's also a great person. He has brought joy and comfort to tens of millions of people for decades. Today is a very emotional day for many of us. Although I've not listened as often in recent years, Rush has been a constant in my life since I first heard him on the radio in the car with my dad when I was just a kid some 30 years ago. We never really know who celebrities are. We think the character on the big screen is the actor who plays him, but that's an illusion. With a guy like Rush it's different. Talking unscripted for 3 hours a day is so much more personal. He may be putting his best foot forward, but you still get a feel for the man behind the microphone. After years of listening, I may not know him personally, but I kind of feel like I do. That's why this news is so difficult. It's worse than hearing that an actor, politician, or athlete that you like has fallen ill. It's almost like getting the news about a friend. I'm not a religious man, but I will be saying a prayer for El Rushbo tonight.

Thank you for clarifying. I think if you're being honest with yourself you'll realize that you've formed & maintained this position because people you perceive as allies pushed and continue to push this, rather than because it makes sense to you. I'm not judging. I've done it too. It's part of the reason I try to keep politics at arm's length. The reality is that there is no concern for this guy's safety. The point I was making is not just that anyone motivated enough to kill this guy already knows his name, but moreover, they could learn his identity with no problem. The idea that we need to take all precautions out of fear of the 1 in a billion shot that there's some guy out there who is so enraged at Eric Ciaramella that he's willing to trade his life for a kill, but has lacked the motivation to follow the story at all, or even done a cursory Google search, and will suddenly learn this guy's identity while perusing PPP, set his plan in motion, circumvent Ciaramella's security detail, and score the kill, is just too much. By that logic no one's name should ever be disclosed in association with anything because God only knows what might trigger some unhinged lunatic out there. It makes about as much sense as living in a bunker for fear of a Russian invasion. Or wearing a helmet in case a meteor falls from the sky. The selective nature of protecting this guy exposes the insincerity of the media as well. We've never seen such a concerted media effort to conceal anyone's identity like this before. In fact, the media usually goes out of its way to identify people who could be put in a lot more danger by exposure than this guy. And why would this guy be a bigger target than any number of political figures? No one knows. A much more realistic threat for Ciaramella is the prospect of an Epstein style elimination in order to keep him from ever exposing the plot. Only instead of a staged suicide it would be pinned on a right-wing wacko - labeling conservatives as crazed killers by association would just be a bonus.

I actually did break down in detail why the "increased danger" argument is baseless. You haven't given any reason why you believe it, you just restated that you do. As far as honesty goes, were you nearly as concerned about protecting the identity of Nick Sandman? Have you ever given this much thought to concealing the identity of anyone prior to this story? If so, who? If not, why?

You haven't answered mine yet either. Not honestly anyway. You're sticking to a nonsensical talking point you can't support. That's why people give you a hard time about lacking independent thought and critical thinking skills. We all have cognitive biases, but you seem to be more affected than most. I talk about Eric Ciaramella because 1. He's central to the topic we're discussing, 2. I think he's involved in nefarious activities that should be exposed, 3. There is no reason not to, and 4. because the people covering up his surreptitious plot don't want me to.

Can you explain why putting his name out there bothers you? Can you answer the question I posed in the post you're quoting?

The better question is why are they trying to keep it a secret? A government agent announces he is attempting a coup that is underway, then the same agent becomes the center of a secret coordinated effort to remove the President. If investigating the corruption of a political opponent is cause for removal, it seems obvious that an attempted coup is pretty serious. Something the deeply concerned patriots with such high standards of propriety and transparency would want us to know about. But for some unknown reason it is of the utmost importance that Eric Ciamarella's name not be uttered - especially on the record. It's oddly inconsistent that the same patriots with such deep and genuine concerns for all facts, witnesses, and documents coming to light are also the people who are adamant that neither the Senate nor the public learn anything about the the people who initiated all of this. We've already explained the absurdity of the proffered explanation that it's to protect his safety. No one still believes that. But they're still terrified of having his name mentioned on the record. That's odd. What are they afraid of? If they have nothing to hide, why keep it a secret?

The best part of any Tweet about Eric Ciaramella (the leaker/coconspirator popularly referred to as "the whistleblower") is the histrionic hacks that inevitably accuse the poster of putting his life in danger. Hypocrisy aside, no one with an IQ above room temperature could actually think that. Anyone who cares enough to pay attention has known his name for months. The theory must be that one of these crazed, rabid Trump supporters, that we hear so much about but rarely, if ever, see, feels so strongly about this that he'd take the guy out, but hasn't followed the story at all. It's a pretty stupid theory.

I think he's an actual person, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the bulk of his posts are copied and pasted from a talking points bulletin.