Rob's House

If you agree why are you so offended?

So is COVID-19 more susceptible to masks than other Corona viruses? If so, how? If not, are you suggesting that "Science" just learned for the first time ever that masks do stop the transmission of these viruses? And, if we're still accumulating data, because we really don't know and are trying to mitigate in the meantime, doesn't it seem highly irresponsible to gather in mass numbers for weeks on end relying on a thin piece of cloth that the CDC said was ineffective to stop the transmission of a disease so deadly that we must shut down society, despite untold destruction, to stop its spread? Also, wrt police shootings, should we use the data we've accumulated for decades, or should we use the inductive approach relying on selectively chosen anecdotal evidence until we can accumulate data to support the preferred narrative? Just trying to figure out how to "do science."

Copied and pasted Why Republicans eventually lose, every time... Conservative values are based on freedom and opportunity, and it takes a certain level of logic and reason to understand the mechanisms that allow freedom to breed opportunity, such that lives improve. It is, in the meantime, very easy to say things like, “I believe in PEOPLE and will NOT let your desire for FREEDUMB exclude people from access to HEALTHCARE and FOOD!!!!!” The second quote is clever in many ways, even as it is misleading. First, it ridicules freedom, and personalizes freedom in a way that makes it about greed and excess - those who want freedom are portrayed as the ‘I have mine and screw the rest of you’ crowd. Second, it conflates freedom, and conservative values in general, with pain, suffering, and starvation. It essentially says, “People are sick, injured, and hungry because YOU DO NOT CARE!!!” Third, it is purely moralistic. It offers no mechanisms, and requires no sense of logic or reason. It, rather, creates a false binary between freedom and survival, without any indication for how those things may, or may not be, related. It implies a simple choice: if you are for freedom, you must be against survival. Fourth, it implies, without stating, that being against government providing things, is the same as being against those things being provided. It implies that being against a government takeover of medical care is the same as being against having medical care provided, and that being against a government takeover of the food industry is the same as being against having food. Most importantly... It encourages conservatives to use logic and reason to deconstruct the statement, such that we can rip it apart (exactly as I just did). Ronald Reagan once said, “If you are explaining, you are losing.” When we focus solely on logic and reason, without pivoting to morality, we cede the moral high ground and turn off the electorate. Much of the electorate does not have the time, nor the patience, to listen to logic and reason. They just want to do the right thing. In this way, the Democrats are better at messaging. Getting better at our moral communication is not difficult. We just have to learn to pack our logical, well reasoned arguments, in a moral sandwich. Start with a moral claim, back it with reason and logic, and then restate it at the end. Instead of ‘socialism would be great if it worked,’ followed by a bunch of arguments about how socialism cannot work, say, ‘socialism has killed more people than has smallpox, and it makes people no more important than farm animals,” followed by all of the logical arguments making THAT statement true. Finally, restate the fact that socialism is evil, as it treats people like farm animals, and kills more effectively than do plagues. We win the occasional election, but very little if anything gets rolled back when we do. Democrats, in the meantime, bide their time, and then come back with new ways to grow government. If we want to win in the long term, we need to convince people that growing government is morally wrong.

Hillary consulted with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt for guidance.

Is "Science" the other janitor at the nursing home who shared the teachings of CNN with you at the water cooler? Or is "Science" the John Kerry of the CDC who was against the masks before he was for them? Or is "Science" one of the BLM dudes who "opened your eyes" and convinced you to ¢uck for them? Is he the one who told you putting a bandana over your face was more effective than wrapping it around your dick and using it as a condom? Does virtue signaling by marching in protest of an abstract concept you can't define or quantify, and with no clear demands or objectives enhance the effectiveness of the mask or is this universally effective? Did "Science" suddenly figure out for the first time in April that masks stop the spread of viruses? If, according to "Science," you can gather en masse in the streets risk free as long as you have a thin layer of cloth covering your pie hole, why did we shut everything down in the first place, and why aren't we reopening everything now? Also, does this "Science" dude have a method by which we could better understand national trends on subjects like police shootings by race, or is anecdotal evidence his preferred approach? Thanks in advance, dude. I don't have access to this guy so I appreciate you sharing his teachings with us.

Co-founder of Green Peace says global warming is a hoax.

Remember this gem.

Not sure if already posted, but watch the full clip from 2003.

Andrew Napolitano outed himself as a lying sack of sh!t during the Russia debacle. It's not surprising to see him doubling down on his sedition. The fact that he claims anyone is trying to "silence" the tantrum throwers, who 2 months in still don't have a coherent message, exposes him for the naked shill that he is.

To the COVID mask crowd: If you've been consistent on this issue then God bless you. BUT, if you excoriated everyone who didn't wrap themselves in bubble tape and hide out in the closet, then ten minutes later supported people nationwide gathering by the thousands to "protest" in the streets, then turned around and began excoriating others again for not taking COVID seriously enough to suit your mood, seriously, go ***** yourself. There are a select few possibilities. Either (1) You didn't care if millions of people died as a result of the "protests" or (2) you're absolutely and irredeemably full of *****. There are no other options. So again, if you've been on board with the social distance/lockdown/facemask/bubble wrap movement all along, we're cool. If you've only been with it when and to the extent the garbage media sources you inexplicably continue to trust told you to, you're either a weak minded sucker, or an outright piece of *****. Sorry if the truth hurts. Deal with it.

Mediterranean Sea warmer during Roman Empire than any other time in past 2,000 years: experts The Mediterranean was 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer during the period of ancient Rome https://www.foxnews.com/science/mediterranean-sea-significantly-warmer-roman-empire

More peace

I disagree with Tim here. I'm glad the guy is dead. He'd just as quickly shoot me with my kids in the car. His death is a net win for the gene pool.

So much peace

Look how peaceful this is

There is a rebuttable presumption that this guy had it coming. There are no "peaceful protestors" in Portland. That's not a protest, it's a dance party.

New York is a much happier place now that these people are free from police oppression. https://abc7ny.com/father-daughter-beaten-with-beer-bottles-in-nyc-bodega-attack/6332035/

We need more of this

You should wear a MAGA hat so they know you're not black.

https://wildabouthockey.tumblr.com/image/122521975653

What a novel approach

This is encouraging