Breaking: Active Shooter(s) In Mandalay Bay Hotel (NSFW)

Page 41 of 42 [ 666 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Oct 2017, 2:15 am

Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
This is like the Russia conspiracy in reverse as far as left and right sides go.

Except for the fact that no one is trying to shut down this investigation before it's complete.


I was only referring to the spectators.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Oct 2017, 2:18 am

Aristophanes wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
The Russian conspiracy is actually turning out to be a negative for the Democrats. They should have left well enough alone. Now it's blowing up in their faces The truth always comes out - eventually.

The Democrats aren't running the probe, the Justice Department is, with the senate and house running their own investigations on the side, both headed by Republicans with majority Republican committees.


I think most everyone who looks at it realistically, knows it was originally invented as an excuse for why Hillary lost and to simultaneously discredit Trump's win. The longer it drags out, the more obvious the charade becomes. People can keep saying how Watergate dragged out. But eventually they'll have to acknowledge that there was never anything of significance or substance involved. They won't publicly acknowledge it. They'll just stop talking about it.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

19 Oct 2017, 6:40 am

EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
The Russian conspiracy is actually turning out to be a negative for the Democrats. They should have left well enough alone. Now it's blowing up in their faces The truth always comes out - eventually.

The Democrats aren't running the probe, the Justice Department is, with the senate and house running their own investigations on the side, both headed by Republicans with majority Republican committees.


I think most everyone who looks at it realistically, knows it was originally invented as an excuse for why Hillary lost and to simultaneously discredit Trump's win. The longer it drags out, the more obvious the charade becomes. People can keep saying how Watergate dragged out. But eventually they'll have to acknowledge that there was never anything of significance or substance involved. They won't publicly acknowledge it. They'll just stop talking about it.

Most people that are looking at it 'realistically', as you put it, are looking at it as a foreign intrusion into our sovereignty, which is well outside left/right politics. Those that are looking at it unrealistically are those attempting to make it Trump/Anti-Trump matter and not a matter of sovereignty.

Besides, you know who has the power to stop it? Republicans, not Democrats, which should tell you something: even a healthy portion of Republicans find Russia's intrusion problematic.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Oct 2017, 7:16 am

Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
The Russian conspiracy is actually turning out to be a negative for the Democrats. They should have left well enough alone. Now it's blowing up in their faces The truth always comes out - eventually.

The Democrats aren't running the probe, the Justice Department is, with the senate and house running their own investigations on the side, both headed by Republicans with majority Republican committees.


I think most everyone who looks at it realistically, knows it was originally invented as an excuse for why Hillary lost and to simultaneously discredit Trump's win. The longer it drags out, the more obvious the charade becomes. People can keep saying how Watergate dragged out. But eventually they'll have to acknowledge that there was never anything of significance or substance involved. They won't publicly acknowledge it. They'll just stop talking about it.

Most people that are looking at it 'realistically', as you put it, are looking at it as a foreign intrusion into our sovereignty, which is well outside left/right politics. Those that are looking at it unrealistically are those attempting to make it Trump/Anti-Trump matter and not a matter of sovereignty.

Besides, you know who has the power to stop it? Republicans, not Democrats, which should tell you something: even a healthy portion of Republicans find Russia's intrusion problematic.


If the United States hadn't meddled in so many elections, inculding Russian elections, I might be a bit more aghast. And the whole Trump/Putin collision Muller investigation started with idiot Podesta getting phished, supposedly by Fancy Bear. It's all a lot of frivolous nonsense and history will record it as such.



staremaster
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,628
Location: New York

19 Oct 2017, 8:55 am

Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
The Russian conspiracy is actually turning out to be a negative for the Democrats. They should have left well enough alone. Now it's blowing up in their faces The truth always comes out - eventually.

The Democrats aren't running the probe, the Justice Department is, with the senate and house running their own investigations on the side, both headed by Republicans with majority Republican committees.


I think most everyone who looks at it realistically, knows it was originally invented as an excuse for why Hillary lost and to simultaneously discredit Trump's win. The longer it drags out, the more obvious the charade becomes. People can keep saying how Watergate dragged out. But eventually they'll have to acknowledge that there was never anything of significance or substance involved. They won't publicly acknowledge it. They'll just stop talking about it.

Most people that are looking at it 'realistically', as you put it, are looking at it as a foreign intrusion into our sovereignty, which is well outside left/right politics. Those that are looking at it unrealistically are those attempting to make it Trump/Anti-Trump matter and not a matter of sovereignty.

Besides, you know who has the power to stop it? Republicans, not Democrats, which should tell you something: even a healthy portion of Republicans find Russia's intrusion problematic.


I know, right?
"Foreigners might have influenced the outcome of our national election..."
"So what? Hillary did it too!"



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

19 Oct 2017, 9:15 am

EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
The Russian conspiracy is actually turning out to be a negative for the Democrats. They should have left well enough alone. Now it's blowing up in their faces The truth always comes out - eventually.

The Democrats aren't running the probe, the Justice Department is, with the senate and house running their own investigations on the side, both headed by Republicans with majority Republican committees.


I think most everyone who looks at it realistically, knows it was originally invented as an excuse for why Hillary lost and to simultaneously discredit Trump's win. The longer it drags out, the more obvious the charade becomes. People can keep saying how Watergate dragged out. But eventually they'll have to acknowledge that there was never anything of significance or substance involved. They won't publicly acknowledge it. They'll just stop talking about it.

Most people that are looking at it 'realistically', as you put it, are looking at it as a foreign intrusion into our sovereignty, which is well outside left/right politics. Those that are looking at it unrealistically are those attempting to make it Trump/Anti-Trump matter and not a matter of sovereignty.

Besides, you know who has the power to stop it? Republicans, not Democrats, which should tell you something: even a healthy portion of Republicans find Russia's intrusion problematic.


If the United States hadn't meddled in so many elections, inculding Russian elections, I might be a bit more aghast. And the whole Trump/Putin collision Muller investigation started with idiot Podesta getting phished, supposedly by Fancy Bear. It's all a lot of frivolous nonsense and history will record it as such.

Not even close to factually accurate, the American public learned of the Russia investigation in early July of '16, before any e-mails were released, when the FBI sent a letter to local election officials warning them to be cautious of electronic communication because they had evidence there was an actionable cyber threat from 'outside actors' to hack said systems. In the same week the FBI also released a statement to the general public warning them of foreign actors portraying Americans to push foreign arguments in an influence campaign (also the same statement the phrase 'fake news' came from). Obviously the investigation started before they sent the warnings, we just don't know exactly when at this point since that specific information hasn't been released. Here's a timeline of pertinent events in the investigation.

Furthermore, your argument is equivocation: we did it therefore it's ok for them. Let's look at that argument structure with a few other events to see if it holds muster: 1. The U.S. attacked Mexico unprovoked in the Mexican-American war therefore the unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was justified (we did it so it's ok for them). 2. During Grant's administration the U.S. government manipulated it's paper and gold currency to lower it's value in an attempt to cheaply pay back the debts owed to European nations for financing the Civil War, therefore when China manipulates currency to boost their economy at the cost of ours it's justified (we did it so it's ok for them). 3. During the American revolution colonial soldiers disregarded the rules of war, including numerous incidents where they fired on British troops while clothed as civilians, therefore when ISIS attacks us disguised as civilians it's justified (we did it so it's ok for them).

The problem with equivocation is that it never ends, it's an argument built around making sure the same problem behaviors continue in the future by all parties involved. How about being against foreign interference by any nation (including our own) instead?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Oct 2017, 1:09 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
Not even close to factually accurate, the American public learned of the Russia investigation in early July of '16, before any e-mails were released, when the FBI sent a letter to local election officials warning them to be cautious of electronic communication because they had evidence there was an actionable cyber threat from 'outside actors' to hack said systems. In the same week the FBI also released a statement to the general public warning them of foreign actors portraying Americans to push foreign arguments in an influence campaign (also the same statement the phrase 'fake news' came from). Obviously the investigation started before they sent the warnings, we just don't know exactly when at this point since that specific information hasn't been released. Here's a timeline of pertinent events in the investigation.


It was the announcement to the public that Russia was accused of phishing Podesta and then sent the emails to Wikileaks, that got everyone's attention and when all the declarations that Putin helped Trump started. Which I remember John Lewis being one of the first to speak out about it. That's when the s**t hit the fan - again, as I myself recall it.

Aristophanes wrote:
Furthermore, your argument is equivocation: we did it therefore it's ok for them. Let's look at that argument structure with a few other events to see if it holds muster: 1. The U.S. attacked Mexico unprovoked in the Mexican-American war therefore the unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was justified (we did it so it's ok for them). 2. During Grant's administration the U.S. government manipulated it's paper and gold currency to lower it's value in an attempt to cheaply pay back the debts owed to European nations for financing the Civil War, therefore when China manipulates currency to boost their economy at the cost of ours it's justified (we did it so it's ok for them). 3. During the American revolution colonial soldiers disregarded the rules of war, including numerous incidents where they fired on British troops while clothed as civilians, therefore when ISIS attacks us disguised as civilians it's justified (we did it so it's ok for them).

The problem with equivocation is that it never ends, it's an argument built around making sure the same problem behaviors continue in the future by all parties involved. How about being against foreign interference by any nation (including our own) instead?


I did not make the equivocation "we did it therefore it's ok for them", you did and then applied it to me. I just said, maybe I'd be more aghast is the US hadn't done it umpteen times within recent history, including to Russia. That doesn't mean I think a whole bunch of wrongs make a right. I would just be more bothered by it if the US hand't done it so much. Under the circumstances, I personally just can do the "how dare they!" with much zeal without feeling like a bit of a hypocrite so to speak.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

19 Oct 2017, 5:10 pm

EzraS wrote:
I did not make the equivocation "we did it therefore it's ok for them", you did and then applied it to me. I just said, maybe I'd be more aghast is the US hadn't done it umpteen times within recent history, including to Russia. That doesn't mean I think a whole bunch of wrongs make a right. I would just be more bothered by it if the US hand't done it so much. Under the circumstances, I personally just can do the "how dare they!" with much zeal without feeling like a bit of a hypocrite so to speak.

You'd only be hypocritical if you supported it in the first place. Not every wrong a nation commits is because of the will of it's people, many times it's a small group of individuals with power that support decisions like interference, not the people as a whole. I doubt you'll find many people here in the States that are pro-interfering with other nation's elections. And yes, Hillary injected herself into Putin's last run and that was wrong, and stupid since it made her a specific target for Putin's current geo-political campaign. Same can be said of Bush Jr. and Afghanistan's first election, and a whole host of presidents and South American elections/power changes dating back to the Monroe Doctrine.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

20 Oct 2017, 9:23 am

Aristophanes wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
The Russian conspiracy is actually turning out to be a negative for the Democrats. They should have left well enough alone. Now it's blowing up in their faces The truth always comes out - eventually.

The Democrats aren't running the probe, the Justice Department is, with the senate and house running their own investigations on the side, both headed by Republicans with majority Republican committees.

Indeed.Not all Republicans are happy about the Russia deal.I've sent some emails to my senators( both Republican) about the Mueller investigation and was surprised to find a message on my answering machine from Senator Cotton's office. 8O
Also Senator Boozman just sent me a letter saying he supported Sessions,Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee in the investigation.Lindsay Graham introduced S.1735 on August 3 2017,"Special Council Independence Protection Act".This would require judicial pre-termination review for the review for the removal of any special counsel at the DOJ. he even signed it "Thanks" with my first name,thanks underlined.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

25 Oct 2017, 12:25 pm

Bruce Paddock, the third brother was arrested for allegedly having pornographic images of children on his computer.

Someone called the FBI and reported it.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/25/vegas-sho ... h-warrant/



0regonGuy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2015
Posts: 658
Location: Oregon Coast

25 Oct 2017, 9:38 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Bruce Paddock, the third brother was arrested for allegedly having pornographic images of children on his computer.

Someone called the FBI and reported it.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/25/vegas-sho ... h-warrant/


Actually the charges are from 2014. They just caught up to him now because of his TV interviews. Not a really good idea to be doing TV interviews when you are wanted by the FBI.

But it's not really a surprise. A family with a 70 year history of criminal activity.


_________________
Autism Social Forum
A place for autistic people to discuss their interests.


Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

03 Dec 2017, 1:49 pm

Remember this story? Seems like it's already been forgotten.

WALSH: 58 People Were Killed In Las Vegas, We Still Don't Know Why Or How, And Nobody Cares

I am going to break the rules of the Internet Hot Take Industry and write about an old story that nobody cares about anymore. We have gone on to other topics, and then other topics, and then other topics, and other topics, etc. The news cycle moves at the speed of sound. Events from last week are a distant memory and news from October may as well have occurred during the Cretaceous Period.

Still, I can't help but recall, ever so faintly, that little thing known at the time as the worst mass shooting in American history. If memory serves, a wealthy 64-year-old gambler named Stephen Paddock murdered 58 people and injured hundreds from the window of his luxury hotel room. In the days after the slaughter, nobody could figure out why he did it, or how he managed to pull it off. So, we all kind of shrugged our shoulders and moved on. The questions were never answered.

It is now two months later and we know as much today as we knew six hours after the shooting. But nobody is talking about it anymore. It's as if it never happened.

There was a time when a mass shooting of this magnitude would dominate the news for weeks and weeks. Columbine — which paled in comparison to this — was the only thing anyone talked about for at least a month. Even more recent shootings — Charleston, Aurora, Orlando — were in the headlines for much longer than Las Vegas. Yet there were more people shot in Vegas than in Columbine, Charleston, Aurora, and Orlando combined. Twice as many, easily.

Well, I think.

I actually don't know how many people were shot. They tell us 527 people were injured, along with the 58 killed, but were all of those injuries from gunshots? Did the guy actually physically shoot 585 human beings? Or were some of the injuries from people getting knocked over and trampled in the melee? I would imagine the latter must be the case, but I don't know. It's been two months and we still don't even know how many people Paddock shot. Maybe that number is available somewhere but I couldn't find it. How is that possible? How could it be two months after the worst mass shooting in American history and we still don't have a precise and well-publicized casualty count?

And that's just one unanswered question.


These are the questions the writer has (abridged):

Why did he do it? We were told it wasn't terrorism, even though ISIS claimed credit. Okay, then what was it? And why isn't the media asking why he did it?

How did he do it? We know he used a gun. Or guns. He had dozens of guns in the hotel room with him. How did he set up a kill room in a major American hotel without anyone noticing? How did he manage to shoot hundreds of people from 500 yards away at night? Was he trained? Where did he train? Who trained him?

Why did the timeline of the shooting change three times? What's the current version of the timeline? First they told us a "hero" security guard named Jesus Campos stopped the shooting while it was happening. Then they told us Campos himself was actually shot six minutes before Paddock opened fire on the crowd. Then the hotel told us Campos was shot 40 seconds before Paddock began his massacre. Which is it?

And what exactly were the police doing? If Campos was shot six minutes before the massacre, and the massacre lasted 10 minutes, why didn't anyone intervene sometime during that 16-minute time span? Police didn't finally enter the hotel room until an hour after the shooting stopped. What took them so long? Where were they?

And why did it take them a month to disclose that an officer did discharge his weapon inside Paddock's room? They insisted for weeks that no officer fired a shot. Did they really not know? Or were they withholding the information? Why? And why was a shot fired if Paddock was allegedly already dead when they entered?

And why did Paddock wire $100,000 to the Philippines before the shooting?

And what happened to his missing hard drive? Did they ever find it? And why did he get rid of it? What's on it?

We're told Paddock had an escape plan. How could he have ever imagined that he might be able to escape? Did he have some help? Or was he supposed to have help but it fell through?

Why did he stop shooting after ten minutes if he had so many guns and so much ammunition?

And what's the deal with Jesus Campos? Why did he leave the country immediately after the attack? Why did he refuse to do interviews with any news outlets until suddenly appearing on Ellen, of all places?

And here's a big one: Why haven't we seen any video footage of Stephen Paddock whatsoever? You can scarcely find a nook or cranny of Las Vegas that isn't under video surveillance. Yet not even one second of Paddock video has leaked?


http://www.dailywire.com/news/24188/vegas-matt-walsh#


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Kiprobalhato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 29,119
Location: מתחת לעננים

03 Dec 2017, 1:53 pm

why is everyone obsessed with the motive?


_________________
הייתי צוללת עכשיו למים
הכי, הכי עמוקים
לא לשמוע כלום
לא לדעת כלום
וזה הכל אהובי, זה הכל.


0regonGuy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2015
Posts: 658
Location: Oregon Coast

04 Dec 2017, 6:14 am

Kiprobalhato wrote:
why is everyone obsessed with the motive?


Good point. I always wonder that too. People just love to try and understand why crazy people do crazy things. Because it couldn't just be because they are crazy. There must be some other reason. LOL.


_________________
Autism Social Forum
A place for autistic people to discuss their interests.


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

04 Dec 2017, 11:26 am

Kiprobalhato wrote:
why is everyone obsessed with the motive?


Trends suggest that it relates to his skin color.

The people who have the most to lose from a thorough investigation of gun violence support the NRA position. Look there for more of the usual obstruction.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

04 Dec 2017, 3:52 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Trends suggest that it relates to his skin color.


How predictable :roll: