Las Vegas shooting: Gunman 'identified as 64-year-old white male'

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Opps...tell 'em we're Russians for the time being.

They could care less if you are russian or American, both are fair game to Muslim extremists.

Laters

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

That's what some of my guys have been thinking, initially when I heard the burst it sounded like a  gpmg balanced to the slow side with 100 round belt.

You can empty a 30 round mag on an SA80 in a couple seconds, and the ROF didn't sound as high as that

Yeah not sure

Are you people also taking into account all of the echoes and ricochets,  with all of the buildings, walls and 'street furniture' around there ?

Didge wrote:

gelico wrote:

i see you've recovered from your little tantrum

nice to have you back

I see you are as gullible as ever

Thanks

I was pissed at Eilzel treating women as if inferior that they could not stand up to me question why someone was untrusting. I gave reasons to this and stand by what I said. He deemed this as personal, which was rubbish and not against the rules, so I told him rightly where to go. Of which is against the rules to question the mods. A very dumb rule. So I accept that part for the basement, not his reason to jump in being a dick.

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Are you people also taking into account all of the echoes and ricochets,  with all of the buildings, walls and 'street furniture' around there ?

no because that's not a factor

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

no because that's not a factor

Rightys have 'alternate facts', wolf.  They write their own news.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:What of the eyewitness at the Bellagio hotel who did a Facebook live video of the shooting in the lobby? Why is there no news about that?

Too many questions and too many people trying not to answer them.

Didge wrote:

gelico wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnxDl6Iw254

Incredible. 

For a building claimed by the video to be shot up to shit by bullets, I could not see any evidence of any damage to walls, the floor, funiture etc.

I mean did you not even think to look at that?

Why are people so gullible to people posting shit on youtube?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Rightys have 'alternate facts', wolf.  They write their own news.

And readily discard anything that doesn't fit their narrow and preconceived agendss...

They thrive on misdirection, diversions and obfuscations..

Didge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


And readily discard anything that doesn't fit their narrow and preconceived agendss...

They thrive on misdirection, diversions and obfuscations..

Is that why the left rightly see the problems of any Far right ideology and any religious ideology in history, unless its leftist or Islamic?

I mean far more people have been murdered by more Far leftist regemes than Far right regemes. Mainly as more people have been suceptible to leftist bullshit and suffered those consequences. Of course what the leftist does is argue that Communism has nothing to do with Marxism, ignoring the fact its still leftist beliefs. Blanatly ignoring this, that in every single example, its been an example of Totalitarian genecoide.

The argue rightly of the ills of when Christianity had power, causing the mass murder of millions for centuries and then have a U-turn, ignong the last 1400 years of Islamic conquest and Islamic Theocracy. Making a dum argument its not the ideology, but now the power grab of some men. Ignoring the fact these religious fundementalists are following a doctrine to the literal letter of the same Islamic works, that every Muslim follows.

The reality is most Muslims do not follow Islam to the letter as many Christians do, but a substancial mass of Muslims are hell bent in trying to enforce and impose their ideology. Like Communism, this has cropped up in many places and countries again with mass murder occuring and Totalitarianism.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:

Is that why the left rightly see the problems of any Far right ideology and any religious ideology in history, unless its leftist or Islamic?

I mean far more people have been murdered by more Far leftist regemes than Far right regemes. Mainly as more people have been suceptible to leftist bullshit and suffered those consequences. Of course what the leftist does is argue that Communism has nothing to do with Marxism, ignoring the fact its still leftist beliefs. Blanatly ignoring this, that in every single example, its been an example of Totalitarian genecoide.

The argue rightly of the ills of when Christianity had power, causing the mass murder of millions for centuries and then have a U-turn, ignong the last 1400 years of Islamic conquest and Islamic Theocracy. Making a dum argument its not the ideology, but now the power grab of some men. Ignoring the fact these religious fundementalists are following a doctrine to the literal letter of the same Islamic works, that every Muslim follows.

The reality is most Muslims do not follow Islam to the letter as many Christians do, but a substancial mass of Muslims are hell bent in trying to enforce and impose their ideology. Like Communism, this has cropped up in many places and countries again with mass murder occuring and Totalitarianism.

I have no problem in recognising those problems with left wing extremist, Islamist or anarchist ideologies,  Dodge...

In this case however,  SmellyBum' and his cohorts are spinning their mythologies from a right wing/alt.right/neo-fascist postion --  irrespective of whether they themselves are 'true believers', or simply place themselves there..

Didge wrote:Is that why the left rightly see the problems of any Far right ideology and any religious ideology in history, unless its leftist or Islamic?

F.A. Hayek wrote:It is that by [conservatism's] very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Is that why the left rightly see the problems of any Far right ideology and any religious ideology in history, unless its leftist or Islamic?

There really is no Righty ideology.  As Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek says in his essay, Why I'm Not a Conservative (1960), conservatism distinguishes itself by standing for nothing.

F.A. Hayek wrote:It is that by [conservatism's] very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving.

Conservatism must live with the creations in ideology that have gone before it.  It is hollow, and depends only upon history for its content.

Thus, when a human being embraces conservatism, s/he adopts only a commitment to the status quo.

One can see right off that this chokes off original thinking.  If you are forcefully imprinted on the present, you are ideologically opposed to creative thinking.

Hence, we continually see conservative opposition to education, and particularly university and higher thinking.  Conservatives are attracted to trade schools and institutions that turn out minions for their economic machinery: engineers, mathematicians, doctors and nurses, etc.  They don't want any thinking that challenges the foundations of their ideology.

As time progresses--as the old saying goes--you snooze you lose.  Those who fall out of the habit of thinking, find that their intellect atrophies.  

These are the ones on the Internet we see speaking in short sentences, usually expressing only clichés and catch phrases.  Dialogue for them is a short series of insults and goads.  True analytical thinking is lost to them.

Original Quill wrote:As time progresses--as the old saying goes--you snooze you lose.  Those who fall out of the habit of thinking, find that their intellect atrophies.  They are no longer able to keep up with the ever-mounting problems of society. Hence, conservatism is forever passing into...well, the past. We no longer believe in a flat earth. We no longer believe in an earth-centered university. Relativity replaces Newtonian physics. And, we inevitably move to the left as we look for solutions to social problems.

Original Quill wrote:Read my post again.

As John Kenneth Galbraith once said in his New Industrial State, it's such a pleasure to quote oneself:

Original Quill wrote:As time progresses--as the old saying goes--you snooze you lose.  Those who fall out of the habit of thinking, find that their intellect atrophies.  They are no longer able to keep up with the ever-mounting problems of society. Hence, conservatism is forever passing into...well, the past. We no longer believe in a flat earth. We no longer believe in an earth-centered university. Relativity replaces Newtonian physics. And, we inevitably move to the left as we look for solutions to social problems.

The leftward movement of history is inevitable.  This is because of the very dynamic we are discussion: conservatism weakens the mind.  New ideas have only the leftist mind to generate them.  Indeed, original thinking is synonymous with the left.

Didge wrote:You though argue off one subject. American Conservatism. Ignoring the blatant fact it was the Conservative Republicans that fought to end slavery and fought for Civil Rights in the US.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You though argue off one subject. American Conservatism. Ignoring the blatant fact it was the Conservative Republicans that fought to end slavery and fought for Civil Rights in the US.

I would remind you that the idea that conservatism is vacuous of content belongs to F.A. Hayek, an Austrian economist.  He is far, far removed from American conservatism.

Going back in time to Republican anti-slavery efforts is fraught with challenges...indeed, the same challenges of history you raise.  For the Republican Party, originally conceived of as leftist, lost it's Progressive wing in 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt created the Progressive Party, and then went through the vicissitudes of the Southern Strategy in 1965 and thereafter.  

Perhaps the strangest political reversal took place, which resulted in the Republicans falling into the conservative groove in every way...including their antipathy to original thinking, the Southern Strategy adopted the "looking backwards" strategy that was precisely Hayek's point.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Read my post again.

As John Kenneth Galbraith once said in his New Industrial State, it's such a pleasure to quote oneself:



The leftward movement of history is inevitable.  This is because of the very dynamic we are discussion: conservatism weakens the mind.  New ideas have only the leftist mind to generate them.  Indeed, original thinking is synonymous with the left.

So leftist violence and persecution is inevitable. I know.
Yes history shows this has been the case and is still happenning in socialist nightmare regemes, like Cuba, Venezuela. Lets face it the lefft fail to understand the human psyche and why far leftist is no better than far rightism. Both extremism that try to enforce their beliefs.

So if Conservatism weakens the minds, leftism, surely must melt the mind of any rationality and common sense, as again it was right wing groups that have in the main brought about civil rights and equality. Not the left.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


So leftist violence and persecution is inevitable. I know.
Yes history shows this has been the case and is still happenning in socialist nightmare regemes, like Cuba, Venezuela. Lets face it the lefft fail to understand the human psyche and why far leftist is no better than far rightism. Both extremism that try to enforce their beliefs.

So if Conservatism weakens the minds, leftism, surely must melt the mind of any rationality and common sense, as again it was right wing groups that have in the main brought about civil rights and equality. Not the left.

Socialism is the template for the United States Military, the most powerful and productive organization on earth today.  It exists for the American people, is of the people, and is owned and paid for by the American people   There is no private ownership to the American Military...it is socialism to the core.

Now you get into discussions about the "understand[ing] the human psyche" and I begin to think you are a socialist.  You are dealing in social theory.  (If conservatives would just leave intellectual thought alone, they would get into less trouble.    )

You are offering examples of corrupt regimes, not leftist organizations.  Just as in the past you have confused the totalitarian regimes of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany with socialism, you now confuse South American dictatorships with socialism.  You are reading the titles of books, not the books themselves.  Probably the most socialist regimes today are the UK and western Europe...and perhaps the unseen parts of America, such as it's military.  If you truly understood the content of socialist theory, you wouldn't fall into the trap of reading only titles.

Once again, you offer the example of a Rightist who shies away from intellectual effort.  You don't look deeper, you don't think about things, and you come to absurd conclusions...it's an extension of thinking in clichés and catch phrases.  Original thought requires rigorous discipline, not loose, sophomoric associations.

Didge wrote:Conservatism has been around long before F.A. Hayek and you thus need to stop playing out the history school book and think for yourself.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Conservatism has been around long before F.A. Hayek and you thus need to stop playing out the history school book and think for yourself.

But Hayek is the one who put conservatism into perspective.  

Keep in mind, he was a conservative economist himself.  He was a founder of The Mont Pelerin Society (MPS), a Noble Prize winner, and frequent lecturer at the University of Chicago and the highly conservative James Mason University, the history of which is featured in your own proffered book by Nancy MacLean, Democracy in Chains (2017).  

Why do you, yourself, recommend to us lowly plebes, a book that covers the history of F.A Hayek?  Did you not read it?  Another title, whose contents are ignored?  Why, shame!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Too many questions and too many people trying not to answer them.

And too much "fake news" circulating on YouTube and FaceBook...

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But Hayek is the one who put conservatism into perspective.  

Keep in mind, he was a conservative economist himself.  He was a founder of The Mont Pelerin Society (MPS), a Noble Prize winner, and frequent lecturer at the University of Chicago and the highly conservative James Mason University, the history of which is featured in your own proffered book by Nancy MacLean, Democracy in Chains (2017).  

Why do you, yourself, recommend to us lowly plebes, a book that covers the history of F.A Hayek?  Did you not read it?  Another title, whose contents are ignored?  Why, shame!

You are doing a Tommy circular argument Quill

You have so badly avoided every point, by constantly msidirecting from every point I countered on yours.

It seems you are controlled by what you read and cannot think for yourself.

Hence the conservative is a Free thinker and you have proven you are in fact a follower.

Thank you

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


You are doing a Tommy circular argument Quill

You have so badly avoided every point, by constantly msidirecting from every point I countered on yours.

It seems you are controlled by what you read and cannot think for yourself.

Hence the conservative is a Free thinker and you have proven you are in fact a follower.

Thank you

Nonsense.  Think before you post.  Give examples.  Address what is before you.  Don't go off on sophomoric associations.

The rules are simple.  They come with any good university education.  Get out the methodology books is they elude you.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  Think before you post.  Give examples.  Address what is before you.  Don't go off on sophomoric associations.

The rules are simple.  They come with any good university education.  Get out the methodology books is they elude you.

There is no Quill based rules on debate, that is more misdirection.

I was factual here and you proved you follow a book on beliefs as someone religiously does so.

Hence you cannot think for yourself.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


There is no Quill based rules on debate, that is more misdirection.

I was factual here and you proved you follow a book on beliefs as someone religiously does so.

Hence you cannot think for yourself.

Read: A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic (1946); The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge (1940); and more recently, The Problem of Knowledge (1956).  

When you have read those, and can adequately converse about them, come back to me.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


There is no Quill based rules on debate, that is more misdirection.

I was factual here and you proved you follow a book on beliefs as someone religiously does so.

Hence you cannot think for yourself.

Read: A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic (1946); The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge (1940); and more recently, The Problem of Knowledge (1956).  

When you have read those, and can adequately converse about them, come back to me.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

I think there is a bit more than mental people to worry about in Islam. Or are you saying that the net work of Isis and all their devotees and Bin Laden and now Bin Ladens son and all the hate preachers are just a bunch of mental people? They are terrorists who kill and maim in the name of Allah, they certainly feel they are doing his will.

They are an organised group yes but they aren’t considered Muslims

As I keep saying if they represented Islam they would be buried as Muslims, which is not the case.

Didge wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

They are an organised group yes but they aren’t considered Muslims

As I keep saying if they represented Islam they would be buried as Muslims, which is not the case.

So how many Palestinian terrorists have been refused buriel and not martydom in connection to islam, when murdering Jews and Arab Israeli and Druze Israeli's for that matter?

You go off one extremist refused in one terrorist act?

How many other terrorists have not been given an Islamic buriel?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Didge wrote:


So how many Palestinian terrorists have been refused buriel and not martydom in connection to islam, when murdering Jews and Arab Israeli and Druze Israeli's for that matter?

You go off one extremist refused in one terrorist act?

How many other terrorists have not been given an Islamic buriel?

This has nothing to do with Palestine.

Keep to the topic.

Didge wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

This has nothing to do with Palestine.

Keep to the topic.

So do you agree with Palestinian terrorists who murder Jews being given a Islamic buriel?

Yes or no?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Didge wrote:


So do you agree with Palestinian terrorists who murder Jews being given a Islamic buriel?

Yes or no?

Are you blind?

Didge wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Are you blind?

No

So answer the question

So do you agree with Palestinian terrorists who murder Jews being given a Islamic buriel?

Yes or no?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Didge wrote:


No

So answer the question

So do you agree with Palestinian terrorists who murder Jews being given a Islamic buriel?

Yes or no?

I've already told you

I'm not going to go around in circles with you.

End of.

smelly-bandit wrote:I don't agree with Walter mitty often mama, but I do have to say you haven't answered his question.

Which is suppose is you feeding him some of his own medicine

smelly-bandit wrote:I don't agree with Walter mitty often mama, but I do have to say you haven't answered his question.

Which is suppose is you feeding him some of his own medicine

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


And too much "fake news" circulating on YouTube and FaceBook...

fake news because it throws into doubt your narrative of the "white terrorist"

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But Hayek is the one who put conservatism into perspective.  

Keep in mind, he was a conservative economist himself.  He was a founder of The Mont Pelerin Society (MPS), a Noble Prize winner, and frequent lecturer at the University of Chicago and the highly conservative James Mason University, the history of which is featured in your own proffered book by Nancy MacLean, Democracy in Chains (2017).  

Why do you, yourself, recommend to us lowly plebes, a book that covers the history of F.A Hayek?  Did you not read it?  Another title, whose contents are ignored?  Why, shame!

You are doing a Tommy circular argument Quill

You have so badly avoided every point, by constantly msidirecting from every point I countered on yours.

It seems you are controlled by what you read and cannot think for yourself.

Hence the conservative is a Free thinker and you have proven you are in fact a follower.

Thank you

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Read: A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic (1946); The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge (1940); and more recently, The Problem of Knowledge (1956).  

When you have read those, and can adequately converse about them, come back to me.

Here you go again, telling me to be a sheep like you. By buying in to what you read. Where you follow what is said and never question any of this. Happy to read them, but is it for you really or me?

So its you that needs to throw off your shackles off. In how others direct how you think and actually become like me and think for yourself. I take on all views, but at least can think for my self. You fail to do this, you simple follow others, what they believe.

Good luck with that.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:


You are doing a Tommy circular argument Quill

You have so badly avoided every point, by constantly msidirecting from every point I countered on yours.

It seems you are controlled by what you read and cannot think for yourself.

Hence the conservative is a Free thinker and you have proven you are in fact a follower.

Thank you

"The conservative is a free thinker.."    !!!

That's the biggest load of crap you have come out with yet,  doddery Didge..

Many conservatives that I've encountered are often completely non-thinking types and largely "reactionary" by nature --  the very anyithesis of "free thinkers".

That's one good reason that many extremist racist groups like One Nation, EDL,  BNP and the KKK are full of conservative, far-right-leaning xenophobes, incapable of any rational thoughts..

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:I don't agree with Walter mitty often mama, but I do have to say you haven't answered his question.

Which is suppose is you feeding him some of his own medicine

Well a refusal to answer, genrally means that person will implicate themselves as an utter hypocrite, because they see Muslim Palestinian Murdering terrorists as Martyrs.

Hence why Sexy runs a mile from answering.

Even though she has no connection to the Arabs in the West Bank or Gaza other than Islam.

What can I say.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:


You are doing a Tommy circular argument Quill

You have so badly avoided every point, by constantly msidirecting from every point I countered on yours.

It seems you are controlled by what you read and cannot think for yourself.

Hence the conservative is a Free thinker and you have proven you are in fact a follower.

Thank you

"The conservative is a free thinker.."    !!!

That's the biggest load of crap you have come out with yet,  doddery Didge..

Many conservatives that I've encountered are often completely non-thinking types and largely "reactionary" by nature --  the very anyithesis of "free thinkers".

That's one good reason that many extremist racist groups like One Nation, EDL,  BNP and the KKK are full of conservative, far-right-leaning xenophobes, incapable of any rational thoughts..

Tommy Monk wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


"The conservative is a free thinker.."    !!!

That's the biggest load of crap you have come out with yet,  doddery Didge..

Many conservatives that I've encountered are often completely non-thinking types and largely "reactionary" by nature --  the very anyithesis of "free thinkers".

That's one good reason that many extremist racist groups like One Nation, EDL,  BNP and the KKK are full of conservative, far-right-leaning xenophobes, incapable of any rational thoughts..

The EDL are a group protesting about the dangers of hostile Islamists here in UK and the immigration system allowing them in in large numbers...


The BNP are left wing nationalist socialists who also warn about the dangers of hostile Islamists here in UK and the immigration system allowing them in in large numbers...

Tommy Monk wrote:https://farleftwatch.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/about-national-socialism-and-bnp-socialism/

Tommy Monk wrote:Are you saying Islam is 'far right'...?

Didge wrote:Politically? Yes

Or the defenders of Islam are 'far right'...?

Didge wrote:Nope

Or are you saying it is only those who warn against the dangers of hostile Islamists here in UK who you class as 'far right'...?

Didge wrote:No, I would class them as far right based on their political beliefs

Or maybe you are saying that only nationalists are 'far right'...?

Didge wrote:Never have

But aren't all national political party's supposed to be working for the national interest...?

Didge wrote:Since when?

Are the SNP the 'far right' party of Scotland...?

Didge wrote:No, maybe you can explain why you stupidly think they are? Do they deny those who are not scottish? Or mixed marriages Tommy?

Are Plaid Cumry the 'far right' party of Wales...?

Didge wrote:No, maybe you can explain why you stupidly think they are? Do they deny those who are not Welsh? Or mixed marriages Tommy?

Or are they just pretending to be nationalists...?

Didge wrote:They want self determination but have no discrimination over who can be Scottish or Welsh

Because there is no doubt that the SNP, Plaid Cumry and BNP are all standing on socialist policies... so that doesn't make any of them 'far right'...!!!

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Are you saying Islam is 'far right'...?

Or the defenders of Islam are 'far right'...?

Or are you saying it is only those who warn against the dangers of hostile Islamists here in UK who you class as 'far right'...?

Or maybe you are saying that only nationalists are 'far right'...?

But aren't all national political party's supposed to be working for the national interest...?

Are the SNP the 'far right' party of Scotland...?

Are Plaid Cumry the 'far right' party of Wales...?

Or are they just pretending to be nationalists...?

Because there is no doubt that the SNP, Plaid Cumry and BNP are all standing on socialist policies... so that doesn't make any of them 'far right'...!!!

Are they?

Well I gave you a big clue as to what makes them different
Lets see idf you can engage that suppsoed high IQ you claim to have.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

Are they?

Well I gave you a big clue as to what makes them different
Lets see idf you can engage that suppsoed high IQ you claim to have.

All I see is a load of contradictory answers there Dodge...!!!


So just to recap for us... the BNP are 'far right'/Nazis/fascists because...!?