Jump to content

Mass Shooting at Walmart in El Paso


BlueJean Baby

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Ratam said:

I think you are too much schematic about this that you consider fascism is.  If you think a bit Bolsonaro characteristic fit enough about why be fascist is. Maybe you don't look fascism like something terrible, i respect you thought. Here in my country had dictadorship military that missing of thounsand peoples, and this not was state Governement, was full free market, but was an fascist dictadorship.

You can't have fascism without the state. It is the protagonist in the fascist model. 

Racist/ homophobic, sexist remarks does not make one a fascist, it just says they're racist. If that was the case, Lula, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Marx, Engels... would all be fascists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kasanova King said:

Be honest.  You don’t find it the least bit odd that the Texas shooting is getting (what seems to be) at least 80%-90% of the main stream media coverage vs Ohio that seems to be getting 10-20% or so?  

 

No, I don’t. For a whole litany of reasons that can’t be difficult to imagine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

 

This is what fascism means, as said by Mussolini himself.

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

 

This is what he said about Fascism:

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” 
― Benito Mussolini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, soon said:

This is what he said about Fascism:

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” 
― Benito Mussolini

Yes. The state control the economy, just like socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chewbacca said:

Yes. The state control the economy, just like socialism.

A merging of powers is different than a usurping of powers. So, no its not the same as Communism. And well, there is no one size fits all fascism to begin with- like Nazi Germany and Benitos Italy werent the same (and made a pact, broke the pact and lost everything).

Cuba's Socialist government distributes small business licenses. And as socialist policy exist elsewhere it does not control the economy. And again, nor does a merging of corporate and govt power indicate one controlling the other.

Anyways, I thought we were just collection Benito quotes on fascism. Which have little to no bearing on the current structures and manifestations of fascism. Unless one is a fascist who demands that benito gets the final word on it :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, downzy said:

We’re those aspects involved in his motivations for gunning down his sister and those around her?  Are there democrats or socialists out there espousing hateful views against sisters?

 

After reading this:

“I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.”

Yes, surely they were. He also made clear how upset he was about 2016's elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

You can't have fascism without the state. It is the protagonist in the fascist model. 

Racist/ homophobic, sexist remarks does not make one a fascist, it just says they're racist. If that was the case, Lula, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Marx, Engels... would all be fascists.

Maybe for you description about the fascism is just the state power? Maybe this help you not recognize that Bolsonaro is racist and fascist too. Scandinavian countries the state is enough important, but they isn't are communists or fascists. Scandinavian countries are between the most development, without fascism or communism. Not all is black or white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Hard to imagine? Really? Haven't you seen the people on the streets? Are you really gonna say all those people on the manifestations against Lula and Dilma are wrong? All the people cheering for Bolsonaro? Haddad's and Lula's party fucked Brazil good and you are not sure voting for them again isn't worse than the guy promising less gov?

When I read this from wikipedia:

"Jair Bolsonaro is known for his strong opposition to left-wing policies. Most notably, he has been a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage,[3] environmental regulations,[108] abortion,[5] affirmative action(particularly racial quotas),[6] immigration[109](particularly from Haiti, Africa and the Middle East, which he once called "the scum of humanity"),[98]drug liberalization,[7] land reforms,[110] and secularism at the federal level,[7] among other things.[111] He has also made statements in defense of the Brazilian military regime[112] (a dictatorship known for constant human rights violations).[113] He argues that torture is a "legitimate practice" and says that he would try to pass new legislation regarding the introduction of life imprisonment to the Brazilian penal code.[114] Bolsonaro supports the privatization of state-owned companies and advocates free market policies,[115] although critics have stated that his policy-making record does not in fact show him to be a supporter of economic liberalism.[116"

It is hard to imagine the alternative could be worse. 

I think a lot of the guys who try to defend their election of absolute scum to the presidency, by claiming the alternative is worse, is being a bit dishonest. You have already expressed admiration for Bolsonaro for trying to reduce the state and being opposed to gun regulation, and apparently the guy is "pro life", so I suppose it wasn't that hard to swallow? Same with Trumpists, they may try to make it sound like it was a choice between two evils, yet they went for the misogynistic white supremacist with intelligence problems. Sounds suspicious to me. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

After reading this:

“I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.”

Yes, surely they were. He also made clear how upset he was about 2016's elections.

And there's nothing in the Democratic platform that a) supports socialism) b) supports violent efforts to install a socialist society.  

Look, I don't believe Trump is wholly responsible for the actions of lunatics.  Most sane individuals understand that his words are nothing more than political opportunism that seeks to further his own political career.  

But there is some culpability.  He talks about immigrants and refugees as an invading force, labeling "some" as rapists and murders, and calls on anyone who offers criticism of him or Republican politics to go back to their original countries (despite many critics being born in America).  

There is absolutely nothing comparable in the Democratic platform or opinions and policies advanced by noted Democratic operatives that connects to the shooting in Ohio.  Was the Ohio shooter looking for Republicans?  Is there any way to tie anything he supported with the language used by the Democratic party?  Until I see otherwise I don't see any connection whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, how about the gun massacres, huh? :lol:

To all those who disagree that gun regulation prevent gun violence, the logical outcome of such a stance is that if we removed the existing gun laws, no increase in gun violence would be observed. I mean, if you refuse to accept that any further limitations would have a positive effect, it would mean that removal of current limitations wouldn't make a difference either, or that the politicians have landet on the absolute hot-spot in term of regulations. 

So how about it? Would the easy access to fully automatic assault rifles lead to an increase in gun violence, or is the threshold at semi-automatic? How about concealed weapon, would the legality of such make a difference? How about more devastating weapons like bombs and bazookas and WMDs (heh) - these could all be legal and the gun homicide rate wouldn't move? For some reason the politicians got it right, what should be illegal is illegal and making any further restrictions now would have no effect whatsoever? That's it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

When I read this from wikipedia:

"Jair Bolsonaro is known for his strong opposition to left-wing policies. Most notably, he has been a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage,[3] environmental regulations,[108] abortion,[5] affirmative action(particularly racial quotas),[6] immigration[109](particularly from Haiti, Africa and the Middle East, which he once called "the scum of humanity"),[98]drug liberalization,[7] land reforms,[110] and secularism at the federal level,[7] among other things.[111] He has also made statements in defense of the Brazilian military regime[112] (a dictatorship known for constant human rights violations).[113] He argues that torture is a "legitimate practice" and says that he would try to pass new legislation regarding the introduction of life imprisonment to the Brazilian penal code.[114] Bolsonaro supports the privatization of state-owned companies and advocates free market policies,[115] although critics have stated that his policy-making record does not in fact show him to be a supporter of economic liberalism.[116"

It is hard to imagine the alternative could be worse. 

I think a lot of the guys who try to defend their election of absolute scum to the presidency, by claiming the alternative is worse, is being a bit dishonest. You have already expressed admiration for Bolsonaro for trying to reduce the state and being opposed to gun regulation, and apparently the guy is "pro life", so I suppose it wasn't that hard to swallow? Same with Trumpists, they may try to make it sound like it was a choice between two evils, yet they went for the misogynistic white supremacist with intelligence problems. Sounds suspicious to me. 

That's because you don't live here and have not lived thru Lula and Dilma, do you really think those giant manifestations against Lula and his party were because we were liking it? Brazil was in recession and is still recovering, we still have violence crisis that was Lula and Dilma never solved. Our schools are in ruins and it only got worse in the decade and a half they were in power. Most of these remarks are decades old, lula made a lot of racist, sexist and homophobics remarks too. So what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, downzy said:

And there's nothing in the Democratic platform that a) supports socialism) b) supports violent efforts to install a socialist society.  

Look, I don't believe Trump is wholly responsible for the actions of lunatics.  Most sane individuals understand that his words are nothing more than political opportunism that seeks to further his own political career.  

But there is some culpability.  He talks about immigrants and refugees as an invading force, labeling "some" as rapists and murders, and calls on anyone who offers criticism of him or Republican politics to go back to their original countries (despite many critics being born in America).  

There is absolutely nothing comparable in the Democratic platform or opinions and policies advanced by noted Democratic operatives that connects to the shooting in Ohio.  Was the Ohio shooter looking for Republicans?  Is there any way to tie anything he supported with the language used by the Democratic party?  Until I see otherwise I don't see any connection whatsoever.

What you talking about? Bernie supports socialism (or democratic socialism, which is what they have in Venezuela - remember they voted for it). That weird squad thing that AOC is part of all supports socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

What you talking about? Bernie supports socialism (or democratic socialism, which is what they have in Venezuela - remember they voted for it). That weird squad thing that AOC is part of all supports socialism.

Is there anything that leads us to believe the shooter in Ohio carried out his attack to further America down the socialist path?  He was also an avowed Satanist. Why are you attributing his actions to socialism and not Satanism?

Contrast that to the El Paso shooter who explicitly stated his racist reasons for his actions.

You don’t see a difference?  Seems fairly obvious to me at least.

AOC advocates for democratic socialism. How that connects with someone suffering from mental illness who had a history of writing rape fantasies, pinned for a socialist society and was an advocate for satanism is beyond me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, downzy said:

Is there anything that leads us to believe the shooter in Ohio carried out his attack to further America down the socialist path?  He was also an avowed Satanist. Why are you attributing his actions to socialism and not Satanism?

Contrast that to the El Paso shooter who explicitly stated his racist reasons for his actions.

You don’t see a difference?  Seems fairly obvious to me at least.

AOC advocates for democratic socialism. How that connects with someone suffering from mental illness who had a history of writing rape fantasies, pinned for a socialist society and was an advocate for satanism is beyond me. 

He clearly said he could not bear waiting for people to realize how good socialism is (lol). Seeing how it unfolded, this was his way of taking action. It is pretty clear. I'm impressed you don't see it.

Wanna blame satan? Ok, he did it in the name of socialism and satan. Happy now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

He clearly said he could not bear waiting for people to realize how good socialism is (lol). Seeing how it unfolded, this was his way of taking action. It is pretty clear. I'm impressed you don't see it.

You’re probably the only person who would take that connection seriously. How would shooting up a bunch of people, one of them being the shooter’s sister, advance socialism in America?

Besides, this is beyond the point.  Who in the Democratic Party is suggesting America should be accept socialism at any cost and that rash action is required?  Is there any real comparison when we compare what a few Democrats say about Democratic Socialism and what the current President of the United States says about immigrants.  If you say there is you’re not being genuine and your opinion shouldn’t be taken seriously  

No serious person other than yourself is connecting one tweet to the actions of the Ohio shooter?  What purpose did the death of his sister serve to further his supposed political ends? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, lame ass security said:

Are you really a surgeon? Your profile says that you're 28, most doctors don't even begin their practices until age 29.  But of course there are exceptions, like Doogie Howser. 

Meh.  In the U.S., you can get your college degree by the time you are 21.  Then 4 years of med school puts you at 25.  Then another 4-6 years of residency/fellowships  (where you are actually already operating on people, etc).  So maybe to be considered a "surgeon" you would be around 29-31.  But that doesn't mean you haven't been practicing as a surgeon since you were 25/26. 

And that's just the U.S.

I'd imagine the process could be much more streamlined in other countries.  For example, in many countries you can go right to medical school after certain types of advanced high school degrees.  So starting med school at 18 vs 21 could knock 3-4 years off of the U.S. numbers.

 

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Meh.  In the U.S., you can get your college degree by the time you are 21.  Then 4 years of med school puts you at 25.  Then another 4-6 years of residency/fellowships  (where you are actually already operating on people, etc).  So maybe to be considered a "surgeon" you would be around 29-31.  But that doesn't mean you haven't been practicing as a surgeon since you were 25/26. 

And that's just the U.S.

I'd imagine the process could be much more streamlined in other countries.  For example, in many countries you can go right to medical school after certain types of advanced high school degrees.  So starting med school at 18 vs 21 could knock 3-4 years off of the U.S. numbers.

 

That's the exception not the rule.  I don't really care if he is or isn't, it just sounded a bit skewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, lame ass security said:

That's the exception not the rule.  I don't really care if he is or isn't, it just sounded a bit skewed.

It's not the "exception" lol.  Like you presumed, you can "officially" become a MD by the time you are 28-31 on a very normal timeline in the U.S:  https://study.com/requirements_to_become_a_doctor.html  You've never met a doctor in their late 20's or early 30's?

But that doesn't mean you haven't been "practicing" during your residency/fellowship..which typically starts in your mid twenties.  And in other countries, you can go to med school after certain types of high school degrees...so that would knock a few years off.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

It's not the "exception" lol.  Like you presumed, you can "officially" become a MD by the time you are 28-31 on a very normal timeline in the U.S:  https://study.com/requirements_to_become_a_doctor.html  You've never met a doctor in their late 20's or early 30's?

But that doesn't mean you haven't been "practicing" during your residency/fellowship..which typically starts in your mid twenties.  And in other countries, you can go to med school after certain types of high school degrees...so that would knock a few years off.  

 

He intimated in his earlier post that he had removed many tumors and delivered many babies.  It just gave the impression of someone who is older and more experienced. Are you his publicist or something?😄

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lame ass security said:

He intimated in his earlier post that he had removed many tumors and delivered many babies.  It just gave the impression of someone who is older and more experienced. Are you his publicist or something?😄

:lol:

No man.  But the fact that he could conceivably have done it in the U.S. at his age, makes it even likelier that he could have done it in Brazil.  Just putting 2+2 together.  It's not that far of a stretch, tbh.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lame ass security said:

Are you really a surgeon? Your profile says that you're 28, most doctors don't even begin their practices until age 29.  But of course there are exceptions, like Doogie Howser. 

Ok. I guess I owe you this.

This is me:

20180403-092724.jpg

Doing surgeon stuff:

IMG-20180511-WA0009.jpg

I'm also an endoscopist (which also means colonoscopy) and gastroenterologist:

IMG-20180408-WA0019.jpg

I don't have any photos of me during a delivery, but this is what my C sections look like after I finish them:

 

Spoiler

IMG-20180517-WA0001.jpg

 

This is called intradermal suture. Women here like to compare their c section scars and they take pics of it. This particular pacient was so grateful she sent me the photo. Go figure.

I had a great plastic surgery teacher in residency. He worked with reconstructive surgeries for multilated or burnt patients.

 

Edited by Chewbacca
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...