tod evans
Member

Progressivism and the Murder of a Health Insurance CEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77kBOhjV3Y8 {Mises Media | 11 December 2024} Progressives are openly cheering the murder of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. However, it was progressive legislation that created this healthcare crisis in the first place. Read the article here: https://mises.org/mises-wire/progressivism-and-murder-health-insurance-ceo this post - OB]

The BLACK Daniel Penny | Similar Story, Different Outcome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLEV9TVOk9o {Nate The Lawyer | 11 December 2024}

Dan Abrams Confronts BLM Founder On Daniel Penny Case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJzbOpo5_Kg {Nate The Lawyer | 11 December 2024} Dan Abrams takes on a BLM founder in a heated discussion about the Daniel Penny case and the broader implications of race and justice in America. In this viral debate, the two clash over whether the legal system is inherently biased and the role public perception plays in high-profile cases like Jordan Neely's. Witness the fiery exchange as Abrams challenges the activist's stance, calling out inconsistencies and exploring the racial dynamics surrounding the controversial subway incident. Stay tuned for exclusive insights, bodycam footage analysis, and eyewitness accounts that shed light on this polarizing case. This video is a must-watch for anyone following the Daniel Penny case or interested in the intersection of race, justice, and media narratives. Don’t miss the gripping back-and-forth that has everyone talking!

Progressivism and the Murder of a Health Insurance CEO https://mises.org/mises-wire/progressivism-and-murder-health-insurance-ceo {Connor O'Keeffe | 10 December 2024} Last week, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot to death on a New York City sidewalk in what was clearly a thoroughly planned-out attack. Over the next few days, as authorities hunted for the killer, online progressives did not try hard to hide their delight that a millionaire health insurance executive like Thompson was killed. Social media was flooded with posts and videos—with different ranges of subtlety—suggesting that Thompson, at the very least, did not deserve to be mourned because of all the health care his company has denied to poor and working people. Progressives framed the shooting as an act of self-defense on behalf of the working class. Before the alleged killer was caught Monday, they promised not to snitch if they saw the shooter themselves and fantasized about a working-class jury nullifying all charges, leading to other CEOs getting gunned down with impunity if they oversaw price increases. The narrative that these online progressives clearly subscribe to and perpetuate is one where, in the United States, healthcare is a totally unfettered, unregulated industry; where—because of a total lack of government involvement—wealthy CEOs charge whatever prices they want and then refuse to provide customers what they already paid for without facing any bad consequences.

https://x.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1866507959003472275

"You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride." -- Officer Friendly https://x.com/michaelmalice/status/1866217542307746118 to: https://x.com/michaelmalice/status/1866217820733796809

https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1866686819888242728

//

https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1866622882735866007 to: https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1866623072872304920 {Spike Cohen @RealSpikeCohen | 10 December 2024} This man's name is Roger Ver. The IRS and DOJ are trying to imprison him because he paid taxes on his Bitcoin 10 years ago.

It's not "controlled opposition". It's just a common and well-known manifestation of a particular form of libertarian autism sometimes referred to as "macho flashing" (which is the making of statements along the lines of "why, I am so libertarian, I believe that !"). It's nothing new or surprising, and it's at least as old as the Libertarian Party and organized activist libertarianism is.

It is not "100% the fault of the government". I already addressed this in the part of my post you omitted: In principle, I would have no problem with them being punished as part of the solution, if that were ever to happen. I don't demand it - but I don't have a problem with it, either. I myself would be entirely satisfied if, by getting the government completely out of health care, they were merely prevented in the future from forcibly warping and extorting the market in their favor. But I would also have no problem with things going further than that, and holding them liable for the favors and fortunes they have willfully used government to forcibly extort from the market in the past - because, as I have said, it takes two to tango, and they are not entirely innocent or blameless for the current state of affairs.

THREAD: Communism 3.0 THREAD: China is the Model for US Billionaires, Crony Corporatists and Authoritarian Kleptocrats

THREAD: The Evolution of Communism

THREAD: The Evolution of Communism

Communism 3.0: Corporate Communism | James Lindsay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyXc_LZtCEE {New Discourses | 09 December 2024} The EVILution of Communism Workshop, Session 4 In this fourth and final lecture in the series, Lindsay picks up the loose threads from the previous two lectures and weaves them together to describe a new Communism for the twenty-first century, a “Communism 3.0” or “Twenty-first Century Communism.” Lindsay characterizes this new model of Communism as the “Chinese model,” derived from the practical implementation by former CCP leader Deng Xiaoping in the People’s Republic of China, where it was tested first. Meanwhile, in the West, a parallel model was developed tracking not just with Deng Xiaoping Theory but also with the Western Marxist sensibilities of Herbert Marcuse, demanding a more “Sustainable” and “Inclusive” economy. Calling the model “Corporate” or “Corporatist” Communism, Lindsay explains how this model of Communism blends a Communist political theory and structure with a Fascist economic model of productive forces, creating the tyrannical hybrid that is intended to be the future for mankind both East, under the Chinese Communist Party, and West, under the United Nations and affiliates. This groundbreaking lecture provides a basis for completely changing the discourses around what’s happening in our world today. Notes (PDF)

We'll probably never know. unless the jurors "go public" about their deliberations. I wonder if maybe they were pissed off because (after their initial "hung jury" declaration) they were forced to continue deliberations on the manslaughter charge - and not just once, but twice. Then right out of the blue, the prosecutor abruptly dismissed that charge altogether (and "with prejudice", as required by law) - rendering the whole thing pointless. All the time and contention the jury spent on that charge was effectively completely wasted - and now, to top it all off, they were being told they would have to go ahead decide the negligent homicide charge, after all. So maybe the few jurors who held out for a "guilty" verdict on the manslaughter charge just decided "to hell with it - if the prosecutor can't be bothered about it, then why should we be?". And I do think it had to be just a few jurors - just one, maybe two or three - who voted "guilty" on the hung manslaughter verdict. If it had been any more that - especially on the high end of the range (9, 10, or 11) - it would have been considerably more unlikely that they would all change their minds, and we would have ended up with a hung jury on the negligent homicide charge, as well. So I think this strange outcome indirectly indicates a strong pro-acquittal sentiment on the jury, with just a few "guilty" holdouts who (for whatever reasons) changed their position for the negligent homicide charge.

As opposed to what? Using a "legal", government-permitted gun to murder someone? (Or even just a knife ... or a rock ... or ...) I'd be more impressed with (and more inclined to believe in the sincerity of) their "outrage" over the killer being called a "hero" if they didn't so liberally (ha-ha) pepper their declarations with such gratuitous qualifications. IOW: The "outrage" of Shapiro, et al. is at least as much of a cynical and opportunistic politicization of the murder as some peoples' use of the "the killer is a hero" thing is.

They're already attacking NYC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w64gKYPzv_o {Decoy Voice | 09 December 2024} As Daniel Penny has been found not guilty of all charges involving the Jordan Neely case in New York City, NY. Activists are now taking to the streets angry over the verdict. But what is really going on here, and is this just a grift over a case that most New Yorkers agree on?

Yes, the outcome will be the same, no matter how many are killed.

Daniel Penny REACTS To NOT GUILTY Verdict! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-_yE1moa4A {Nate The Lawyer | 09 December 2024}

Now the prosecution should have to pay his legal fees.

Daniel Penny Found NOT GUILTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx1r6oWNUq0 {Actual Justice Warrior | 09 December 2024} In this video I discuss the not guilty verdict in the Daniel Penny case. I explain why it was the correct verdict & how despite every dirty trick from the prosecution they may've undermined their own case & thus guaranteed this outcome. Sources: BLM Press Conference After Verdict: https://www.youtube.com/live/G9esjeTAD-U My Video On the Prosecutors Dirty Trick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiy0R9qVDV0 this post - OB]

Daniel Penny Found NOT GUILTY On All Charges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRA9LTn1oYo {Nate The Lawyer | 09 December 2024} Daniel Penny Acquitted: The Verdict Dividing America On December 9, 2024, a Manhattan jury acquitted Daniel Penny of criminally negligent homicide in the controversial death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man. The incident on May 1, 2023, where Penny used a chokehold to restrain Neely on a NYC subway, sparked nationwide debates on mental health, public safety, and the use of force. While Penny’s defense argued he acted to protect others, critics claim the verdict reflects systemic failures. This video explores the trial, the evidence, and the public’s reaction to this divisive case. Was justice served? Or does the acquittal signal deeper societal challenges? Join the discussion on one of the most polarizing legal battles of the year.