In Colorado it is illegal to possess, cultivate or use marijuana while being a medical dispensary operator or a medical marijuana patient. In states that have legalized other drugs like cocaine and heroin, there has been a boom in the number of companies that have sprung up trying to develop marijuana-based products.

Marijuana’s medical applications are growing. Its still federally illegal to sell it but many states are now considering it as it is a medical alternative for millions of people who need aid.

If our laws didnt affect all the people at all, then marijuana would be legal for everyone to be using on a regular basis. At the moment, marijuana laws are only focused on black people. No matter how much marijuana there is on Earth, its not available to everyone.

But this is clearly going to change.

So, not only is it on your mind this week, but several prominent scientists, including University of Colorado scientist Steve DeAngelo, are also taking a quick trip across this very issue to see just how effective marijuana might be for patients using opioid drugs.

It’s an argument that seems to have some popular support in Techcrunch and Reddit.

Crazy but true…

In fact, this is a big part of why the government is trying to do such a good job. “In a recent hearing, Senator Markey asked a question about “the issue of online gambling”, which was directed to David Segal, a former Vice President (then General Counsel, now Chairman of the Interactive Gaming and Digital Media Committee). Segal was asked how he would handle “the issue of online gambling”. Segal responded (emphasis added): “Well, what I would do in a situation where I was not an attorney but had had some experience in the area, is, I would say, it would be an open line of communication with the regulators.” Segal went on to explain how, “The best way to deal with online gambling activities is actually to talk to the regulators. And if you can do that, there’s probably not too much bad that can come of it.” “I think when you do know what you’re talking about, you can also do it,” added Segal.

It certainly seems like they could probably avoid a lot of bad outcomes if they just talked to the regulators, right? The question is, “Is it worth the hassle?”

From our own conversations, we can see two big problems with this approach. First, if it’s worth the hassle and the risk to the companies doing the dealing as a result of these games being allowed to exist in the first place (or the regulations covering such activities being relaxed), then why not just accept that if there’s not a huge profit to be made by selling cards, they’ll go away eventually? Second, these rules aren’t just about making money for the companies that own and run the casinos and the poker rooms and poker sites; it’s about protecting consumers. What if you get caught playing something, and the company can have the money that the gambling card was bought from in a small settlement paid to them? In fact, that’s exactly what happened in this case where the online card room that operated some of the other sites got caught doing it (albeit with a very small fine from the judge, who made an interesting point about how these casinos are only being sanctioned now because of the negative publicity they’ve received in the past:

Here’s the transcript of that proceeding (from the hearing itself), and the key details are:

A representative for the judge expressed to the plaintiffs how she thought that the way in which such sites operate “would really undermine the ability of the court to manage them properly.”

A member of the plaintiff’s general counsel told the court how she thought that the companies operating online gaming sites aren’t really all that careful where they get their cards or other electronic product. According to the general counsel, all three sites that were the subject of the hearing “were operated by people who only sold electronic products. It’s not that there’s anything dishonest or illegal about that. But it’s how do you keep a track of who is going to be using a certain product in order to get the best price and the best services. And if you are going to have multiple sites, it’s much harder to come together in a single entity when it comes to that.” It is hard to see how all of the companies participating in the online gaming market could possibly function that way right now - not to mention how this decision could actually be an incentive to the players and websites to try to find other ways to keep a better track of who was using a particular card or product. (See the full transcript here .)

And while we’re on the subject of the law, Judge Posner, perhaps as a response to the argument from the General Counsel, noted this: This case has many similarities to another case that occurred a few years ago in Japan, “Tawaguchi v. Tawaga”, which was about the requirement of “fairness of competition” for the companies who operated various card networks. While at the trial, there was plenty of evidence in the record in support of the plaintiffs, the presiding judge rejected a claim of “fairness of competition”, and instead said the law that imposed such a duty “would be an illegal ban of monopoly as it would require more competition among the card players than there is to guarantee a free and fair marketplace for consumers, and indeed would be a net gain to the monopolist of power in this free and democratic society.” (This case was later found to be unconstitutional.) As a whole, the arguments made by the judge were very thorough and convincing, though admittedly, while you would certainly disagree with some of them, it would seem at the very least that the court does not think this is unconstitutional or in danger of being so.

In other words, from our understanding from the hearing, this issue is not nearly so simple and in fact, that’s part of the reason the judge is not going to rule in one breath, and then immediately make the decision the right way. She gave


. I was so mad at how badly I was doing at the beginning of my investing career. I realized that the worst long-term investor could lose almost everything. The worst investor in my opinion was me. I took about 30 million short positions over the same period. When those positions closed, they were worthless, having failed in their purpose.

I learned something else, but it was the opposite of the advice that Warren Buffett gave to “the best investors” in the Harvard Business Review in 2005buy the big winners instead of the winners. What I got from all my bearish trading would be the opposite of this: You can never be an absolute loser in a stock market. But at the same time, you should never put money down on a good winner, knowing that he’ll get crushed by the market. For all your efforts on “buying stock” at the wrong price, you should think twice every time you buy a stock that pays a higher price later.

When markets closed, I thought my bearish trading had been for naught (it wasn’t). The SPDR S&P 500 (NYSE: SPY) closed 6.42% higher on the closing bell. At a later point, I realized that it had all worked out perfectly and that I didn’t get anything out of my bearish stock strategies. At the time, I didn’t appreciate that I had missed out on a chance to take the profits of my money. That’s called a lottery ticket. To this day, I’ve never owned any of the losers in the S&P 500. The most I’ve ever spent on a stock trading position was around $75K. Since I started to work on my strategy, my losses, which totaled $20,000, never come close to $50K in the three years that I’ve had a trading account. Why? Because most of the losers I’ve traded on have in fact had incredible stocks to trade into and have gotten richer because of it.

The market has a way of turning around your trading mistakes quickly. And it turns around people’s stocks, too. The S&P 500 started off as a bearish investment back in the early 1980s. As the 1990s took hold, the market rallied as it had by the early 2000s. It turned upside-down at the end of 2008, but the market did make a comeback last October by turning around the entire Dow industrials. With every new market rally, people buy up their own stocks. I recently took my first short position of $3,000. During my bull run, I was up around 10%. Today I’m down 2% because of my poor “buy and hold” investing habits. The lesson from my experience is this: If your life revolves around stocks, be sure to get into them! And if you are a trader, don’t be afraid to stop short. All it takes is one small mistake to ruin your whole future trading career. It’s okay if your returns are bad, but stop short at the worst. What do you think? What’s the worst stock to invest in?

At the same time the economy will only expand by 1.8% this quarter. The good news is, despite the economy, the S&P 500 has gained 3.7% since May 2017. Not too shabby, eh? In fact, as the graph below by Nomura shows, it’s only been over the last six months that the S&P 500 gained 10%. Yes, the market is “bad” according to our usual “wisdom”. As a comparison, the S&P 500 is 10.6% higher since January 2002. How are the numbers compared to the S&P 500 over the past 20 years? For 20 years there were 7 major financial crises, 3 world wars, and 23 recessions. In other words, there are a whopping 7 times as many major financial crises (27) than stocks (just 8). In fact, there were only three times as many major stock market crashes (6) before 2017. Now consider, the S&P 500 now has over 23% of the all time high and 12% of all time low in its history. In fact, if current history is any guide these are the most intense bull markets that the world has witnessed in its history. The market is set to be another major bull market.

It’s not going to be pretty. I’m sure you’re asking yourself, “But isn’t growth a good measure of an economy’s health?” Well, I’ll tell you my answer right now, but first I need to explain the problem with “growth.” There’s nothing wrong with growth per se. When the economy grows an economy is generating more stuff , more revenue, more wages, more benefits. It has value. But there’s only one thing that really matter at this point. What people want is to have a reason to buy more stuff . At this point in time we have nothing that satisfies their needs. And if there’s a better option out there, guess what it’s not that cheap. Just two thirds of the world’s population remains under-emphasized by their economies . That means there are not as many people with enough money left over to buy a brand new car. It also means the less prosperous people are not as enthusiastic about the stuff they do have.

In short, growth doesn’t correlate with actual success. It’s just a bunch of numbers, which when combined with demographics tells us they don’t correlate well. So, where do you find evidence that growth is a good thing? Well, there are two things to look for if you wish to bolster your case. One, there must be more stuff being produced than ever before. In other words, we have to be able to show someone who says “growth equals success” things that show that they’re just making out way too big a fool. And the second factor is that we live a much longer life than our forebears. Why are we living longer? It’s because our environment is changing. No, the rest of you, including Millennials, have no clue, but we’re a long way from the world of yore that was “just right.” Now back to the point. There’s no question the human race has vastly more stuff than our ancestors. But what we need is something that’s worth having. This, more than anything else, is what is missing in the modern world. There are so many things, from food to entertainment to technology, that add value to peoples living for today’s average citizen. What is it that they do need? It’s obvious! The problem, which I’ve tried to point out, is that what I’ve called the “value theory of everything” runs counter to the “growth theory of everything.” If there’s value to whatever we have, then there’s a value to the entire planet we have in the form of resources. So, what have we brought you today? Well, I started this with an interview with Bill Gates that starts off like a textbook in Value Theory. Then things got crazy. Because if you take a look around the world today just how crazy. For example, even the highest income earners in Japan (GDP per capita: $24,890) have a minimum of just around 200 items of income. You’d be surprised at how little there really is. On the other side of the planet, the Philippines has an even, far higher income per capita of $5,300. That’s on top of a GDP per capita that’s only $2,000!

So, what do we need? I’ll give you the answer right now, right?

Last week Brent crude prices briefly breached their all-time high as well, reaching $69.06 a barrel, before briefly retreating. As discussed in the article below, we are not concerned about how global supply and demand may affect the price of oil and we will not do any type of analysis on this topic until we hear fromNGL companies such as AGL about actual performance on the global oil market.

An oil refinery. An oil refinery. Photo Credit: K.D. Srinivasan, Reuters The U.S. Federal Reserve, whose interest rate hikes do not appear to be likely, is, at the very least, having a difficult time trying to balance its objectives of maintaining short-term borrowing costs and increasing inflation. This is a problem. Because a rise in the price of crude oil leads to lower prices for gasoline, it raises expectations of price increases even as they decline. At the same time, a fall in prices reduces demand for other goods and services, which further reduces real economic activity. The Fed has been reluctant to raise interest rates because it believes market expectations–or “forward guidance,” in Fed lingo–for the rate increase are too short term. The market seems to be anticipating a 10-8% rate hike sometime this year, which is considerably less than half of the rate hikes that Fed officials forecast in the spring of 2013, even though the economy was already in an impressive state of expansion. One thing that has caused Fed officials much consternation is the fact that the price of oil has dropped to a 30-year-low, from more than $108 a barrel in the middle of summer. The drop in the price of oil has exacerbated the U.S. problem. We have already been observing this effect since 2009, but did not take it to the market in large because it did not seem to matter to a large segment of our economy. At this point the problem may become increasingly difficult to solve. The U.S. economy is not dependent on oil sales–the U.S. runs a trade deficit with China of $400 billion annually. And while it is true that U.S. imports have declined significantly since peaking in 2007, they increased significantly since 2010.Because of that the dollar’s strength has led to massive budget deficits and to rising debt levels that we have not seen for over three decades. At the same time U.S. oil industry employment has fallen nearly 15% from 2010 to 2012, and unemployment remains above 6%.

A rendering of a crude oil barrel.A rendering of a crude oil barrel. Photo Credit: R. M. Brown,United States Energy Information Administration,January 25, 2013 Although we’ve long said that the U.S. government is better off with fewer workers in the oil industry, our current administration has decided to take an even stronger role in keeping oil industry jobs. The U.S. government’s budget is about $2.1 trillion for 2013 and its share of the U.S. oil industry is about 2.9%. This creates a situation where the government has a larger budgetary burden on the sector than we normally experience with oil producers. And the more the U.S. government promotes the U.S. oil industry, the more pressure there will be for the sector to improve performance. It appears that the Fed’s focus on inflation and future economic growth is causing this to happen. An important part of the Fed’s plan for “increasing economic activity in oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation” is to “increase production capacity.” That means increasing drilling and production rates, as well as increasing the size of well pads and onshore production rigs. The Fed and non-oil companies have been pushing a highly controversial plan for the past several years to have the government purchase oil leases on an open market, and the process of doing that started this week. After an intensive three-day conference chaired by Chairman Ben Bernanke, the Department of the Interior announced last Friday that the U.S. Department of the Interior issued a solicitation to purchase over 13.7 million acres of oil and gas exploration and production rights across the country, according to a news release .

A block of oil on a mountain, Photo Credit: Daniel Nocera, The New York Times. A block of oil on a mountain. Photo Credit: Daniel Nocera,The New York Times. A block of oil on a mountain. Photo Credit: Daniel Nocera,The New York Times.

A block of oil on a mountain Photo Credit: Daniel Nocera,The New York Times A block of oil on a mountain Photo Credit: Daniel Nocera,The New York Times.

A block of oil on a mountain Photo Credit: Daniel Nocera,The New York Times A block of oil on a mountain Photo Credit: Daniel Nocera,The New York Times.

This is still one of my least favorite ways of doing stuff, which is why I like it so much. So let’s go through the basics of drawing people and give you a few tips if you want to follow along with the process from start to finish.

When going through a drawing, we want to start making note of the size of the models in the drawing. This is probably the biggest number we will be checking as we start making note of the models, as it tells us how much the size of models/models can translate to the size of a particular area of the model. This is a very important number because if it’s too small, a lot of the information will be lost. Also, if it’s too large, a person will look like a giant, and won’t look as good as he/she could be as you draw their limbs and how they move.

For example, a woman with an even proportioned torso, a small head, and short legs. To get this look, I’d use a small eye, a large mouth and big breasts. In this first example, we’re going to make note of the torso size as 30cm (14 inches).

When it comes time to start filling in the models on the body, we also want to start using little dots. This is an easy technique to use because it’s simply using the line tool to draw a small line in the area that we want to be filled in. You can learn very quickly that you can fill in a very small amount of line using a line. In this example, we’re going to fill in just about two-thirds of the body. In another example, we would fill in only about one third of the body. Again, it’s very easy to just stop and wait for other things to fill in the space you made.

The next couple steps in drawing a character are called drawing folds or lines in the body. They’re all pretty easy, especially once you learn to use the line tool at first, and also get a feel for the process of drawing folds. They are the same basic procedure with how we draw the face. Again, we want to start with a rectangle in the body. While we’re at it, we want to draw in some folds around the torso and neck (in this first case it’s not so important who fills those spots, but it’s important for us to understand them). To bring up the drawing, press ‘Shift’. There will now be a large white rectangle at the top of the drawing that reads “WETTBL”.

We’re going to start drawing some tiny white lines in the folds and begin outlining them. In the second image, we’re going to start at the center of the body and cut down to the inside. This will give us less details since we want to be able to see most of the skin while we’re drawing.

We’re also going to start drawing in lines that go down the body toward the hips. The trick with these smaller lines is that they’re the same distance from an outside edge, but smaller than the lines we’re drawing through the body. It’s easier to start with shorter lines and cut off more from the inside of the body. In the next series of examples, the edges will be more detailed and cut off, and we’ll start at the center of the body. At this point, you can begin to fill the gaps in the lines. In the image above, we’re going to use a long line to cut of the shoulders in the center and extend over some of the body. In the image below, from the top, we continue cutting off lines along the top. We’re going to move the line around until we have something that looks like we’re drawing in the body from the neck down.

In general, the general technique here is that we’re going keep our drawings as crisp as possible and not bother with any big strokes or long lines, in most of the instances. We don’t want to be rushed, but we also don’t want to try to fill in areas we don’t need to fill in. We’ll just start with the outer skin, then the neck, then the legs and finally the face.

In these next two examples, we’ll start with drawing the lines we do want to go along. This is done by going to the Appearance tab of the main panel and selecting Stroke 1 on the left hand side. You can add some other types of strokes on the line tool to help in this process, but I’ve started out by just using the stroke. I also tend to draw in lines to see what will happen, and I draw in larger pieces that are less than a second big and small.

P/E 2.0 and P/E 1.0 are trading at around 12. And Apple’s stock has continued to grow ever higher, up about 45% in 2017. If P/E 2.0 is a mere 13, Apple’s stock will eventually crash off the cliff. This is like the time that Apple broke out of “disruption” and became the world’s main computer maker. It can happen again. 1:19 am on Dec 03, 2017 | Permalink

Jim Rogers said…

Jim, As you point out and as you would like to see, there’s probably some overlap in that I’ve covered some of it. I’ve never had a negative feeling about Apple. From the market perspective, Apple is a “monopoly.” Apple had the biggest share of market cap, in 2016, in the world. So there was a lot of pressure on them to be innovative, to be different. I understand that. But the one thing I wouldn’t have expected them to do in my lifetime that no-one else has done has been to make products that are fun to use and can be re-used long after they’re obsolete. Which is important, given the state of tech. I also understand that companies’ focus is never on one single item. So when one comes along, someone has to “make that happen.” This is one of the things that I remember about my first job back in 1998 was being told that an iPhone was going to come out in 2000. I was 24 and my wife was 32. We were in Silicon Valley, not New York. By the end of 2001, when it was clear that they would not have a working product, there were “too few” available to even start the project. I can only imagine what it would be like if people today have a whole lot of “innovation going on” every day. And I know a lot of people here believe that Steve Jobs would be more appreciative of that today than he would be if I got it with him in the 1990s. 2:33 am on Dec 03, 2017 | Permalink

James said…

This is an interesting analysis. Do you think Apple “oversold”? I think there may be some room for some overvaluation on the shares. In my view, what Apple needs to do is look to lower the “asset” part of P/E to a more reasonable level. This would go against a lot of shareholder philosophy that we’ve seen from Apple. For example, I think that the current P/E of 13 implies that Apple is looking at its stock price as not being very reliable as a measure of the long-term performance of its stock. If P/E falls further, Apple will have to make some changes to its asset allocation in order to be in a better position to raise more stock. But that may not be easy. To illustrate, let’s say Apple raises it P/E to 10 with no dividend cut. And let’s say we’re still at the end of our ten-year tenure. If Apple doesn’t increase its P/E by that amount, it may be the only company in history to do so. A fall in asset prices could result in a lower return on a share of Apple stock than an increase in P/E: a 10-year tenure of at $140 million, to $135 million, and an increase of $10.80 billion or 4 percent in stock price, versus the same ten-year stint priced at $85 million.

2:54 am on Dec 03, 2017 | Permalink

Jim Rogers said…

James, I don’t think that raising the asset allocation would do anything to increase the market value of Apple stock in the eyes of investors. It may increase the “rebuttable presumption” that Apple is a high-quality company that will continue to be a top-tier company in the years to come, in comparison to other tech stocks. In any case, with the way that P/E is calculated the share price will probably be more volatile over the next several years, especially in relative terms to the “asset value” of Apple. It is, however, pretty safe to say that the value will continue to rise. 4:28 pm on Dec 03, 2017 | Permalink

John Chown, said…

“I know a lot of people here believe that Steve Jobs would be more appreciative of that today than he would be if I got it with him in the 1990s. That could be a little inflated, but the core market value of Apple is in about line with the value from 1995 on. If they can do exactly what they started doing in 1997, then they should all be doing great. The market only seems to have an interest in Apple at that stage in time, and a year or two later is

“We’re able to increase revenue and bring more jobs to the Shenzhen area.” ,

“What we are seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg,” Li says. “For Nio, this is just the beginning of the work to become a leading global automaker.” He says the company is investing heavily in electric vehicles in order to reduce costs and make them more competitive on the global stage. “We do not have financial constraints on the size of the investments we will make,” he adds . “We can do it faster and without financial burden.”

While he is still waiting for China’s annual emissions cap in 2020, Li says the company is in the process of designing its electric car technology. “We already have several models in development,” he says. “Last year’s technology was designed to serve the local car market.”

Li says Nio is already in talks with Chinese manufacturers to explore partnerships with them and has recently been in discussion with China’s biggest car maker, Geely. In addition, Nio is doing research on autonomous driving, he says.

It has also recently won a contract to supply its electric car to a leading Chinese battery supplier. “We have a deal with an individual with a major supplier of batteries, and we want to expand our relationship because of our close relationship with Nio.” China is a key market and Nio has already seen positive reaction from local car manufacturers. It is also looking to expand that relationship further, in order to continue to move in the same direction. In addition, Chinese consumers are increasingly demanding battery powered vehicles, which is why Nio has been selling its electric roadsters in China.

In addition, Li says Nio’s plans for electric cars are still far off in terms of scale, but it is already making significant investments to get there. “We are planning to create 200 new electric vehicles by 2020 using our existing equipment. We plan to make electric cars at the same level as internal combustion engines.”

Nio is also looking to expand into the country’s most populous cities where it says it is struggling to compete, and has been working on an ambitious plan to become a global car manufacturer within 10-15 years. I think this is true. As far as the US goes, Nio will be in a position of learning from the massive success of China’s electric car pioneers in Nio and China’s homegrown electric car manufacturers. They will be able to adapt and adopt a more innovative car technology that can compete against existing car manufacturers globally, including Toyota, Tesla, GM, Ford and Mercedes. Nio hopes that its electric car technology will do so by providing the equivalent of a small pickup truck to the Chinese market, and has reportedly been in discussions to buy Toyota’s factory. The Japanese automaker, while it is an independent corporation, has been accused of purchasing the factory while it was still listed on Hong Kong’s stock exchange and is accused of having a secret stake in the future of electric cars within Nio. While the Tesla Model S P85D represents the pinnacle of innovation and the electric car market is flooded with great new electric car brands, Nio isn’t willing to settle for a few products. That’s why it’s not even afraid to partner or directly invest in the companies that are already pioneering the field of EVs.

Nio has already announced plans to start exporting its electric cars to China. It has partnered with Daimler Group, where the Mercedes-Benz S-Class Electric Roadster has already won the Pirelli World Challenge and the “World’s Best Electric Vehicle” award, and is working closely with China’s three national EV regulators, the China Automobile Vehicle Development Association, China Association of EV R&D, and China National Automobile Association, who all announced the same goal of launching 100,000 electric cars into the domestic market by 2020. Nio hopes that its partnership with Daimler will enable it to go even further to develop its own and other Chinese EV manufacturers, and ultimately export their products across the globe. The first Nio electric car has been revealed, the P85D and will be fully electric from the start, but it will soon be preceded by more models like the Nio Plug, which will be an electric version of the company’s iconic, sports car, the Plug-in Hybrid. Nio is already on its way to winning approval for production of a plug-in hybrid vehicle. As a brand, it has the momentum to take their car to a new level and set the tone for the future. I have an eye for the future as it is that type of thing that gets me excited, so there’s no better time than today with all eyes on them. Even if the company is only building a few cars for Europe and Korea there are some huge opportunities to grow as both a brand and as the next big thing in mobility.

The company said most of the victims appear to be in North America and in the U.S. there were some similar incidents across Europe, Australia and Switzerland. It appears their attack was limited to North America.

“To date, we have only identified security camera companies that have been affected globally,” Wyze Labs said in a blog post. “Our customers did not have their camera feeds publicly viewable on YouTube nor on Facebook, so we believe this is the first time that anyone from our customers have been identified through a global security incident involving our cameras and security footage.”

The security cameras are connected via Ethernet (usually WiFi), with a wireless router plugged into a power source. With any connected device, users can connect to other networks via an Ethernet wire. There’s no indication what kinds of cameras were affected in an ongoing investigation. The website says it’s now working on a fix for the issue, and that the company is offering a free 30-day trial period. The website asks for any camera owners and others that are worried about their video feed on social media to email [email protected]. While it’s not clear what type of hardware the breaches were at, other reports state that security cameras connected over USB had been hacked and video was posted to the Internet. Security researchers have been tracking the hacking attack that began last night in the U.S., and this is the first known incident of a local cyberattack.

Update at 11:50: Bloomberg reports that the vulnerability has been fixed – and that Wyze Labs has notified users. “We had only been contacted once by a customer and were in contact shortly after the incident was discovered,” Wyze Labs said.

Update at 11:50 another security researcher who works on the Wyze Labs platform, Adam Caudill, told Ars Technica that the incident has been fixed. He says this is the first known incident in which users have their video feeds on the Internet. “This is not an update for today, but it’s just the first confirmed incident,” Caudill told TechCrunch.

Photo: Jason Koebler

The same band would later give the same account of the Christmas night in 1969, just after being called off during rehearsals due to a fatal motorcycle accident. Their account was provided shortly before the pair were scheduled to perform in Las Vegas at the same stadium, and in that incident they suffered a severe neck injury. Also, in the 1990s, there was a case of a teenager having a near-death experience after one of The Killers. In 1998, musician Ben Klee died after he fell from his motorcycle , leaving a suicide note , on the night of the tour opener with The Scorpions . A coroner was asked to investigate, which confirmed his death to be an accidental fall while riding home after a concert. In 2011, guitarist Jimmy Chamberlin of The Offspring was arrested by the police for having a gun in the hotel room of a friend to kill someone as a prank . During the 2015 tour, drummer Ronnie Vannucci accidentally shot his wife with an accidental shotgun blast, ending their marriage. When he was initially interviewed about the incident by US media, his response was “I’m a grown man and I’m in my own fucking room.” In 2015, the New York Times reported on the death of an Indian engineer and filmmaker who was murdered by members of a “skinhead” gang on a beach in South Carolina after a dispute with a friend. The details were reportedly as follows: “When the gunman was finished with the photographer, another man came from behind and opened fire. The man who was shot, who had taken the body bag from the shooting, was killed when a bullet ricocheted off an incoming boat.” According to a 2014 New York Times report, a police superintendent said “as much as 90% of the time when we get a report, we don’t know anything.” In addition, there were three reported incidents at the Las Vegas show, as reported by The New York Post . According The New York Post, “After gunshots were fired into the crowd by a man dressed in an all-black outfit, several people dove for cover around the stage. When the man took his head off and a young boy fell to the ground, the gunman sprayed the crowd with bullets, the report said.” Following the event, reports appeared online alleging “gangsters” were in possession of weapons at the show , and that the gunman’s apparent motivation was to “shoot up the building.” In addition, police, after reviewing security footage, believed the gunman was “inspired” by the recent violence in Chicago , which saw at least three men shot and killed during one Friday night of violence by three different factions of the Muslim community. The Post reported “according to investigators with the Metropolitan Police Department, there is not enough evidence to say that a gang was involved.” In addition, A video posted on Facebook also claims that “one of them” was seen on the video carrying a gunon the floor in the back of a black SUV. The video, purported to be of the gunman , who allegedly killed six people and injured others before himself being gunned down, shows multiple gunmen firing shots toward the crowd near the Las Vegas Strip exit. One person even is seen on a microphone saying “fuck you, we’re taking your guns” on one of the gunmen while another man is seen firing at a fleeing suspect as they appear to be aiming at them. In response to criticisms, the Post added “After reviewing the videos it has confirmed the gunman is not affiliated with any gang or criminal organization.” In the meantime, another gunman wearing the same type of red bandana as the suspect wore during the concert and firing at the crowd is said to have been captured by police on film .

Posted by Stuff Black People Don’t Like at 12:25 PM

Anon said…

This is just another excuse from the MSM to put every black person in the world in one category without the benefit of empathy or self judgement. It does not matter how often a victim of crime is not given the opportunity to defend themselves, and when the victim of crime cannot defend himself when a police officer is present and the police officer initiates the physical beating or other acts of police brutality, this is not a “race” issue. It is an issue of a police officer in uniform terrorizing an individual, then punishing the victim instead of doing their job. How many of you think this type of behavior is “justifiable” in a world where “everywhere is colorblind” while it is unacceptable to make a victim of a crime, and take away the very reason you are targeted even more. No one is defending any of this type of assault by police officers. No one is defending the police. I’m all for the victims of crime. I’m all for equal justice for all. However when the state, or at least a portion of the state, becomes enamored of a group of individuals and criminalizes their lives, this makes a real change. I live in a state where the state has the power to remove you

Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now