Nevada professor shoots himself on campus to protest President Trump

[Bouncer]

Healthy Mind here folks..

______________

LAS VEGAS —

While his reasoning wasn’t made clear, a sociology professor in Nevada shot himself in the arm while on campus to protest President Donald Trump, according to a police report.

Mark J. Bird, 69, a professor at the College of Southern Nevada since 1993, is facing felony gun charges, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

College employees found Bird collapsed and bleeding from a self-inflicted gunshot wound outside a bathroom on campus around 8:15 a.m. Aug. 28.

Campus police discovered a $100 bill taped to a mirror inside the bathroom with a note that said, “For the janitor,” police said. The pistol Bird reportedly used was found on the bathroom floor.

He's been charged with discharging a gun in a structure within a prohibited area, among other charges, according to online court records.

Bird was still employed with the college as of Tuesday, college spokesman Richard Lake told the Review-Journal, although he wasn’t scheduled to teach any classes during the current semester.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/nevada-...e-say/23119734

[Chadd77]

More should follow in his footsteps! :D

[chuckz28]

Bad aim he was a bit low for a headshot.

[rado]

I mean......

"Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything."


Nike's ad is working

[redback]

How's he gonna train arms now

[lipripper]

Dipshit.....yet this is a professor. This is who's teaching today's youth..and we wonder why America is loosing her way....

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

Dipshit.....yet this is a professor. This is who's teaching today's youth..and we wonder why America is loosing her way....

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

socialism is seriously on the rise in universities around the country. i don't know what the fuck these people don't understand about history but socialism leads to oppression every single time. take a look at a map of socialist countries and they are NOT countries you want to live in if you value freedom in any sense.

[lipripper]

socialism is seriously on the rise in universities around the country. i don't know what the fuck these people don't understand about history but socialism leads to oppression every single time. take a look at a map of socialist countries and they are NOT countries you want to live in if you value freedom in any sense.

Yet, the fuckers who promote it wont leave our country....gee..wonder why?:whistle

[Scrumhalf]

socialism is seriously on the rise in universities around the country. i don't know what the fuck these people don't understand about history but socialism leads to oppression every single time. take a look at a map of socialist countries and they are NOT countries you want to live in if you value freedom in any sense.

I know. Life is so rough in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc. People are seriously deluded there, being so happy.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

I know. Life is so rough in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc. People are seriously deluded there, being so happy.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

They are not socialist countries. You are trying to redefine a word.

_______________________________

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey.../#36ee4eb174ad

By Jeffrey Dorfman - Forbes Magazine

July 2018

As the American left embraces a platform that continues to look more and more like a socialist’s dream, it is common for those on the right to counter with the example of Venezuela as the nightmare of socialism in reality. A common response from the left is that socialism (or democratic socialism) works just fine in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. It is certainly true that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are notable economic successes. What is false is that these countries are particularly socialist.

The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.

To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.

First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.

Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.

We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.

What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required. It is allowing businesses to be productive that produces the high corporate and personal incomes that support the tax collections making the government benefits feasible. The Nordic countries are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

If the left insists on naming a system of generous government benefits combined with a free market democratic socialism, I cannot stop them. That seems unnecessarily confusing since the government is actually running no industries other than education (and meddling somewhat in healthcare). It certainly isn’t socialism. In fact, the only reason most such countries can afford those benefits is that their market economies are so productive they can cover the expense of the government’s generosity. Perhaps a better name for what the Nordic countries practice would be compassionate capitalism.

[Scrumhalf]

Nobody in mainstream US politics, not even the most progressive politicians, not Bernie, not Ro Khanna, not Ocasio-Cortez, not Pramila Jayapal, nobody, refers to classical socialism (including government ownership of all means or production). That's a common tactic used to suggest that they want to turn the US into Venezuela or the Soviet Union.

Every progressive politician of any note in the US is a social Democrat, which is more or less in line with the kind of politics practiced in Scandinavia. Nobody cares what some obscure college professor thinks, any more than the neocons who got cushy jobs in academia instead of rightfully going to jail for destroying Iraq.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

Scrum, the very definition of socialism is control of institutions and private sectors by the state. It means no free markets. That is what actual socialism means. what you are referring to is absolutely NOT socialism.

Why would the left take a word that has always meant something very clear and say "oh well that's not the kind of socialism we are referring to". why not embrace a completely different word that more clearly describes what it is you actually stand for?

like the article I posted above makes very clear. (please read that forbes article if you haven't). you don't want socialism, you want something like "compassionate capitalism". you guys made a choice to run with the word "socialism" and that was a big mistake.

[Scrumhalf]

Social democracy. That's what pretty much every progressive wants in this country. Nobody is talking about Venezuela or Cuba here other than right wingers interested in obfuscation.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

Social democracy. That's what pretty much every progressive wants in this country. Nobody is talking about Venezuela or Cuba here other than right wingers interested in obfuscation.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

You're not addressing what I'm talking about. People on the left are running around openly calling themselves socialists. Why are they calling themselves that when they aren't socialists? Do these people not understand the definition of the word? Why was this word embraced specifically? It's an odd choice considering it's negative connotation and history specifically in America. it seems purposely divisive..

Sent from my Moto G6 using Tapatalk