Coulter: The Paddock Narrative Begins to Crack

Discussion in 'Hot off the Wire' started by il ragno, Oct 12, 2017.

  1. il ragno Proud American Deplorable

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2010
    Message Count:
    5,175
    Reputation:
    170,586,077
    Ratings Received:
    +9,020 / 30 / -85
    Las Vegas Massacre—The Story Is Coming Apart
    Ann Coulter
    October 11, 2017


    Now the media are just taunting us with their tall tales about Stephen Paddock, the alleged Las Vegas shooter. Reputedly serious news organizations are claiming that he made a living playing video poker. That’s like claiming someone made a living smoking crack.

    The media are either doing PR for the gambling industry or they don’t want anyone considering the possibility that Paddock was using gambling to launder money.

    NBC News reports, with a straight face: “Las Vegas gunman earned millions as a gambler.” A Los Angeles Times article is headlined, “In the solitary world of video poker, Stephen Paddock knew how to win.” The story says that Paddock’s gambling “was at least a steady income over a period of years.”

    The roulette table pays nobody except him that keeps it. Nevertheless a passion for gaming is common, though a passion for keeping roulette tables is unknown ...I don’t know all the ins and outs of Paddock’s life, but that’s a lie.

    How do reporters imagine casino owners make a living? Any ideas on how all those glorious lobbies, lights, pools and fountains are paid for? How do they think Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn became billionaires if gambling is a winning proposition for people like Paddock–and therefore, by definition, a losing proposition for the casinos?

    The media think about money the way Democrats do. They have absolutely no conception of where it originates. Those casino owners sure are generous! reporters think to themselves. Economist Thomas Sowell is always ridiculing journalists for not understanding basic economics. It turns out, they don’t understand the spreadsheet of a lemonade stand.

    The New York Times explained that the “top” video poker machines pay out 99.17 percent. That’s great that Paddock was only losing cents on the dollar (if true), but it’s still losing. The Times quickly explained that he could have more than made up his losses with all the “comps”–the free rooms, meals and “50-year-old port that costs $500 a glass,” as his brother Eric said.

    Gamblers who are beating the house are not given $500 glasses of port. Refer to the profit/loss spreadsheet. And yet, according to his brother, Paddock was treated like royalty by the casinos. Which means he was losing.

    Apart from outright theft, the only way to have an advantage over the casino is by card-counting. That’s not cheating and it doesn’t guarantee a win. It merely allows the gambler to make a more educated guess as each card is played, thereby tilting the odds ever so slightly in his favor. Still, if the casinos suspect a customer is counting cards, he will be promptly escorted off the premises.

    And counting cards only helps with blackjack. Paddock’s game of choice was VIDEO POKER. That’s a computer! It’s programmed to ensure the house wins. Not all the time, but at least often enough to make casino owners multibillionaires. Anyone who plays video poker over an extended period of time will absolutely, 100 percent, by basic logic, end up a net loser.

    So why are the media insistent that Paddock was getting rich by playing video poker?


    I don’t know what happened—and, apparently, neither do the cops—but it’s kind of odd that we keep being told things that aren’t true about the Las Vegas massacre, from the basic timeline to this weird insistence that Paddock made a good living at gambling.

    The most likely explanation is that the reporters and investigators are incompetent nitwits. But the changing facts from law enforcement and preposterous lies from the press aren’t doing a lot to tamp down alternative theories of the crime.

    Among the questions not being asked by our wildly incurious media:

    *Why would Paddock unload 200 rounds into the hallway at a security guard who was checking on someone else’s room before beginning his massacre?

    *How can it possibly take eight days to figure out when the alleged shooter checked into the hotel?

    *Why was Paddock wearing gloves if he was about to commit suicide?

    *Have any other solitary mass shooters ever had girlfriends?

    *If Paddock wasn’t making money on video poker—and he wasn’t — why would he be cycling millions of dollars through a casino, turning every dollar into, at best, 99 cents?

    Maybe Paddock enjoyed video poker. But if the allegedly serious media are going to keep telling us he was making a living doing it, they’re just begging us to say that losing a percent or two on millions of dollars doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy, but it does make sense as a money laundering operation.

    And the probable illicit business requiring money to be laundered that leaps out at us in Paddock’s case is illegal gun sales. If true, it would not only explain the arsenal in his hotel room, but also raises the possibility of either an accomplice or different perpetrator altogether.

    If this were a movie script, a terrorist would go to Paddock’s room on the pretense of buying guns, kill Paddock, commit the massacre, put his gunshot residue-covered gloves on Paddock’s dead hands and slip out of the room when the coast was clear.

    According to the all-new timeline given by the Las Vegas police–pending a third revision–this is at least possible. The hallway was empty, except for a bleeding security guard down by the elevators, for at least two minutes after the shooting stopped. The stairwell was clear for more than half an hour. It also explains the gloves.

    There’s no evidence for any of this, but on the other hand, there’s no evidence for the version the media are giving us. At least the movie script version doesn’t require us to pretend that Paddock was making “millions” from video poker.

    COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
    ***********************************************************

    Previous Coulter column on this story:


    Media Find Las Vegas Shooter’s Motive–He’s White!
    Ann Coulter
    October 4, 2017


    If the media are going to keep wailing about how vital a free press is, could they start reporting stuff?

    There’s a remarkable number of dangling facts about Stephen Paddock’s mass murder in Las Vegas, which the media have shown little inclination to investigate. It’s almost as if they’re worried that too much investigation will ruin it.

    For example:

    *Who was the woman shouting, “YOU’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!” right before the concert? Is any reporter interested in finding out? Probably a random crazy lady, but that’s not typical pre-concert behavior.

    *Why is it taking so long to find out if anyone else went into Paddock’s hotel room since he checked in last Thursday? I’m perfectly prepared to accept that he was the only one who entered that room, but can we see the surveillance video?

    *The sum-total of the information we know about Marilou Danley, the woman who’s been living with Paddock for years is the following: She was out of the country at the time of the attack. She’s not involved.

    Paddock had apparently assembled an enormous arsenal of weapons. Did she know about it? Did he tell her why? Had his behavior changed recently? Why wasn’t he with her on her trip? Had they broken up? And why did Paddock recently wire $100,000 to the Philippines?

    Within hours of the first indictments in the Duke lacrosse case — later, all thrown out — the media was bristling with information about the players’ parents, the homes they grew up in, the ritziness of their neighborhoods, and the tuition at their Catholic high schools. Doesn’t any reporter want to ask Danley anything?

    Do we know yet why Paddock broke two windows? What were his recent winnings or losses at gambling?

    I don’t know if any of this would change the basic narrative. But the media don’t know, either, and they seem strangely reluctant to ask. As Sherlock Holmes said: First, you exclude the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Our media isn’t doing the reporting that would allow us to exclude anything. And then they wonder why conspiracy theories develop.

    The media’s idea of hard-hitting investigative reporting is to taunt gun-owners and white men. Making snarky political remarks is Job No. 1 of reporters. Apparently, it’s also the new job description for late-night comics. As long as we’re looking for jobs that Americans just won’t do, maybe we could find some immigrants to tell jokes and report news.

    We’re getting a lot of smirky, celebratory headlines, like these:

    AMERICA’S WHITE MAN PROBLEM

    HOW AMERICA HAS SILENTLY ACCEPTED THE RAGE OF WHITE MEN

    THE WHITE PRIVILEGE OF THE “LONE WOLF” SHOOTER


    While it’s great that liberals have finally found a mass murder that they don’t think can be defeated with a “Je Suis Charlie” hashtag, they’re either lying or they don’t know what they’re talking about. Blacks and Hispanics are extremely well-represented as perpetrators of mass shootings, Muslims are over-represented, and surprisingly, even the usually law-abiding Asians more than hold their own.

    Typical Reporter: Yeah, we decided not to go with the mass shootings at the Tennessee church, the Washington Navy Yard, San Bernardino, the Pulse nightclub, Fort Hood, the LIRR, the Carson City IHOP, the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, the Windy City Core Supply warehouse, Virginia Tech, the Binghamton Civic Center, the Hartford Distributors, the hunting tract in Wisconsin, the Appalachian School of Law … and on and on and on.

    And those are just a few of the famous ones!
    It’s hard to notice what’s not there, so it’s especially annoying that the journalist’s method of illustrating mass murderers is to assemble pictures of all the mass shooters, but then only show the white guys.

    There was one characteristic of white men in abundant evidence at the Las Vegas massacre. They’re awfully chivalrous, these white male country music fans. Twenty-two thousand people came under sustained, high-powered gunfire and few people, if any, were stomped to death — something you can’t say for a Black Friday sale at a Long Island mall.

    At the Las Vegas concert, men died protecting women, using their bodies as shields and standing up in the middle of gunfire to direct the women to safety. The New York Post reports that one woman said she “was running away and a couple of guys said, ‘Hey, come stand behind us,’ and boom, they went down.” Heather Melton has described how she felt her husband, Sonny, being shot in the back, fatally, as he shielded her from the rain of bullets.

    Without many facts to go on, the only sweeping conclusion we can make so far is that there’s a reason feminism didn’t emerge from the country music community.

    COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Bluto: 241,792 Points Oct 12, 2017
    MadScienceType: 49,407 Points Oct 12, 2017
    fuz al-nufi: 104,603 Points Oct 12, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 5
    • List
  2. LastChanceArmada Forum Veteran

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Message Count:
    459
    Reputation:
    30,901,240
    Ratings Received:
    +800 / 0 / -1
    It's great to have Ann in our corner. I used to despise her back when I was a lefty since I have never, ever once seen her lose a debate. Now that she's more or less "white nationalist lite" and one of the few sane voices with anything resembling a mainstream national audience it's like having a top prizefighter in our corner. True, she's not perfect but I think she's a lot more "redpilled" than a lot of people give her credit for.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Georg Schoenerer: 37,441 Points Oct 12, 2017
    Bluto: 241,792 Points Oct 12, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  3. il ragno Proud American Deplorable

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2010
    Message Count:
    5,175
    Reputation:
    170,586,077
    Ratings Received:
    +9,020 / 30 / -85
    I really hated her back in her neo-con/let's bomb whoever Dubya and (((his friends))) tell us to days, but it's truly bizarre how Trump has polarized/simplified the playing field into allies (however unlikely or uncomfortable) and human shit (regardless of however many conservative bonafides they sport). It's as if it doesn't matter what you believed or pretended to believe back then - anybody can redeem themselves by the simple act of standing with/supporting/merely sympathizing with the God-Emperor. In a way it's almost beneficial that he's so ultra-hyper-mega hated by the Best and Brightest (to say nothing of the Beautiful People), because refusing to spit on him in public is now an act of political bravery and personal integrity that can't be faked for the cameras' sake.

    I've certainly never lived through anything like this, where one day you wake up and there are almost countless people not in politics (everyone from second baseman to saxophone players) who are suddenly and forevermore on your personal shit list - purely for showing their true colors in a moment when they thought it was safe to do so (because this is how "everybody" feels). It's actually easier to forgive and forget with people like Coulter and Rush (pill me up, Marisol!) Limbaugh, whereas if a Stephen Colbert were having a fatal heart attack in front of me, I'd have to take up smoking again to more fully enjoy the free show of his death.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    LastChanceArmada: 23,624 Points ("Human shit" -- yes, that sums it up) Oct 12, 2017
    Burt: 40,438 Points Oct 12, 2017
    Bluto: 242,100 Points Oct 12, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List

Share This Page