Doctor Boom

Surgeon to the Stars, Unapologetic Patriot, Even More Unapologetic Christian, Toxic Masculinity Personified, Married to Wonder Woman

[Doctor Boom @BoneShillelagh]

Physician Health Programs are a criminal enterprise focused on extortion, predicated on quackery, and protected by law. Their connection with rehab centers and state medical boards has more in common with Mafia than medicine. It's the most vile thing you've never heard of.

[Doctor Boom @BoneShillelagh]

Theo Vons change in calling has been something pretty cool to watch

[Shadow Intel @TheShadowIntelX]

Theo Von: “All the same sh*t has been happening forever.”

“They haven't been helping anyone forever ”

“They’re letting f*cking politicians slurp on kids.”

“All of our f*cking money goes to Israel.”

“And they’re using it to f*cking genocide people.”

“It's like, Satan is amongst us and our religious leaders are f*cking talking about bullsh*t at the pole”

[Thrilla the Gorilla @ThrillaRilla369]

There are people out here genuinely debating whether they’d take a life to protect their own kids… and I’m sitting here thinking, “I’d take a life for your kids.”
Kids are always off the table. Full stop. Even most hardened prison inmates understand that basic code: you don’t harm children. Period.
I’d go to war for your child if they needed it. But for mine? I’d burn the whole world down, scorched earth, no limits, no hesitation. That’s not even a question.

[Anti-Feminism Australia @AntiFeminismAU]

This is exactly why women need to get dating advice from men instead of their female friends.

[Aakash Gupta @aakashgupta]

A wife went viral for admitting she and her husband are mediocre. Average looking, not funny, no friends, mentally ill. And she can't explain why their marriage feels like a fairytale.

A psychologist in Seattle solved this exact puzzle in the 1990s.

John Gottman wired an apartment near the University of Washington with cameras and brought in 130 newlywed couples to just live in it. He tracked something he called bids: the tiny reaches for attention partners make all day. "Look at that bird." "Listen to this." A sigh that wants acknowledging.

Six years later, 17 couples had divorced. When his team went back to the tapes, the still-married couples had turned toward those bids 86% of the time. The divorced couples had managed 33%.

That one behavior predicted the outcome better than anything else in the data. Looks never entered the model. Humor never entered the model. Intelligence, money, status, shared hobbies: none of it showed up.

Now reread her post. "I can spend every minute of every day with this dude and not really get tired of it. We can get in the car and just drive for hours and talk."

Two people driving nowhere for hours are exchanging hundreds of bids and catching nearly all of them.

She graded the marriage on every trait that predicts nothing, and missed that they're elite at the one behavior that predicts almost everything.

[JD™ @LostMyHats]

Not sure you followed that metaphor.

I don’t have an opinion on HER conspiracy theory. I DO think:

1. Israel has assassinated more people on foreign soil than any nation in the last 50 years - by far - and that’s a fact.

2. Charlie “left the pro-Israel cause” only weeks before, in writing - and that’s a fact

3. Charlie’s “friends” lied about #2, until the texts were leaked and they had to stop lying - and that’s a fact. My opinion accompanying that fact is that his “friends” - with Rob McCoy and Seth Dillon atop that list - are not only liars, but are the worst people in this whole situation. Deplorable humans.

4. Israel knew #2. Not a fact, but almost a certainty that his “friends” told their Israeli handlers, and Israel knew he was at least thinking about it from a letter he sent Netanyahu. Then Netanyahu lied about that letter, until it also leaked - and that’s a fact.

After that letter to Netanyahu , thinking he wasn’t on Mossad’s radar and surveillance is also far-fetched. They knew.

5. Candace had both the texts and the letter - fact - and the most plausible reason is it was from Charlie, which gives credence to her claims about their closeness. The most likely conclusion is she’s not lying about that.

6. I think it’s weird Joe Kent says they shut down all investigations into foreign ties to assassination. I believe him.

7. I do not believe the FBI. About anything. Ever. And anyone who does, is foolish.

8. I believe U.S. intelligence would help Israeli intelligence cover up crimes, and in the past, has. I don’t think Mossad and the CIA are structurally separate.

9. I believe Israel would absolutely assassinate anyone they felt would create an existential threat, and to Israel, everything is existential.

10. I believe both U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies have experimented for 50 years on how to manipulate and control people, and in the last 15 years have focused on terminally online, lonely young men through Discord and game platforming. That’s a declassified fact.

None of that relates to this specific case. I have not spent time listening to Candace’s theories. I’ve only listened to her Shawn Ryan interview. Not even sure what her specific theory is.

But if anyone is claiming it’s crazy to think Israel would assassinate Charlie, didn’t have motive, doesn’t murder people all the time, hasn’t done similar things, or in some way shares our Western values and Christian sense of right and wrong, then THAT is a bigger conspiracy than anything thought up by Candace.

[JD™ @LostMyHats]

If your faith is even remotely attached to the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, I assure you there is NOT a special place in the afterlife for people who believe conspiracy theories.

Do you know who DOES go to hell? People who deny Jesus is the Son of God, who died for our sins, and rose again from the dead. In other words, Ben Shapiro. To him, the Resurrection is a conspiracy theory.

Have you told Ben he needs to repent and trust in Jesus? That would seem to be a higher order of priority than condemning people to hell for believing your favorite foreign government killed someone.

You’re either a confused Christian or you hold to a bizarre, political civil religion with its own commandments and eternal rewards and punishments. But it’s not Christianity.

[Doctor Boom @BoneShillelagh]

@AntiWokeMemes No Fault State

[GH HILL @GHHILL1911]

I don't know who wrote this originally:

A future soldier time travels into a gun store:
"I need a rifle to kill aliens that are mostly bullet proof."
Ok, you're probably going to want a larger caliber, probably .308, or for armor the added velocity of 6.5 Creed might...
"No, we only have 5.56."
Ok, no problem. You're going to at least want a longer barrel to keep as much velocity as you can.
"I was thinking like, 7 inches."
Ah, ok. If portability is a big concern you're probably going to want a super compact PDW style stock.
"I need the longest, heaviest stock you can find."
...Ok. Lets talk optics then, a 7" 5.56 is gonna be pretty limited on range so a simple red dot...
"I need magnification."
Oh, are these aliens hard to identify?
"They're gigantic."
Oh.
"I tell you what, go ahead and put a red dot at a 45. They look sick."
Will you ever use it?
"I will not."
....so, aliens huh? That sounds rough.
"They have incredibly heightened senses. They can smell blood from a mile away."
OH. Well, now the shorter barrel makes a little more sense. You're making room for a big suppressor.
"A what?"
A silencer. Especially if you're going to be shooting these in close proximity to other people, the concussive forces will be...
"No thanks. We'll probably shoot a dozen of these full auto in a concrete stairwell."
That's...I think you're making my point.
"We'll also be fighting in dimly lit areas."
You'll want a super bright weapon mounted light.
"No I said they'll be dimly lit. What's your dimmest light?"
How is this war going for you?
"We're losing terribly."

[Doctor Boom @BoneShillelagh]

If you could just suddenly be a top ranking officer in the United States Army as of tomorrow, but you had to leave everything else behind, would you do it at 45? 55? Say you get full staffing, privileges, all of it. Big swinging whatever but you go where youre told. You go?

[Doctor Boom @BoneShillelagh]

It would be an absolute nightmare to attempt to occupy the US. Other countries have widely disseminated military hardware, like Yemen, but here? Lol its everywhere

[Benny Johnson @bennyjohnson]

I want every foreigner visiting America for the World Cup to realize this is 100% legal.

And every town in the USA is filled with patriots who have armories like this. Every block, actually.

This is why we will never be conquered and are awesome 🇺🇸

[Doctor Boom @BoneShillelagh]

Pretty funny how you watch people learn as they try to go at @LostMyHats suddenly whole accounts just go POOF

[Joel Webbon @JoelWebbon]

Men must love women enough to tell them no.

[Riverrat328 @riverrat328]

Hell Yeah 🙌

[Doctor Boom @BoneShillelagh]

This is why we won lol

[Arthur MacWaters @ArthurMacwaters]

The European mind simply cannot comprehend a random citizen playing the national anthem with a semi automatic rifle in their backyard shooting range

[Doctor Boom @BoneShillelagh]

Invest heavily in vigilante justice. I see it rising.

[Ulrich @UlrichFY]

A un moment donné il faut se poser la question : Les femmes sont-elles capables de justice ?

Oui. Tant qu'elle est "gratuite". Passé un certain coût, elles préfèrent l'injustice. Pas les hommes.

Pour le comprendre, il faut lire l'étude d'Eckel et Grossman, publiée dans le Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (volume 30, p. 143-158, 1996).

Cette étude a placé des hommes et des femmes devant un choix simple : partager une grosse somme avec un partenaire qui avait triché, ou une somme plus petite avec un partenaire honnête.

Refuser de récompenser le tricheur coûtait donc de l'argent. Et ce coût, le "prix de l'équité", on le faisait monter.

Le résultat ?

Tant que sanctionner l'injustice coûte peu, les femmes le font volontiers, tout aussi prêtes que les hommes à sanctionner le tricheur.

Mais...

Le plus intéressant dans cette étude, c'est ce qui arrive quand le prix monte, quand le coût d'opportunité de rendre la justice baisse par rapport au gain potentiel.

Les femmes cèdent : elles prennent la grosse somme et laissent filer le tricheur. Les hommes, eux, continuaient de refuser de récompenser l'injustice.

La conclusion des auteurs, mot pour mot : "men are more likely than women to make decisions on principle." L'homme sanctionne par principe. La femme, en moyenne, arbitre selon le coût.

Ok, mais quel est le lien avec ces femmes qui soutiennent des migrants qui se masturbent devant des enfants ou sanctionnent un adolescent pourtant victime d'une agression ?

Le lien, c'est toujours le même. Celui du coût de la justice. Le coût et le prix ne sont pas que des réalités monétaires, financières ou "économiques" comme on le considère aujourd'hui.

Tout est économie dans la vie, c'est la même chose en ce qui concerne la réputation et la perception que les autres peuvent avoir de nous, le risque d'être accusée à son tour. On calcule sans cesse le ratio bénéfice/risque dans notre propre intérêt personnel, c'est le propre de l'action humaine.

C'est pour cela que dans ces situations, le poids social et réputationnel de se voir accuser de racisme est un coût social que la femme refuse d'accepter. Elle bascule donc dans le comportement "injuste" plus facilement que l'homme.

Et les femmes, bien plus que les hommes, sont sensibles au coût réputationnel et au regard de la société sur leur comportement. Elles ajustent leur comportement à la pression sociale

La justice, la vraie, suppose de payer le prix du "principe" même quand celui-ci est exorbitant. Et c'est pour cela qu'il est problématique d'observer que la femme recule là où l'homme tient.

Problématique, car cette différence explique pourquoi, à mesure qu'elles se féminisent, nos institutions punissent de moins en moins, car elle intègre dans le calcul de la justice des arbitrages qui n'ont rien à y faire (compassion, regard des autres...).

[Brandon Johnson @brxAgain]

@WallStreetApes It's your patriotic duty to light off fireworks wherever they are banned. Also, it's your patriotic duty to make sure no arsonists start fires and blame them on patriots lighting off fireworks.

[Bearing @bear_ing]

Holy shit they’re doubling down, and asking that people do not share the footage. Insane.

[Asmongold Updates @Asmon_Updates]

Asmongold explains why his "bottom 2%" take makes people so angry

"People are mad because it destroys two narratives they live their lives around. The first is that poor people are poor because of structural reasons with no fault of their own. The second is it inverts the guilt they try to pin on the top one percent."

"If you took the top 2% of people and they just vanished, every single functional societal system would totally collapse. Businesses would fall apart, machines would stop running. They're the only ones smart enough to understand the systems. That's the truth, you might not like it, but it's the truth."

"Now contrast that. If you lost the bottom 2%, the world would astronomically improve. Everybody's lives would instantly get better. You'd get rid of 95% of violent criminals, probably the majority of criminals in general. There is not a single aspect of your life that would get worse in any way."