I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
It seems like the right-wing wants to have it both ways: it's free speech when businesses refuse service to gay folk(for instance) on "moral" grounds but censorship when services are refused to them for any reason at all.
The executives decided they didn't like News Max so they eliminated it. Should they have? Although not a law violation, it does present the idea that Direct TV doesn't value free speech or diverse opinions.
Again, this is a company that should be free to make their own business decisions. Let their customers and stock holders determine if their actions are acceptable. In the case of the cake baker, I believe they were in violation of local laws that mandate non discriminatory practices for protected classes.
Again, this is a company that should be free to make their own business decisions. Let their customers and stock holders determine if their actions are acceptable. In the case of the cake baker, I believe they were in violation of local laws that mandate non discriminatory practices for protected classes.
You're right - and their case actually argued freedom of religion, not speech. However, my observation holds for that, too.
It seems like the right-wing wants to have it both ways: it's free speech when businesses refuse service to gay folk(for instance) on "moral" grounds but censorship when services are refused to them for any reason at all.
"Free speech for me but not for thee.”
I think another member pointed out the baker was in reference to freedom of religion not free speech. I used it as an example of moral not law. In other words "just because we can, should we?".
I was describing the morality of censorship as a business, not as moral of LGBTQ.
I think another member pointed out the baker was in reference to freedom of religion not free speech. I used it as an example of moral not law. In other words "just because we can, should we?".
I was describing the morality of censorship as a business, not as moral of LGBTQ.
That's what I just said - and had no intention of derailing the subject into LGBTQ politics. My point is that some "conservatives" want rights that they deny to others. A better example of differences in freedom of speech would be to contrast the argument against DirecTV with DeSantis' laws against "wokism".
That's what I just said - and had no intention of derailing the subject into LGBTQ politics. My point is that some "conservatives" want rights that they deny to others. A better example of differences in freedom of speech would be to contrast the argument against DirecTV with DeSantis' laws against "wokism".
Fair enough! What are some examples of conservatives wanting rights that they deny others?
I thought the GOP was going to impeach Mayorkas ASAP? Perhaps their distracted with Direct TV dropping Newsmax. Claiming censorship. It's seems like government telling a business what channels to carry is a violation of the first amendment.
Right, I posted only 2 hours after your article was published. Sorry, but I do work. From your article:
Quote
Biggs, when he was chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, introduced articles of impeachment against Mayorkas in August 2021, saying in a statement at the time that Mayorkas was "a threat to the sovereignty and security of our nation." Biggs falsely said that Mayorkas was "encouraging aliens to enter our country illegally" and that DHS was "systematically releasing COVID-19 positive aliens into our communities."
Not sure why you put that part of the quote in bold when both are true.
I bolded the part that reported that Biggs made false statements. If you want to refute that, then a citation that is not an opinion piece or more than 10 years old would be helpful. Otherwise, Biggs made false statements.
A revamped legal team representing Hunter Biden is taking the first steps in what appears to be a more aggressive approach to his defense, disseminating on Wednesday a batch of criminal referrals and cease-and-desist letters targeting some of his most vocal detractors.
Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Hunter Biden, wrote to the Justice Department and the Delaware attorney general's office asking investigators to examine the conduct of several operatives who allegedly played a role in "accessing, copying, manipulating, and/or disseminating Mr. Biden's personal computer data," including Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, and other supporters of former President Donald Trump....
...Lowell also wrote to the Internal Revenue Service requesting a probe into Garrett Ziegler, a former Trump White House aide who recently published a trove of emails allegedly tied to Hunter Biden. That letter challenges the tax-exempt status of Ziegler's organization, Marco Polo, which is filed as a 501(c)(3).
Ziegler's organization "has failed to operate solely for charitable purposes," Lowell wrote to the agency. "To the contrary, [Marco Polo] has operated as little more than a thinly disguised political operation to attack the Biden administration and the Biden family."
Bryan Sullivan, a defamation lawyer retained by Hunter Biden, also sent a cease-and-desist letter to Fox News and Tucker Carlson, asking the network and its primetime host to retract and correct a report they ran about alleged rent payments Hunter Biden made to his father, which they have claimed as evidence that the president was more closely tied to his son's financial arrangements.
Carlson's promulgation of the story stands in "flagrant violation of all journalistic professionalism," wrote Sullivan, who also warned of "potential litigation" if the network fails to agree to a retraction by the end of the day on Thursday. ....
I bolded the part that reported that Biggs made false statements. If you want to refute that, then a citation that is not an opinion piece or more than 10 years old would be helpful. Otherwise, Biggs made false statements.
You need reading comprehension. Pointing out that Mayorkas claiming Biggs made a false statement does not make it so.
heron, ASN, RN
4,690 Posts
It seems like the right-wing wants to have it both ways: it's free speech when businesses refuse service to gay folk(for instance) on "moral" grounds but censorship when services are refused to them for any reason at all.
"Free speech for me but not for thee.”