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.
Violence and violent rhetoric is increasing in prevalence in our society. I think that reality requires us and our elected legislators to talk about the violence. We must talk about what agitates so many people to the point that they consider their neighbors enemies and would threaten them or their families. That's not speaking for others, it's discussing a social phenomenon.
Correct, it's not the agitation versus the calm that puts the opinions in question, it's the foundation of the opinions. For instance, it's bad that thousands of conservative Americans believed lies about the 2020 presidential election results and marched on the Capitol to STOP the Steal... even if they didn't get agitated and violent and break into the building threatening the welfare of the VP. Even the calm believers are deceived and their opinions about the security of that election are flawed. Similarly, even if people aren't shouting about the books in schools, or the imagined CRT in elementary schools, they too often believe many of the same misrepresentations about those subjects as the people who are agitated.
MISINFORMATION; incorrect or misleading information - Merriam Webster
Sometimes misinformation is unintentional but there's evidence that much of the misinformation today that is confusing so many Americans is intentional. Much of the angst over books in schools wasn't grass roots... it was stirred up and funded by a smaller group of people who benefit from the animosity. The disinformation about our 2020 election was intentional and intended to agitate people to benefit one person. The current concern about CRT is similar, IMV.
We agree that trying to control the thinking of others is a bad idea.
It's unfortunate that you feel like discussing the violent rhetoric or behavior of others can somehow discredit you. Discussing the beliefs surrounding CRT allows us to find the areas of agitation that are often based upon wrong or exaggerated information.
You talk to the liberal members here just like you are talking to me now. Did you read enough of the thread to encounter any short term participation that seemed "adversarial" in nature? Responses to those accounts often reflects what they bring to the thread.
I'm not judging you based upon the actions or attitudes of others, I'm trying to discuss this phenomenon in our culture with you. I want to understand what is at the core of the concern about these social issues from the perspective of a conservative. Why is CRT such a prominent issue in conservative America... in your opinion?
I'm literally asking you to discuss your point of view...
There is allot there. I never identified as a conservative. I am on a spectrum but it is fair to assume that right now I'm more to the right.
Simply anyone can believe and say as they wish even if it is a lie. I do not see how we can curb that without thought policing and restricting freedom of speech. As long as there is no direct incitement.
I also do not believe that eveone who thinks that the election was stolen is somehow more likely to be violent.
Individuals will interpret things as they believe. Or misinterpret things as well. We all know the atrocities committed in the name of religion by how some interpret Holly scripture, Quran, Bible etc.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
chare said:
In two states, Kentucky and Virginia, all persons with felony convictions are permanently disenfranchised. In Tennessee, those convicted of murder, rape, treason, or voter fraud are permanently disenfranchised; all other may apply for a certificate of restoration. Alabama, and Arizona, Iowa, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wyoming, allow some persons convicted of a felony to vote. Neither Connecticut nor New York allow parolees to vote. Interestingly, in Maine and Vermont, everyone can vote.
Why do you think a university student ID card might not be acceptable? Do you think it might be that, considering that out of state and foreign students are issued the same ID card, it won't necessarily establish citizenship and/or residency?
Such as? And please be specific in your complaint, and provide appropriate sourcing.
One of the reasons that a student ID might not be acceptable is because you don't want out students from other states to vote where they live during the school year. Yes, the states which don't allow use of student IDs cite those as some of the concerns or justifications.
I didn't make a complaint, I responded to your request for some examples.
I'm just one of those people who thinks that voting should be incredibly easy and transparent. Citizens born in the country should be issued a vote ID# at birth... attached to the SS perhaps. When citizenship is acquired the federal voter ID could be issued at that time. Early voting should be easy and encouraged. Mailed voting should be encouraged and improved. Those votes should be tabulated and counted as they are received in national elections. We're actually pretty good at this but it could be so much better... if we wanted all eligible citizens to vote.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
There is allot there. I never identified as a conservative. I am on a spectrum but it is fair to assume that right now I'm more to the right.
Simply anyone can believe and say as they wish even if it is a lie. I do not see how we can curb that without thought policing and restricting freedom of speech. As long as there is no direct incitement.
I also do not believe that eveone who thinks that the election was stolen is somehow more likely to be violent.
Individuals will interpret things as they believe. Or misinterpret things as well. We all know the atrocities committed in the name of religion by how some interpret Holly scripture, Quran, Bible etc.
No we cannot control the speech of others. We can only counter less inappropriate speech with more appropriate speech. More divisive rhetoric with less divisive rhetoric. More violent speech with less violent speech. We counter misinformation with good information. We counter fabrications with facts.
Why do you think that people were inspired to be angry about wearing masks in 2020 as we were hoping that a million people wouldn't die? I think it was because of freedom of speech that didn't quite meet the legal definition for incitement. No person ever killed 1 million people by shouting fire in a crowded theater. Do you think that it was the words of influential people that led to people refusing to wear masks or socially distance? I had family in Michigan who attended anti mask protests. Covid got them. One of them died and the other has long term issues now. What a shame.
I didn't say or imply that everyone who believes the election is stolen more likely to be violent. They do, however believe a lie that has been soundly debunked in the public square for a couple years and that suggests some unflattering things about their overall discernment or judgment.
My common sense tells me that when you tell white children that they are oppressors and are to be blamed for the misgivings of black people there will be a problem. Just exacting how do you think that young immature minds will process that. Do you really think we need something in medical literature to see that. But since you like study's so much why don't you post one that says white kids aren't harmed by the teachings of CRT. And while you are at it how about a study that shows black kids aren't harmed either. Telling black kids they are oppressed and victims isn't healthy for them either, do you really think their immature minds process that well. Show me!
Here is an example of a grown adult who went off the deep end bc of so call white privilege. So again tell me how children will process this "feces".
and yes this is fox bc the MSM of course left the part out about the man spouting his white privilege nonsense before stabbing the Doctor to death.
You lied again. In 3 seconds I found a multitude of reports of the story, Including the LA Times and ABC News. You think this is a story about CRT and most reasonable people would think it's a story about a mentally ill person who should be locked up. A lot if the right wing press agrees with you because they believed this to be a political story rather than one of indifference to the plight of the dangerously ill people on the streets. I might be wrong, but I believe that most if them were releases by Republican governors who saw a chance to cut taxes.
No we cannot control the speech of others. We can only counter less inappropriate speech with more appropriate speech. More divisive rhetoric with less divisive rhetoric. More violent speech with less violent speech. We counter misinformation with good information. We counter fabrications with facts.
Why do you think that people were inspired to be angry about wearing masks in 2020 as we were hoping that a million people wouldn't die? I think it was because of freedom of speech that didn't quite meet the legal definition for incitement. No person ever killed 1 million people by shouting fire in a crowded theater. Do you think that it was the words of influential people that led to people refusing to wear masks or socially distance? I had family in Michigan who attended anti mask protests. Covid got them. One of them died and the other has long term issues now. What a shame.
I didn't say or imply that everyone who believes the election is stolen more likely to be violent. They do, however believe a lie that has been soundly debunked in the public square for a couple years and that suggests some unflattering things about their overall discernment or judgment.
What you said your family member3d died because they went to a antimasks protest as a "shame", did you mean that in a derogatory way? And why would you even says this?
I would agree. Polite discourse is the primary key. As we are doing now.
People can and will believe even things that have been debunked. They are free to do so. And you free to see them in an unflattering way.
You lied again. In 3 seconds I found a multitude of reports of the story, Including the LA Times and ABC News. You think this is a story about CRT and most reasonable people would think it's a story about a mentally ill person who should be locked up. A lot if the right wing press agrees with you because they believed this to be a political story rather than one of indifference to the plight of the dangerously ill people on the streets. I might be wrong, but I believe that most if them were releases by Republican governors who saw a chance to cut taxes.
What was the lie? The story included that a witness heard racially derogatory comments made by the suspect.
So do you believe left wing press doesn't exploit news stories for political points?
And that this person is just a mentally ill person that was released from a mental institution by Republicans cutting taxes?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
What you said your family member3d died because they went to a antimasks protest as a "shame", did you mean that in a derogatory way? And why would you even says this?
I would agree. Polite discourse is the primary key. As we are doing now.
People can and will believe even things that have been debunked. They are free to do so. And you free to see them in an unflattering way.
I said it's a shame because it's a shame that neither of them would wear a mask or make any attempt to mitigate and it devastated their lives and I miss them. They have health professionals in their immediate family but they would not listen... it was all about freedom versus government overreach for them. They went to multiple rallies and protests during the first year of the pandemic. Trump visited the state several times and they participated in groups that bussed to the events in the Midwest.
Yes. We all get to decide how we feel about having millions of our fellow countrymen convinced of things that are not true. We each get to decide if it is dangerous or healthy for the country to have millions of residents be so deeply indoctrinated into a way of thinking that they would set aside common sense and endanger their health in order to maintain the belief. I believe that it is dangerous and I believe that the increasingly violent rhetoric and casual mentions of civil war are harbingers of difficult times in our future.
Yes I see and describe this social phenomenon in an "unflattering" way. Do you see it in a "flattering" way?
During the Oversight Committee hearing today on Twitter and Hunter Biden, a former Twitter employee was asked if Trump ever requested that a tweet be taken down. The answer was yes, and the employee repeated a vulgar description of Trump that had been posted by Chrissie Tiegen. So this was an actual instance of a government official actually trying to censor Twitter. And the vulgar term is now in the Congressional Record. Nice work, Republicans, LOL.
During the Oversight Committee hearing today on Twitter and Hunter Biden, a former Twitter employee was asked if Trump ever requested that a tweet be taken down. The answer was yes, and the employee repeated a vulgar description of Trump that had been posted by Chrissie Tiegen. So this was an actual instance of a government official actually trying to censor Twitter. And the vulgar term is now in the Congressional Record. Nice work, Republicans, LOL.
Did the vulgar tweet occure right before a presidential election and include possible corruption and/or crimes from a son of one of the presidential candidates?
Or did the FBI step in and join Trump in asking Twitter to remove the comment? Did Twitter suppress/remove the vulgar tweet?
Has Twitter employees who removed the vulgar comment testify to political officials today that they were wrong in censoring the vulgar tweet?
The answer is no. The vulgar Tweet remained up and did not have potential to influence a US presidential election.
Roitrn
618 Posts
There is allot there. I never identified as a conservative. I am on a spectrum but it is fair to assume that right now I'm more to the right.
Simply anyone can believe and say as they wish even if it is a lie. I do not see how we can curb that without thought policing and restricting freedom of speech. As long as there is no direct incitement.
I also do not believe that eveone who thinks that the election was stolen is somehow more likely to be violent.
Individuals will interpret things as they believe. Or misinterpret things as well. We all know the atrocities committed in the name of religion by how some interpret Holly scripture, Quran, Bible etc.