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.
Do you look things up or research them before you post these type questions or offer opinions? Why don't you know what a talking point is?
Did you know that talking points are used across the human communication spectrum? When talking points contain misinformation or lies they qualify as propaganda, regardless of political leanings.
Really? A "talking point"? As if that has some well defined definition. There are several different talking points accross vast subjects. Are all talking points bad? You use it in a derogatory way. So what "right wing talking points" are you referring when you say this?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
So you deliberately use troll like tactics and vaguely intergect dismissive allocations to people based on their "feelings", "emotions " and "prefered media" ? Just in a more clever way?
It is also very assuming that one who knows so much about trolling but doesn't think themselves a troll?
The best way to not interact with a troll is to: not interact with a troll. Even my troll ignorance knows that much. And yet you still interact. I wonder why that is?
Yes, I deliberately use tactics and language similar to that of the people who attempt to troll the group. Why would my use of those same tactics in response be any kind of a problem for you when you approve of the troll attempts? That sounds like hypocrisy or a double standard in your critique of content style.
Thank you for your "expert" advice on how to deal with troll behavior (that you don't know much about) in the thread that you are new to. I'll take my cues from the Moderators.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
Really? A "talking point"? As if that has some well defined definition. There are several different talking points accross vast subjects. Are all talking points bad? You use it in a derogatory way. So what "right wing talking points" are you referring when you say this?
That's interesting. Did I say somewhere that talking points are bad.
You haven't seen right wing talking points repeated by MaybeeRN without any context or discussion?
That's interesting. Did I say somewhere that talking points are bad.
You haven't seen right wing talking points repeated by MaybeeRN without any context or discussion?
No you didn't. However your wording and phrases comes off as derogatory. Probably the same way you claim mine have. Perhaps we are misunderstanding eachother?
It still isn't clear. Any talking point from a conservative, if she even is one, technically a "right wing talking point". Which ones trouble you the most?
toomuchbaloney said:
Yes, I deliberately use tactics and language similar to that of the people who attempt to troll the group. Why would my use of those same tactics in response be any kind of a problem for you when you approve of the troll attempts? That sounds like hypocrisy or a double standard in your critique of content style.
Thank you for your "expert" advice on how to deal with troll behavior (that you don't know much about) in the thread that you are new to. I'll take my cues from the Moderators.
Except I never claimed you were a troll and admitted I'm ignorant to trolling.
Anyway. Yeah she's a troll but you exhibit troll behavior as well. IMO.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
No you didn't. However your wording and phrases comes off as derogatory. Probably the same way you claim mine have. Perhaps we are misunderstanding eachother?
It still isn't clear. Any talking point from a conservative, if she even is one, technically a "right wing talking point". Which ones trouble you the most?
Except I never claimed you were a troll and admitted I'm ignorant to trolling.
Anyway. Yeah she's a troll but you exhibit troll behavior as well. IMO.
Your interpretations of my responses are yours.
What "troubles" me (to be polite and use your word) is the regurgitation of right wing talking points accompanied by no contextual content or discussion. I mean I'm happy to discuss the thinking behind the remarks but that's not generally what she's interested in... as evidenced by her commenting history in these threads.
You approve of a good bit of her attempted trolling so I'm not sure why you felt a need to speak about my comments in response.
I am seeing clips on the evening news about AG Garland's appearance in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee. Ouch. He's being accused of the most politicized DOJ ever. Were those accusers asleep during the tenures of Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr?
Here you go libs a nice list of people who called the lab leak theory a conspiracy theory. Perhaps more of you need to watch the number one rated cable news network so you actually get the truth of what actually goes on.
nursej22 said:
I am seeing clips on the evening news about AG Garland's appearance in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee. Ouch. He's being accused of the most politicized DOJ ever. Were those accusers asleep during the tenures of Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr?
And Ted Cruz. What a reprehensible person.
You complain of Trump but shouldn't his Attorney General be his wingman since he appointed them?
You complain of Trump but shouldn't his Attorney General be his wingman since he appointed them?
I am not sure what you are saying here. Traditionally, the Attorney General of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, not the personal lawyer of the president. The White House counsel advises the president on legal matters that concern the president. I think under Trump that was McGann and Cipillone.
I think you are saying that the AG responds to the whims of the president? And yet, the DOJ is actively investigating Hunter Biden. Would Biden be entitled to call them off?
I am not sure what you are saying here. Traditionally, the Attorney General of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, not the personal lawyer of the president. The White House counsel advises the president on legal matters that concern the president. I think under Trump that was McGann and Cipillone.
I think you are saying that the AG responds to the whims of the president? And yet, the DOJ is actively investigating Hunter Biden. Would Biden be entitled to call them off?
Who says Biden doesn't communicate with Garland about matters concerning his son and family and the various investigations that are ramping up? Like I said he's the President's wingman.
Who says Biden doesn't communicate with Garland about matters concerning his son and family and the various investigations that are ramping up? Like I said he's the President's wingman.
If he is a wingman, why would Garland continue to investigate HB? Isn't there some rumor that Biden Sr. somehow profited from his son's dealings? Why would he allow an investigation to continue? That doesn't make any sense.
Here you go libs a nice list of people who called the lab leak theory a conspiracy theory. Perhaps more of you need to watch the number one rated cable news network so you actually get the truth of what actually goes on.
You complain of Trump but shouldn't his Attorney General be his wingman since he appointed them?
What I see was some media names that used that terminology but the majority of comments were about the obvious xenophobia that Trump was stoking with the words.
It's interesting that while having very many viewers and thus high rankings for playing on televisions, Tucker Carlson does not give his viewers news, he gives them his opinion and created messaging. Carlson is a propagandist. Even Fox knows that you shouldn't believe what you hear on his program. Do you remember this?
Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
There's evidence that Carlson knows that the messaging he's promoting is untrue and damaging but it makes him $$ so he persists. And why not when millions of conservatives believe, like you, that they are getting "truth" from his show.
As to the AG, You should study up on the way the federal government is supposed to function. Trump also thought that the AG and DOJ were supposed to do his bidding... you know like in north Korea or Russia... and he was wrong too.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
MaybeeRN said:
Who says Biden doesn't communicate with Garland about matters concerning his son and family and the various investigations that are ramping up? Like I said he's the President's wingman.
Garland and Biden would say that they don't communicate about matters concerning Hunter Biden. Since you don't have any evidence of that type coordination it sounds like some projection because we actually know that Trump tried to influence and direct the DOJ during Sessions and Barr's terms. Trump didn't really try to hide it because his ignorance had him believing it was normal and OK.
Roitrn
618 Posts
Really? A "talking point"? As if that has some well defined definition. There are several different talking points accross vast subjects. Are all talking points bad? You use it in a derogatory way. So what "right wing talking points" are you referring when you say this?