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.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
I learned that people have the right to believe BS or anything else when I had the capacity to understand that I live in a FREE country. When did you forget you did? What media do you consume that suggest we need to punish people for their thoughts? Or speech?
Where did you learn that the 1st amendment only applied to some. And what propaganda are you consuming that makes it sound as though you wish to control people's beliefs and speech? And how exactly would you hold people accountable for these thoughts, beliefs or their speech? That you seem to take isdue with? A re-education concentration camp?
And what charges have been brought from this evidence? None. The answer is none.
You seem to have trouble comprehending my words and so you think that you should lecture me about the individual and group "right" to be ignorant or believe nonsense. Interesting. When did I say we should start punishing people for their speech? Or are you talking about legal limits on speech that might lead to consequences?
When and where did I say that the first amendment only applies to some? Are you just being dishonest or do you think that such hyperbolic claims are useful tools in a discussion? Then you go on to project some re-education nonsense on me.
Am I (or anyone really) supposed to take you seriously when you try to engage like that?
You seem more impatient than anyone else in these threads about that slow DOJ process. Holding wealthy and powerful people accountable seems to be harder for the DOJ than holding average citizens accountable.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
No. I'm saying its wrong when anyone does it. You seem to have angst for everything except democrats. Somethings are 9kay if democrats do it. I say it's wrong no matter who does it.
I'm not saying Trump is innocent or guilty. I'm saying if he he so corrupt and such a criminal, charge him. Let a jury decide. However we all know, including you would not accept he is innocent even if he went to trial and was found not guilty. Just like the attempted inpeachment. So it's all meaning less theatrics. All designed to prevent him from becoming POTUS again. By any means necessary.
Trump is an egotistical mouth piece. But those 2 things are not illegal. If you don't like him, don't vote for him. Simple. Or play games, weaponize institutions and set status quo for every presidential elections. Where opponents create endless investigations and impeachment are a monthy occurrence.
If you want to talk about some corruption from a Democrat in the news bring it to the thread. But like I said, the current news about Trump era Republicans takes up lots of space. It's difficult to get more interesting than trying to overthrow the US government and hush money payments to Media stars by the leader of the party of patriots and family values. IMV
You are correct. From what I watched and observed and heard myself, I believe that Trump is responsible for inciting the mob on January 6th. Having witnessed and observed Trump's political behavior for 5 years prior to January 6th I think that incitement is in his wheelhouse, so to speak. I believe that he is guilty of intentionally taking and then keeping government documents, some highly classified. He essentially said that it was intentional when he said they were his. Yes I believe that Trump broke laws when he tried to pressure the Georgia secretary of state to find him enough votes to win the state.
Not guilty is not synonymous with innocent.
No one said that Trump's narcissistic pathology is illegal... your attempts at hyperbole are failing. Please stop.
This last part;
Or play games, weaponize institutions and set status quo for every presidential elections. Where opponents create endless investigations and impeachment are a monthy occurrence.
That reads like you are discussing McCarthy's House. They literally spent hours talking about Twitter temporarily blocking access to a photo of a member. For real. And have you heard how Republicans across the country have changed election laws because of the imagined election security problems? 19 states increased restrictions, right? Is that the setting of status quo that you are referencing?
What is the democratic equivalent to CPAC? Answer: There isn't one. That alone is a difference. Republicans have CPAC where they rant and talk about getting rid of the CDC or FBI or FBI... or whine and lie about past election losses and that's not mirrored by democrats. So where are democrats campaigning on or rallying crowds by talking about defunding police? I think we already established that it's not happening... that evidence couldn't be found.
You were the one who said something to the effect that it's "worse when Republicans do it" relative to law breaking or corruption. I didn't say that. Never have. Just because there's lots and lots of republican dishonesty and corruption in the news right now doesn't mean that republican corruption or crimes are worse, just that there's more of it in the era of Trump. The Nixon administration wasa healthy source of corruption too.
When conservatives bring Clinton into a discussion about corruption it would be silly not to point out the corrupt political agenda that drove the 6 congressional investigations into Bengazi for the purpose of damaging the Clinton presidential campaign. That history gave us insight into how Jim Jordan and other republicans were going to treat these new investigations.
The January 6th committee referred Trump to DOJ for charges. The DOJ assigned a special prosecutor (Jack Smith) who is still working his grand jury. Upon what are you basing the opinion that they can't charge Trump? What evidence that they can't? Is it time again?
The leader of the House Democrats is an election denier. The January 6th hearing was a Hollywood production with heavily edited videos. How many times did Schiff for brains say he had a smoking. Gun but failed to deliver any of it? They can refer all they want but the DOJ said thanks but no thanks to that waste of time.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
MaybeeRN said:
The leader of the House Democrats is an election denier. The January 6th hearing was a Hollywood production with heavily edited videos. How many times did Schiff for brains say he had a smoking. Gun but failed to deliver any of it? They can refer all they want but the DOJ said thanks but no thanks to that waste of time.
In your opinion. We all know that you didn't watch the hearings and depended upon Fox and right wing media outlets for your information about the topic and that is reflected in your opinion. You are a example of exactly why McCarthy gave the security footage to a propagandist...the gullible and agitated fans demand more spin and animus... not truth or facts.
Your fantasy that the DOJ said "thanks but no thanks" is easily debunked by the fact that Jack Smith was put in charge of the Trump investigation. That's literally an acceptance of the case. LOL
It's a shame that you have no other options but to use fabrication, fantastical thinking and BS in defense of Trump behavior. Having a discussion is difficult, isn't it?
Dutch facebook and Telegram groups, often with "Freedom" in their names, post memes and videos almost daily arguing that the farmers movement is opposing the "great reset" — a supposed attempt to remake the world into a single economic-political bloc to the detriment of national identities.
Klokkenluiders voor Vrijheid (meaning whistleblowers for freedom, which has 87,000 subscribers) shared a video in November featuring David Icke, a British conspiracy theorist, arguing that Dutch farms are being shut down so the government can restrict food supply and more easily coerce and control the population.
Here's an interesting detail...
Quote
The theory has definite international resonance. It has featured on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show and was given oxygen by the actor Russell Brand on his YouTube channel, which has 6 million subscribers. The theory has echoes of the racist great replacement theory, which has been cited by right-wing mass shooters in their manifestos from New Zealand to El Paso, Texas.
Conspiracy theories tend to begin reacting to a specific, complex problem, but then begin to encompass all of society's problems, especially if there is no other explanation being offered.
This is apparently one of Tucker's divisive conspiracy theories... we all know that Tucker is a propagandist. Well, we all should know by now.
Donald Trump's lawyers are seeking to quash an Atlanta special grand jury's final report recommending charges in a wide-ranging investigation of election interference in Georgia, while also calling for the recusal of the local district attorney's office from the case.
In court documents filed Monday in Fulton County, Georgia, attorneys for the former president also are seeking to block prosecutors from using any information gathered by the special grand jury during its eight-month tenure.
I wonder what's in that grand jury information that scares Team Trump to this degree? Evidence of his guilt maybe?
In your opinion. We all know that you didn't watch the hearings and depended upon Fox and right wing media outlets for your information about the topic and that is reflected in your opinion. You are a example of exactly why McCarthy gave the security footage to a propagandist...the gullible and agitated fans demand more spin and animus... not truth or facts.
Your fantasy that the DOJ said "thanks but no thanks" is easily debunked by the fact that Jack Smith was put in charge of the Trump investigation. That's literally an acceptance of the case. LOL
It's a shame that you have no other options but to use fabrication, fantastical thinking and BS in defense of Trump behavior. Having a discussion is difficult, isn't it?
Ahhhh the liberal echo chamber. Your leader was an election denier but doesn't fit the liberal narrative. So it must be right wing talking points. Jan 6th hearings that relied on a Hollywood consultant and heavily edited videos. Another CNN fan boy.
In your opinion. We all know that you didn't watch the hearings and depended upon Fox and right wing media outlets for your information about the topic and that is reflected in your opinion. You are a example of exactly why McCarthy gave the security footage to a propagandist...the gullible and agitated fans demand more spin and animus... not truth or facts.
Your fantasy that the DOJ said "thanks but no thanks" is easily debunked by the fact that Jack Smith was put in charge of the Trump investigation. That's literally an acceptance of the case. LOL
It's a shame that you have no other options but to use fabrication, fantastical thinking and BS in defense of Trump behavior. Having a discussion is difficult, isn't it?
Hakeem Jeffries called Trump's 2016 election victory a 'hoax,' referred to him as 'so-called' president
What is the democratic equivalent to CPAC? Answer: There isn't one. That alone is a difference. Republicans have CPAC where they rant and talk about getting rid of the CDC or FBI or FBI... or whine and lie about past election losses and that's not mirrored by democrats. So where are democrats campaigning on or rallying crowds by talking about defunding police? I think we already established that it's not happening... that evidence couldn't be found.
You were the one who said something to the effect that it's "worse when Republicans do it" relative to law breaking or corruption. I didn't say that. Never have. Just because there's lots and lots of republican dishonesty and corruption in the news right now doesn't mean that republican corruption or crimes are worse, just that there's more of it in the era of Trump. The Nixon administration wasa healthy source of corruption too.
When conservatives bring Clinton into a discussion about corruption it would be silly not to point out the corrupt political agenda that drove the 6 congressional investigations into Bengazi for the purpose of damaging the Clinton presidential campaign. That history gave us insight into how Jim Jordan and other republicans were going to treat these new investigations.
The January 6th committee referred Trump to DOJ for charges. The DOJ assigned a special prosecutor (Jack Smith) who is still working his grand jury. Upon what are you basing the opinion that they can't charge Trump? What evidence that they can't? Is it time again?
You were the person who mentioned Bengazi, I'm pretty sure you are not republican. You have used the opportunity you gave yourself to make a most likely pre- made statement to assert your opinion. There are no conservatives here bringing it up.
So what if Republicans run their mouths at CPAC?, They are practicing their 1st amendment right. You seem to take issue with freedom of speech, you have the freedom not to listen. Have you heard of the Democrat National Convention? There's one coming up, most likely in Chicago. And I'm sure it will be as pure and truthful as the driven snow. Where stellar examples of truth and virtue will be on full display. No political talking points, propaganda, nothing. Yeah right!
I said that you seem to feel it is worse when Republicans do exactly what democrats do. I said it is unfortunate when any of the political parties use hyperbolic devicive rhetoric.
There is dishonesty and corruption in all facets of American politics right now. McCarthy (a republican) is the onlynofficial who seemsvto take this posdibility seriously. However you can only see when you feel republicans are doing it. Which leads me to believe you are dishonest and corrupt. Or do not have the ability to objectively look at the situation a see anything bad about your party.
Yes charges were recommended, but charges have not been placed against Trump . So what do you suppose the DOJ reasoning is? Not enough evidence? Perhaps the DOJ doesn't want to take part in this obviously politically motivated committee? Perhaps it has integrity?
I didn't say they can't charge Trump. I said they have not. The evidence is up to them.
toomuchbaloney
16,238 Posts
You seem to have trouble comprehending my words and so you think that you should lecture me about the individual and group "right" to be ignorant or believe nonsense. Interesting. When did I say we should start punishing people for their speech? Or are you talking about legal limits on speech that might lead to consequences?
When and where did I say that the first amendment only applies to some? Are you just being dishonest or do you think that such hyperbolic claims are useful tools in a discussion? Then you go on to project some re-education nonsense on me.
Am I (or anyone really) supposed to take you seriously when you try to engage like that?
You seem more impatient than anyone else in these threads about that slow DOJ process. Holding wealthy and powerful people accountable seems to be harder for the DOJ than holding average citizens accountable.