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 watched it. All of it. Did you watch it on CNN?
It was produced by Hollywood producers! Complete with closed captioning of Cheney's face. All sincere and empathetic. Total theater.
Good for you.
I prefer CSPAN but I fully expect you to ignore that reality and continue to try to insult me with CNN fire some reason. That habit of yours, of misrepresenting member comments and stances, is a bad way to convince people that you are just trying to have an honest discussion.
Again with the poor reading comprehension issue. Why don't you go back and reread what I said about conservatives mentioning Clinton corruption and liberals debunking that with the corrupt Republican weaponization of congress to damage her candidacywith 2 years of "investigation". Until you can actually comprehend my statements it's a waste of time trying to communicate further with you.
You started right out with BS...I didn't even bother to read the rest of the comment.
Yes. And then you continues with the rant you did above. Almost like you are using repetition simular to brain washing tactics.
You have a problem with speech you do not like. Your vast comments suggest you feel it a problem that needs rectifying. I'm just wondering how you would go about this? Lock them up? All the MAGAphiles as you call them? For saying and believing things you do not like?
Perhaps a camp to re-educate them? Or forced labour's in these camps? Sounds a whole lot like Nazi.
People will believe and say what they want. You can too. However if you want your speech and beliefe protected, you have to accept hearing things you do not like. Period. MAGAPhiles, conservatives, democrats and even Trump have the right to free speech. If you take issue with that, I think you secretly do not want democracy.
Reread what I said about the member pics... read for comprehension.
The 2020 election was free and fair and the most secure in history, according to security experts. That's an odd fact to spur Republicans to rush to put more restrictions on voting.
Security experts? What a joke. That's just left wing tripe. Are these the same security experts that said the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation? You can't just mail out ballots sometimes multiple ballots and claim it's the most secure in history. Talk about gaslighting. Do you actually believe the stuff you actually post?
I prefer CSPAN but I fully expect you to ignore that reality and continue to try to insult me with CNN fire some reason. That habit of yours, of misrepresenting member comments and stances, is a bad way to convince people that you are just trying to have an honest discussion.
No. I mimic what you do. Any reference to FOX whether it be local affiliates or the obvious opinion peices, you are right there with the yet unproven defemation case against a few FOX commentators. However, the result if that defemation case will never be acknowledged by you if it turns out the commentators did not breach their first amendment right. You will preach that they had a defemation case against them regardless of the outcome.
Any opinion you do not like, you falsely ascertain that the person must of got it from some" right-wing news propaganda." Do you not form opinions beyond what media you consume?
You posted a video from CNN, then claimed you do not watch CNN. ?? If you didn't take every opportunity to defame FOX in its entirety ,I would say nothing about your CNN viewing.
There doesn't need to be a defamation case to know CNN is a far left propaganda garbage "news" net work.
Security experts? What a joke. That's just left wing tripe. Are these the same security experts that said the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation? You can't just mail out ballots sometimes multiple ballots and claim it's the most secure in history. Talk about gaslighting. Do you actually believe the stuff you actually post?
I'll admit. I was ignorant to "trolls" when TMB kept calling you that.
I think "trolls" can spit out facts! Because you just did.
Yeah, who are these "security experts"? So stupid.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
If you have to assert that, then there's a problem. When has any election with the need to proclaim how secure it was, the most secure in history? LOL.
I didn't say it wasn't a secure election. I said that some Republicans are trying to make future elections more secure. What's wrong with that? A secure election is a good thing right? So what's the problem?
And what's the problem with McCarthy ensuring that the justice departments are non political and not corrupt? That's what we need right?
Unless there is something to be worried about, then the inquiry into the justice departments should be welcome by both parties. Ensuring our elections are secure should be as well.
Yeah... the problem was a president (Trump) who was telling Americans that they needed to worry about a rigged election... months before the election. The problem was a president (Trump) who claimed that the election results were fraudulent. The problem was a president who had lost the election, and members of his cabinet refused to accept his defeat or participate in a peaceful transfer of power.
Don't you see those as problems?
Republicans say that they are trying to improve security but that intent is not really evident in the actual changes they've made. In fact, some of their changes and ideas are not consistent with the notion that citizens have a right and civic duty to vote in elections.
I don't have an issue with thoughtful and necessary congressional investigation. So far this Republican House hasn't demonstrated any thoughtful or necessary investigation and recent history is clear that they have used the powers of Congress as a political weapon.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
MaybeeRN said:
Security experts? What a joke. That's just left wing tripe. Are these the same security experts that said the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation? You can't just mail out ballots sometimes multiple ballots and claim it's the most secure in history. Talk about gaslighting. Do you actually believe the stuff you actually post?
They were Trump's security experts...
Your remark is evidence of how titillating that laptop conspiracy is for some. If only ANY of the sworn testimony or evidence supported ANY of the Republican claims against President Biden. It's so inconvenient to have no evidence to support your grievance, right?
Your remark is evidence of how titillating that laptop conspiracy is for some. If only ANY of the sworn testimony or evidence supported ANY of the Republican claims against President Biden. It's so inconvenient to have no evidence to support your grievance, right?
You'll just be another evidence denier and again with your gaslighting. So now you believe Trump security experts? Cherry picking wishful thinking once again I see.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
No. I mimic what you do. Any reference to FOX whether it be local affiliates or the obvious opinion peices, you are right there with the yet unproven defemation case against a few FOX commentators. However, the result if that defemation case will never be acknowledged by you if it turns out the commentators did not breach their first amendment right. You will preach that they had a defemation case against them regardless of the outcome.
Any opinion you do not like, you falsely ascertain that the person must of got it from some" right-wing news propaganda." Do you not form opinions beyond what media you consume?
You posted a video from CNN, then claimed you do not watch CNN. ?? If you didn't take every opportunity to defame FOX in its entirety ,I would say nothing about your CNN viewing.
There doesn't need to be a defamation case to know CNN is a far left propaganda garbage "news" net work.
What are you talking about?
Beeach their first amendment right? What are you talking about?
Those Fox pundits intentionally misled their fans, they intentionally put guests on air who they privately knew were lying and full of baloney. They recklessly and arrogantly talked about continuing to lie in order to maintain market share and ratings ($$). I don't know about you, but when I see and read evidence that a media outlet is intentionally misrepresenting facts and/or current events for their financial and political goals, I don't need a trial to know that they are liars and shouldn't be used as a source of information.
OK... you have a poor opinion of CNN. Now what? Am I supposed to feel persuasive insulted by that?
Roitrn said:
I'll admit. I was ignorant to "trolls" when TMB kept calling you that.
I think "trolls" can spit out facts! Because you just did.
Yeah, who are these "security experts"? So stupid.
Beeach their first amendment right? What are you talking about?
Those Fox pundits intentionally misled their fans, they intentionally put guests on air who they privately knew were lying and full of baloney. They recklessly and arrogantly talked about continuing to lie in order to maintain market share and ratings ($$). I don't know about you, but when I see and read evidence that a media outlet is intentionally misrepresenting facts and/or current events for their financial and political goals, I don't need a trial to know that they are liars and shouldn't be used as a source of information.
OK... you have a poor opinion of CNN. Now what? Am I supposed to feel persuasive insulted by that?
Too lazy to look it up?
Did they? Has the defamation case concluded? This is your opinion. And what if the court proceeding conclude that the FOX news figures did not defame dominion? Will you accept that? No. You will continue to use this a a counter attack fir any reference to FOX news. Knowing full well that these particular news figures are obvious opinion and only make up a small part of FOX as a whole.
Again. You are taking isduee with what they believe. And what they say. Eventhough it appears they believe exactly what you do.
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
Roitrn said:
I watched it. All of it. Did you watch it on CNN?
It was produced by Hollywood producers! Complete with closed captioning of Cheney's face. All sincere and empathetic. Total theater.
Coverage of the U.S House and Senate hearings and votes is live when in session, taped for repeat viewing only by CSPAN as only their cameras permitted in Congress. Closed captioning is part of coverage for the hearing impaired and deaf community, known to us who watch their channels routinely. CSPAN1 = House, CSPAN 2=Senate while CSPAN 3 covers congressional hearings, the White House, speeches and other important public affairs events. Broadcast and cable TV coverage is from CSPAN feed when they choose to show their viewers major news events.
If you've watched congressional hearings, they are often designed to be spectacles. Lawmakers pose questions with flourish. They bring whiteboards or props. They call witnesses to give dramatic testimony.
January 6th committee hired James Goldston – the former president of ABC News who also served as a producer for some of the network's most successful news programs like 20/20, Nightline and Good Morning America – helped the committee with the planning of the hearings and their presentation.
The committee had hopes of putting on hearings that don't look like traditional congressional proceedings, and instead are multi-media presentations that weave a narrative outlining the committee's findings. Their goal was to demonstrate how former President Donald Trump and his allies peddled a false narrative about the election that laid the groundwork for the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. They whittled down thousands of hours to provide most important aspects of January 6th activities. With 25 million folks viewing hearings, appeared successful in garnering citizens. attention. Issue I wished they'd address: Why was Capital Police not prepared for such a large gathering due to "Stolen Election" coming from the President.
Did they? Has the defamation case concluded? This is your opinion. And what if the court proceeding conclude that the FOX news figures did not defame dominion? Will you accept that? No. You will continue to use this a a counter attack fir any reference to FOX news. Knowing full well that these particular news figures are obvious opinion and only make up a small part of FOX as a whole.
Again. You are taking isduee with what they believe. And what they say. Eventhough it appears they believe exactly what you do.
Seems to think CNN and other left wing media are actual news sources.
toomuchbaloney
16,238 Posts
Good for you.
I prefer CSPAN but I fully expect you to ignore that reality and continue to try to insult me with CNN fire some reason. That habit of yours, of misrepresenting member comments and stances, is a bad way to convince people that you are just trying to have an honest discussion.