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.
No, I don't seem to believe that crap... that is your opinion about my beliefs which seems to be disconnected from my actual words in this thread.
Too bad for that 12 year old that the law stands even after the doctor realizes his error, eh? Maybe they were careless and in to much of a hurry with their laws to regulate Healthcare because of their emotions.
It wasn't a false equivalent. It was a question as to which other health care should be so intimately regulated by politicians. Is this it... reproductive health care involving gynecological or obstetrical needs exclusively?
I suggest a review of the terms strawman or false equivalent.
Like I said, if you want to have a discussion about abortion beliefs (mine, yours, or anyone else's), this is not the thread. Ask your heartbeat question in another thread if it's important to you to explore that thought.
ha ha ha.. Don't follow down the rabbit hole TMB stay on top.
I gotta give it to you tho, you as well as Heron are very perceptive to these tactics. I see them I just don't say too much..
toomuchbaloney said:
So why should anyone be upset about an investigation that is clearly based in evidence that already sent another man to prison? Why the political theater involving patriot moats and congressional inquiries and scorched earth language from Trump and republicans?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
I used your exactly analysis of my words. I used the illogical mess you attempted. I called certain people names, not all abhorrent crimes are committed by POC and pretty sure the far left ideology has claimed POC are now Nazis'. Not yet.
I do not call POC names. I generally don't. Call anyone's names As I said with the exception of people who commit abhorrent crimes and Nazis'. Skin color of no relevance.
Yeah... you're illogical interpretation must be what you mean because, unlike you, I know what I wrote.
If you don't call people names why did you say that you call some people insects? I mean you can get excited and explain that it's only SOME people that you dehumanize by calling them insects, and you can explain that you only use that language with bad people. But it's difficult for you to now say that you don't call people insects. You said that you do... some people.
That's the way it's always been with calling people animals or insects. The people doing it have always thought it was only about some bad people... definitely not everyone. I get your meaning. You are only meaning to diminish the bad people by referring to them as insects.
I bet that's what Trump was doing to...referring to a really bad gang member or violent criminal...no? Oh... Trump called an educated black man, the Manhattan District Attorney, an animal, that's right. The DA isn't a criminal and he isn't a gang member... so by your own messy logic that must only leave racism. Is that right? Is that how you view this?
Yeah... you're illogical interpretation must be what you mean because, unlike you, I know what I wrote.
If you don't call people names why did you say that you call some people insects? I mean you can get excited and explain that it's only SOME people that you dehumanize by calling them insects, and you can explain that you only use that language with bad people. But it's difficult for you to now say that you don't call people insects. You said that you do... some people.
That's the way it's always been with calling people animals or insects. The people doing it have always thought it was only about some bad people... definitely not everyone. I get your meaning. You are only meaning to diminish the bad people by referring to them as insects.
I bet that's what Trump was doing to...referring to a really bad gang member or violent criminal...no? Oh... Trump called an educated black man, the Manhattan District Attorney, an animal, that's right. The DA isn't a criminal and he isn't a gang member... so by your own messy logic that must only leave racism. Is that right? Is that how you view this?
So if he wasn't a POC then he wouldn't call him an animal?
Yes. Perhaps my age has me at a deficit here. We were not taught to associate POC in any disregard. Or in any negative way possible. So my mind doesn't automatically go to race when I hear a term like animal. As I have never acknowledged the reference to be associated with race beyond history.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
So if he wasn't a POC then he wouldn't call him an animal?
Yes. Perhaps my age has me at a deficit here. We were not taught to associate POC in any disregard. Or in any negative way possible. So my mind doesn't automatically go to race when I hear a term like animal. As I have never acknowledged the reference to be associated with race beyond history.
Feel free to guess that there's some reasonable reason for Trump to use racist tropes to try to insult the DA.
That was a cute twist..."taught to associate POC in any disregard or in any negative way possible" in a grammatically challenged way. Apparently you weren't taught about racism the type of hateful things that racists have said and done in this country... is that what you are trying to say. That must be why you can't recognize the historical strategies and tools of racists and then defend using their language (but only for bad people). Correct, in spite of the citations that clearly describe the practice of dehumanizing humans by comparing them to animals or calling them animals, you haven't acknowledged that calling a POC an animal or an insect is the strategy of racists and fascists. Were you at least taught that in school?
apparently you missed the guy in a dress raping two girls in Virginia or you simply choose to ignore it. You complain about girls being uncomfortable with a man in their locker room it goes both ways if a trans person is uncomfortable with not being able to use a woman's bathroom then too bad and deal with it.
When I opened this it was about a naked janitor saying he soiled his pants. Was he wearing a dress? Wasn't he naked hiding? Did he rape someone? I'm being serious. Is there a 2nd article? Either way this is scary
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
HiddenAngels said:
When I opened this it was about a naked janitor saying he soiled his pants. Was he wearing a dress? Wasn't he naked hiding? Did he rape someone? I'm being serious. Is there a 2nd article? Either way this is scary
She was trying to use the article to justify the republican bathroom laws that target transgirls. This ought to be interesting.
Hmmm Interesting. These are actually two separate incidents and I agree should not be prosecuted by the same attorney.
Thanks for the article.
toomuchbaloney said:
What does that case have to do with laws forcing transwomen out of safe bathrooms? It's about a rapist, right?
Y'all I get so confused. It could be from overworking, but help me out. Is transwoman and transgender woman the same thing?
Also, when y'all are talking about the ladies/girls bathrooms, are you saying man that is not yet woman, or woman that is not yet man being able to be in the bathroom with heterosexual woman?
Let's stop with the misleading hyperbole. It's not "forcing trans people out of bathrooms". It the concern is the possible implications on girls and women in their intimate spaces.
I guess this is what is confusing me. This has already happened. At least in some of the clubs and bars. No one pays any attention to whether or not they had/having the sex change they're just in there to pee and fix hair and makeup like the rest of us.
You haven't actually established that women or girls are seeing the memberes or testicles of transwomen in any kind of a regular fashion that would necessitate a new, special law. You've provided one, not very credible, and unsubstantiated claim.
We aren't! We're also not staring at vajayjay's either.
I clearly suggested that a woman might look. Do you think that women are above checking out other women? Or checking to see if the rumors are true about the trans woman... come on.
Don't be obtuse? Don't be arrogant and rude. Transwomen are women. They are qualified to enter spaces designed for women only. We make everyone comfortable by not passing intrusive and unnecessary laws which would cause harm to the trans community. At the same time we interact with the communities who are wanting the new restrictive laws to help them to understand that there is little cause for concern and that any issues with indecent exposures or unwanted contact can be handled with current law. Education helps. Some people don't understand that very little about our biology is simple or back and white. All of our sapien functions and characteristcs are varied. We define a spectrum of normal to try to organize that variance in an understandable way. We increase understanding and empathy and that makes everyone more comfortable
This concern about manly appearing women in bathrooms came from where? Manly appearing women, often dressed in a very manly fashion have used women's bathrooms and locker rooms forever in this country. It's already not okay for men to walk into women's bathrooms. We don't need new laws targeting transwomen to make it not okay for men to walk into women's bathrooms. Sexual assault groups don't agree that transwomen in women's bathrooms is any kind of concern.
I know you are talking about seeing memberes in women's locker rooms and bathrooms. I just think that's not a frequent problem and if it occurs current laws can address it.
You ask me this question "There is a reason for sex segregated intimate spaces. You still have not answered why this is? "
What a curious question. I'm not certain what you are asking.
I don't assume risk if there's no evidence of risk.
Why would I take issue with gender neutral bathrooms?
I don't know if you are trying to be facetious or straightforward. That's tedious.
Ha ha ha!
Men,
uhhh women check out other women like what she may have on or how her hair is and sometimes even admire someone's whole persona, but we are not specifically looking down there. ha ha! That's weird.
HiddenAngels
1,089 Posts
ha ha ha.. Don't follow down the rabbit hole TMB stay on top.
I gotta give it to you tho, you as well as Heron are very perceptive to these tactics. I see them I just don't say too much..
EXACTLY