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.
"Did their research" generally means that they believed the hateful nonsense spread in right wing media about Clinton.
I'm not going to detail the reasons I had for not voting for Ms. Clinton, but rest assured that the "hateful nonsense spread in right wing media about her" had nothing to do with my decision.
Thanks for reading my long explanation. It's too bad that you feel offended by the term MAGAphile if you don't identify with the MAGAphile crowd or ideology.
Yes, I enjoy reading and sharing factual information. It's good that you recognize that there are some indoctrinated and even radicalized folk who adore Trump and want to elevate him again.
When you start putting words in my mouth or try to make a serious point with hyperbole I'm going to check you. I haven't made any such claims about "everything conservative"... that's on you. And that type of nonsense provoked by my words about Trump and his dangerous MAGAphiles makes it likely that you are a conservative feeling uncomfortable by association. Liberals and independents don't feel defensive about words like MAGAphiles or propaganda which are accurate descriptors for the people and the lies that make up Trumps political foundation.
It's a public service to let our neighbors know when they've been conned. Interestingly, conned people will often respond appropriately when they are made aware of the con. Conversely, indoctrinated people will often respond with anger or denial when they are made aware of their indoctrination. Have you seen/heard any people who call themselves Trump supporting Republicans who angrily insist that Trump was cheated on 2020 and that Biden isn't the legitimate president? That's indoctrination. Those people believe conspiracy theories about all manner of things.
Are you denying that conspiracy theories are a problem among MAGAphiles?
Right. Conned people will be more likely to become "unconned" (probably not even a word")if you refere to them as made up words and associate them with derogatory ideas? Well I think your manner of service is a disservice to you and anyone who talk to you about such things.
What's this service anyway? To direct them with truth and facts while insulting their intelligence and political party?
Keep on keeping on. I think your service will actually benefit megaphilles if that's how you go about delivering your "service" to your neighbors.
Hate is a strong word. But wouldn't you agree that candidates are judged on their moral character and past behavior? Look how many people wouldn't vote for Mrs. Clinton because of her emails and that she should be locked up.
Yes, hate is a strong word. But, a accurate descriptor in this case.
Biden certainly wasnt judged on his past behavior or failures. Most don't even know of them as the media pretty much ignored it.
How many didn't vote for her for that reason? Or that she was victim of a discredit campaign as you suggested in another post?
I feel like most analysis I've read said she was a bad candidate that ran a bad campaign.
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:
"Did their research" generally means that they believed the hateful nonsense spread in right wing media about Clinton.
The consumers of right wing media were always going to vote for him over Clinton or any other Democrat.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Weetywill said:
Your post come off as sounding hateful and there is not a well reconized difference ,with in your own post to determine conservatives from megaphiles or what ever. I thought I would scroll arround and see if I was actually misinterpreted your words, I came across this,
"The lack of moral or ethical courage among republican leadership when it comes to Trump is telling. This is a political movement of dishonesty and willingness to undo our republic. It's no longer just about Trump."
Your words from another post and several simular examples. This one demonstrates exactly how you feel about the Republican party.
Pointing that out doesn't make me influenced by "right wing medial" or whatever else. In fact I asked you about it I did not accuse you of it in the first place. Speaking of propaganda, repetitive carefully worded talking points with a consistent message presented as non bias or non offensive is also propaganda.
I wasn't offended by anything you said or anyone else said, so stop saying that please.
I like some of your post, and the only reason I critiqued your posts was because I thought more people would consider your words if you presented them differently. Now I think you post are purpose in how they present, even if you think they are not derogatory. If you could get a poll in which an honest answer was given, I would indeed think others would consider them derogatory and hateful. And if they are, fine, they are.
I know that it's his forum. I was talking about the entire site.
In your opinion it's hateful.
What was incorrect about my words that you quoted? Do you believe that ignoring and defending Trump's corruption by Republican political leadership has been evidence of moral or ethical courage? Do you believe that GOP leadership has defended Trump and ignored his corruption?
OK, so you aren't offended. Something inspires you to make my comments and how you perceive their tone the focus of your remarks rather than some current event. You choose another word to describe why you choose to do that.
Repeating facts or truth is not the same as propaganda. Please share with me the misrepresentations or untrue things that I repeat.
You are free to comment as often as you prefer on any topic, just as I and others are. I'm retired and have more time than many members. Does that create a problem?
Yes, hate is a strong word. But, a accurate descriptor in this case.
Biden certainly wasnt judged on his past behavior or failures. Most don't even know of them as the media pretty much ignored it.
How many didn't vote for her for that reason? Or that she was victim of a discredit campaign as you suggested in another post?
I feel like most analysis I've read said she was a bad candidate that ran a bad campaign.
I probably don't agree with any of this.
Biden lived in the public eye for decades and the media didn't ignore him or his past. The public was okay with him. Republicans didn't have much to work on because surely they would have tried. Not like they had with Ms. Clinton and with the crowds chanting "lock her up".
I do imagine that "hatred of Trump's character" was a good motivator for some people.
Clinton, while I do believe was victim of a very successful campaign to smear her as corrupt and criminal, still got the popular vote and almost won, so I don't think she lost because she was a bad candidate running a bad campaign. But yes, the final analysis was that there were mistakes made. It's the losers lot to bear the brunt of criticism as to how and why they lost.
Okay, I just can't keep up here. So, do ardent Trump supporters = all conservatives = all Republicans = everyone or anyone who voted for Trump = Republican leadership? Every time I see TMB try to carefully specify what group he is speaking about, someone pipes up and cries foul about how mean he is. Good grief people, the Republican leadership, meaning McConnell, Graham, Stefanik, McCarthy and Scalise continued to Trump through 2 impeachments. They do not represent all conservatives or Republicans. They were willing to sacrifice any sense of decency to avoid the wrath of the former guy.
I don't understand why anyone could have voted for Trump but they did. And many, even after he demonstrated how utterly corrupt and unqualified he was, voted for him a second time. But his voters were not all the same. Some actually think he knows what he's doing (he doesn't) or they actually think he cares about them (he doesn't) or that he is doing God's work (he's not) or that he is the means to control government (not any longer).
Lovers of Trump, those people who support him no matter what and follow him from rally to rally are not conservative. And I doubt, few are actual members of the Republican party. I think y'all should stop trying to pretend that they are.
What was incorrect about my words that you quoted? Do you believe that ignoring and defending Trump's corruption by Republican political leadership has been evidence of moral or ethical courage? Do you believe that GOP leadership has defended Trump and ignored his corruption?
OK, so you aren't offended. Something inspires you to make my comments and how you perceive their tone the focus of your remarks rather than some current event. You choose another word to describe why you choose to do that.
Repeating facts or truth is not the same as propaganda. Please share with me the misrepresentations or untrue things that I repeat.
You are free to comment as often as you prefer on any topic, just as I and others are. I'm retired and have more time than many members. Does that create a problem?
Again, I said nothing about what you posted specifically. I mentioned that it comes across as sounding hateful and derogatory. Yrs my opinion but I provided you an example inyour own words. The consistentl repetition of words and ideas comes across as a function of propaganda.
4 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:
In your opinion it's hateful.
What was incorrect about my words that you quoted? Do you believe that ignoring and defending Trump's corruption by Republican political leadership has been evidence of moral or ethical courage? Do you believe that GOP leadership has defended Trump and ignored his corruption?
OK, so you aren't offended. Something inspires you to make my comments and how you perceive their tone the focus of your remarks rather than some current event. You choose another word to describe why you choose to do that.
Repeating facts or truth is not the same as propaganda. Please share with me the misrepresentations or untrue things that I repeat.
You are free to comment as often as you prefer on any topic, just as I and others are. I'm retired and have more time than many members. Does that create a problem?
I thought you have some great points that I would like other to hear, even if I don't agree with them. I think it could create a dialog in which people can converse. However some of the post come across as hateful and derogatory and I know when that starts, it's a 9/10 chance they will either stop reading post and not take anything you say into consideration.
If anything I was complimenting you because I want people to hear some points that you make. I know nobody will listen and classify you as a deranged, obsessive Trump hater as soon as they read the use of language in some post. I want people to hear it. So I made a suggestion how you could reach more people. You don't agree, fair enough.
I never brought up propaganda you did. Another repetitive word I find used often. You inferred I was a victim of right wing propaganda or something. I pointed out some of your post sound like propaganda, the way in which you deliver your info, not false but bias, and delivered on a repetitive propaganda type way. This doesn't mean you are actually spreading propaganda, nor does anything I said indicate I am or a victim of it.
I feel this thread has become focused on this silly discussion and I do not want people to get annoyed by it because, they are less likeky to listnen to me if I annoyed them. So I will respect the other members and move on from this.
It was 10 years ago (according to my FB memories) that I got fed up with an arrogant poster here and got myself banned on purpose. I know the poster was rich but I can't remember what we were arguing over. They let me back in two years later and I think I've behaved. That poster wasn't here when I came back.
But anyway, I was saddened to read about one of my favorite singers Roberta Flack being afflicted with ALS. She came up on my Spotify randomly on some playlist last night while I was driving. To me she's up there with the best female vocalists of all time. "The First TIme Ever I Saw Your Face" is probably on of my top to favorite records of all times and her vocals are flawless.
I can't speak for TMB but it was said "I feel like most analysis I've read said she was a bad candidate that ran a bad campaign."
Which doesn't ring true when she won the popular vote and lost because of the electoral college.
She won the popular vote thanks to one state she was never going to lose.
The Electoral College is the rules that the game is played by. If the Yankees beat the Dodgers 10-0 in game 1 of the world series, then lose the next 4 games 2-0 each game, they don't get to claim to be the better team because the total score was 10-8.
Clinton lost to what many said was the most unqualified and despised candidate ever. That makes her to be either a bad candidate herself, or she ran a bad campaign. Or, both.
And, at the time there were plenty of folks who agreed.
chare
4,374 Posts
I'm not going to detail the reasons I had for not voting for Ms. Clinton, but rest assured that the "hateful nonsense spread in right wing media about her" had nothing to do with my decision.