What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Published

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
10 hours ago, Cclm said:

Again. Refute my claims or stop deflecting by trying to discredit me. You still have not made one point about the actual bill. I'll wait

You discredit yourself. 

You are so debate naive that you don't know that I don't need to make any point about the bill that you linked...other than to point out that it doesn't say what you claim it says or allow what you say it allows...it is your claim/topic/issue brought to the table for discussion.   Your ignorance about basic debate suggests that you aren't very well educated in discussion or debate, maybe this is a new hobby for you. 

You either misrepresented that legislative content because you didn't really read it and simply regurgitated lies about the content...or you misrepresented the bill because...why don't you tell us why you are implying things about that bill that are clearly not true? Maybe better yet...why are you angry and agitated by obvious lies and propaganda? Why are you so eager to believe and spread the emotional propaganda? Are you really that indoctrinated and manipulated or are you trying to troll this group?

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
On 11/27/2021 at 1:22 PM, chare said:

Don't you find a 10% increase in homicides concerning?

Are you suggesting that the increase in gun sales led to the increased homicide rate?  If so, shouldn't ther have been an équivalent increase in homicides in all areas?  Particularly if other violent crime rates remained reletavely unchanged?

Oxford, Michigan represents one pandemic gun buy that didn't end well.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
14 minutes ago, subee said:

Oxford, Michigan represents one pandemic gun buy that didn't end well.

The same could be said for Rittenhouse's weapon...purchased illegally for him during the pandemic. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
8 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You imagine that is what women are doing and then behave as if that's what the legislation encourages or promotes. That's made up nonsense...you are upset over a thought about abortion that YOU have...not reality.  You tried to pass off your ridiculous beliefs as evidence that there's legislation that encourages or shows the behavior that you've IMAGINED. That didn't work because we read the legislation and actually understand what it says. 

Now why again did you mention that legislation in this thread? Is it to discuss what's actually in the bill or to discuss what you've been told and believe is included in it? Because discussing what you believe to be true about the legislation seems to be at odds with what's actually true about the bill.  

Why don't you try mentioning the legislation as currently you have not. 

8 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You discredit yourself. 

You are so debate naive that you don't know that I don't need to make any point about the bill that you linked...other than to point out that it doesn't say what you claim it says or allow what you say it allows...it is your claim/topic/issue brought to the table for discussion.   Your ignorance about basic debate suggests that you aren't very well educated in discussion or debate, maybe this is a new hobby for you. 

You either misrepresented that legislative content because you didn't really read it and simply regurgitated lies about the content...or you misrepresented the bill because...why don't you tell us why you are implying things about that bill that are clearly not true? Maybe better yet...why are you angry and agitated by obvious lies and propaganda? Why are you so eager to believe and spread the emotional propaganda? Are you really that indoctrinated and manipulated or are you trying to troll this group?

And still y0u do not remark on the bills themselves. I am still waiting. Your ad hominem attacks do not negate that you have not been able to refute what I said! .....

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
8 hours ago, heron said:

You clearly don‘t realize how utterly ridiculous this post is.

1. Still not seeing the specific legislation you claim will allow  post - viability abortion on demand. You also have not produced a single reproductive choice advocate who even remotely favors this. At the same time, this assertion has been a favorite exaggeration by the forced pregnancy crowd for years. It used to be a (failed) attempt at a gotcha question. Then, when no one took it seriously, they gave up and started stating it as truth, again, without any evidence at all. It’s right up there with reimplanted ectopics and other sick fantasies.

Classic straw man: lie about what your opponent has said, then argue against that instead of the original proposal. Still, I wish you’d come up with something original. Your scriptwriters are exceedingly lazy.

2. You’ve been oozing personal attacks and general snark at least since your cutesy-pooh duets with jive turkey. You must miss him. You have no business whining about ad hominem at this late point. Beams and motes doncha know.

3. So you want TMB to prove a negative, eh? See point #1.

4. For someone who “really (doesn’t) care” about anyone else’s opinions or beliefs, you sure do get triggered easily.

Cool. Refute my claim with the bill. Use its words. Do it. I think you can't. I obviously do not care what you think about me. I'm so wrong? Prove it. I posted the bills themselves..... I'll wait....

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
9 hours ago, heron said:

You clearly don‘t realize how utterly ridiculous this post is.

1. Still not seeing the specific legislation you claim will allow  post - viability abortion on demand. You also have not produced a single reproductive choice advocate who even remotely favors this. At the same time, this assertion has been a favorite exaggeration by the forced pregnancy crowd for years. It used to be a (failed) attempt at a gotcha question. Then, when no one took it seriously, they gave up and started stating it as truth, again, without any evidence at all. It’s right up there with reimplanted ectopics and other sick fantasies.

Classic straw man: lie about what your opponent has said, then argue against that instead of the original proposal. Still, I wish you’d come up with something original. Your scriptwriters are exceedingly lazy.

2. You’ve been oozing personal attacks and general snark at least since your cutesy-pooh duets with jive turkey. You must miss him. You have no business whining about ad hominem at this late point. Beams and motes doncha know.

3. So you want TMB to prove a negative, eh? See point #1.

4. For someone who “really (doesn’t) care” about anyone else’s opinions or beliefs, you sure do get triggered easily.

Jive turkey? What happened? Did you champions of the constitution , not like his freedom of speech so you reported him and got him kicked off? I would not doubt it. I'm sure you have reported me several times. Im wondering why I haven't been booted. 

I never said the bill claimed abortions on demand in the absolute but rather it is not specific and the wording is vague. Therefor it could be interpreted as such, unless the wording is clarified. Also there needs no provision for medical abortions in the situation where the mothers life is in danger. This already happens. So why put that in there? Answer that! If it's not a window of abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason then what does it mean? Tell me. I'd rather be wrong about that. 

I don't like the Texas bill either. I posted the source and have received a fact less emotional(as someone would say) reply. But nothing specific to the bill. You all are more triggered then I've seen yet. I have to wonder is this how radical Brandon's react when their "facts" are thrown at them and they have no gaslighting tactics to refute something? 

Either refute what I said using the words in the actual bill,  leave out the personal attacks or move on. If I'm so radical and ad in all the other labels and the legislation says something other than what I suggested, state it. It should be easy. Evidently it is not! 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
9 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You discredit yourself. 

You are so debate naive that you don't know that I don't need to make any point about the bill that you linked...other than to point out that it doesn't say what you claim it says or allow what you say it allows...it is your claim/topic/issue brought to the table for discussion.   Your ignorance about basic debate suggests that you aren't very well educated in discussion or debate, maybe this is a new hobby for you. 

You either misrepresented that legislative content because you didn't really read it and simply regurgitated lies about the content...or you misrepresented the bill because...why don't you tell us why you are implying things about that bill that are clearly not true? Maybe better yet...why are you angry and agitated by obvious lies and propaganda? Why are you so eager to believe and spread the emotional propaganda? Are you really that indoctrinated and manipulated or are you trying to troll this group?

(2) Since 1973, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, for the preservation of the life or health of the person who is pregnant

What does this mean? Explain it to me. I could be wrong. I'd rather be wrong. Why put it in there when this is already standard practice?? Is it a legality?  The Texas bill does not say a pregnancy cannot be terminated in the situation of the woman's health and/or life is a risk. Again this 8s standard practice. So it is not to counteract that. 

Here's the words from the actual bill. Not right wing propaganda etc etc. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
30 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Why don't you try mentioning the legislation as currently you have not. 

And still y0u do not remark on the bills themselves. I am still waiting. Your ad hominem attacks do not negate that you have not been able to refute what I said! .....

 

Yeah. I have remarked repeatedly that the language that is troubling you about abortion isn't in the legislation.  Is that too difficult for you to comprehend? You are referencing things that you imagine to be in that legislation...you are either making crap up to support your feelings and beliefsabout abortion or you are repeating crap that you've been told about abortion but you aren't talking about the legislation that you linked.  That is a basic and fundamental refutation of your claims about the legislation. You still don't understand that you are the person who hasn't proved that the language or intention is in the bill...as you claimed that it was, but the rest of us understand that you have the burden and are trying to put the responsibility on me or others. Because you were spouting emotional baloney about legislation and you can't support that baloney with actual facts or language from the legislation. Again.  We see this from you time and again. You bring up high emotion topics and rhetoric from your social media and propaganda perusal and then start projecting and playing vitriolic and dishonest  games when you can't actually discuss the nuances and facts of the issue.  

It's funny that now you are talking about me being triggered while you throw out that right wing reference to Brandon. It's cute how that reflects on you and your credibility, isn't it? You damaged your own credibility again, without any help from anyone. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
2 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Yeah. I have remarked repeatedly that the language that is troubling you about abortion isn't in the legislation.  Is that too difficult for you to comprehend? You are referencing things that you imagine to be in that legislation...you are either making crap up to support your feelings and beliefsabout abortion or you are repeating crap that you've been told about abortion but you aren't talking about the legislation that you linked.  That is a basic and fundamental refutation of your claims about the legislation. You still don't understand that you are the person who hasn't proved that the language or intention is in the bill...as you claimed that it was, but the rest of us understand that you have the burden and are trying to put the responsibility on me or others. Because you were spouting emotional baloney about legislation and you can't support that baloney with actual facts or language from the legislation. Again.  We see this from you time and again. You bring up high emotion topics and rhetoric from your social media and propaganda perusal and then start projecting and playing vitriolic and dishonest  games when you can't actually discuss the nuances and facts of the issue.  

It's funny that now you are talking about me being triggered while you throw out that right wing reference to Brandon. It's cute how that reflects on you and your credibility, isn't it? You damaged your own credibility again, without any help from anyone. 

Okay. The bill is from congress. Does legislature in you head mean it's passed signed and sealed? K, I referenced the suggested legislation. Better? 

Now using the word of the proposed bill, tell me how I am wrong. I already know what ypu think about me, not tell me what you think of the bill. The source you demanded....I'm do easy to discredit or I'm full of lies? Support your claim whit the words of the bill. Not you personal feeling of me. 

It's hilarious how you constantly insult Trump supporters and conservatives as conspiracy theorist brainwashed propagandists.  So I didn't think my Brandon comment was out of tact. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
8 minutes ago, Cclm said:

(2) Since 1973, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, for the preservation of the life or health of the person who is pregnant

What does this mean? Explain it to me. I could be wrong. I'd rather be wrong. Why put it in there when this is already standard practice?? Is it a legality?  The Texas bill does not say a pregnancy cannot be terminated in the situation of the woman's health and/or life is a risk. Again this 8s standard practice. So it is not to counteract that. 

Here's the words from the actual bill. Not right wing propaganda etc etc. 

Why don't you understand that fairly straightforward language? Should I explain what NECESSARY means or maybe GOOD-FAITH? Which words don't you understand? Or is it the medical judgment part that you think shouldn't be included? Maybe you are troubled by the notion that a pregnancy might be terminated to preserve the life of the woman? 

You need to be specific about what you don't understand because it seems like a simple bit of reading for a health professional. 

The bill isn't propaganda...holy hell...the content that has you riled up about the bill is right wing probirth propaganda. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Okay. The bill is from congress. Does legislature in you head mean it's passed signed and sealed? K, I referenced the suggested legislation. Better? 

Now using the word of the proposed bill, tell me how I am wrong. I already know what ypu think about me, not tell me what you think of the bill. The source you demanded....I'm do easy to discredit or I'm full of lies? Support your claim whit the words of the bill. Not you personal feeling of me. 

It's hilarious how you constantly insult Trump supporters and conservatives as conspiracy theorist brainwashed propagandists.  So I didn't think my Brandon comment was out of tact. 

You just posted the portion of the legislation that troubles you and it's clear that the language doesn't do what you are afraid that it does.  Read it again.  It says what it says and it doesn't say that women can terminate a pregnancy at any time for convenience or some other imagined reason.  You believe something that isn't true and you cannot support your concerns with the legislation that you say contains the intention or language.  

Do you really not understand that you've failed to support your stance, or are you trolling?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.

A Black couple says an appraiser lowballed them. So, they ‘whitewashed’ their home and say the value shot up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/06/black-couple-home-value-white-washing/

This is a phenomenon that has some real history in the USA.

Quote

A 2018 study by the Brookings Institution found that homes in Black neighborhoods in U.S. metropolitan areas were undervalued by an average of $48,000, amounting to $156 billion in losses. Differences in the quality of the houses and neighborhoods didn’t fully explain the gap, according to the study led by Andre Perry, senior fellow for Brookings Metro who studies housing discrimination.

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion