Death of man to fish tank cleaner now being investigited as a murder by anti-Trump Democrat wife

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I'll pass.

Yeah , Move Along Son , NOTHING to Discuss Here ........

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: vonclod

Yes, she was according to reports at the time.

(CNN)A Phoenix-area man is dead and his wife is under critical care after the two took chloroquine phosphate in an apparent attempt to self-medicate for the novel coronavirus, according to hospital system Banner Health.

She was in ''critical care'' so even if she had done this as a cover it would have been a very dramatic alibi.

Sure she should be investigated because of allegations and in an investigation of a death spouses are often prime suspects.

The OP is laid out simply making the frame of her guilt highly probable. However, the information laid out does not include the information that she took it as well and was in ''critical care'' because of it.

Interesting side not though. Did you notice how the OP garnered stars and flags off the while and your post with that very relevant piece of information received only one?

That is todays ATS..sad, a shadow of it's former self.

This is all about poor Trump..guy is such a victim..cant catch a break.

I will keep an open mind on this, as more info comes out..who knows, stranger things have happened.

If there is any "poor Trump" to it, it's that this whatever it was happened, and the press dug it up and used it as proof that people were too stupid to figure out that they shouldn't drink fish tank chemicals because they have chloroquine on the label in some form.

Honestly, if the press had done their due diligence, they'd know this story is just that -- a story. At most, it's local interest and really doesn't have much to with anything the president did or didn't say.

It's like how there has been a spike in disinfectant related poison calls since lockdown began in March, but it only know becomes a news story after the president made his remarks, and the press disingenuously tries to link it to those remarks.

This story happened, and it's far more going on here than the press's advertised proof of concept that the president says things and people do things and die.

I never though this was anything other than pure stupid, maybe there is more to it now..we will have to wait and see.

I don't like Trump, but personally did not think he was responsible either way.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: mtnshredder

Let me see here. You made a comment to me and when I questioned you on it you claimed it was sarcasm. Then I replied with my understanding of sarcasm.

I included a dictionary definition of ''sarcasm'' and pointed out how your comment was not sarcasm.

I then offered you an example of what sarcasm is and did it using you as part of that example..

You then, according to your next post took offense at that example of ''sarcasm'' even though it was only an example of what sarcasm is. You said I insulted you.

You then went on to disparage my intelligence on the basis of accidentally posting my reply while leaving off the ''r'' from one word.

I see no reason to continue this back and forth, but if you do, please feel free to continue.

NO, I didn’t make a comment to you until you went off about the tide meme, which I haven’t a clue about what or which one you’re talking about. I then mentioned it was sarcasm which you felt some need to define and start with your insults. Go back and read the thread!

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Looks that way.

My guess is he knew that it was poison and he took it willingly.

a reply to: mtnshredder

OK. I went back and re-read the line of posts between us.

1---You ---posted a post claiming that Pelosi ate tidepods in public...here is your quote

Isn't there a law against stupidity like this? There should be. Pelosi has sent a dangerous precedent eating Tide pods in public.

2---I ---replied to your claim stating that she had not and as well attempted to lead you to the comic website that had filmed and posted the phoney video. True, until that point you had not replied to me, so you have that point correct, that was your first comment to me

3---You ---then replied that your comment was sarcasm

4---I---then replied saying it was not and offered a dictionary definition and presented an example.

5---You---then came back calling me daft, claiming that I had insulted your intelligence and then disparaged mine

6---I--- replied that I had not insulted you but only presented an example of sarcasm with you as part of the example. I also questioned your claim about my intelligence due to leaving the ''r'' off of one word in my previous reply.

In this reply I gave a run down of our whole interchange

7---You---then copied my previous reply and claimed that my chronicle of our exchange was incorrect. You said to go back and read it again and I did and it is just as pointed out in both replies.

You also claimed that you only responded to me after I replied to you and ''went off about tidepods'' which you also claim to have no clue what I was talking about even though it was you who first brought up the topic of tidepods

Remember? See your first reply in the thread

7---me--- replying once again and wondering why you don't seem to see this.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: RMFX1

Innocent until proven guilty and all that but... she's guilty. I'd bet the house on it.

As example is there a person on the planet that thought deep down inside that Simpson did not brutally kill two people?

Lionel Cryer.

Any time the thirst for taste of blood by revenge goes unsatisfied, it will grow like an unchecked virus until it may need to be one's own blood or that of family to quench the thirst. Madness knows no limits. TDS.

originally posted by: RMFX1

Lionel Cryer.

Actually he said publicly that he feels he did do it, but the reason he acquitted was that the prosecutors bungled the case...

His words....lol

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: mtnshredder

OK. I went back and re-read the line of posts between us.

1---You ---posted a post claiming that Pelosi ate tidepods in public...here is your quote

Isn't there a law against stupidity like this? There should be. Pelosi has sent a dangerous precedent eating Tide pods in public.

2---I ---replied to your claim stating that she had not and as well attempted to lead you to the comic website that had filmed and posted the phoney video. True, until that point you had not replied to me, so you have that point correct, that was your first comment to me

3---You ---then replied that your comment was sarcasm

4---I---then replied saying it was not and offered a dictionary definition and presented an example.

5---You---then came back calling me daft, claiming that I had insulted your intelligence and then disparaged mine

6---I--- replied that I had not insulted you but only presented an example of sarcasm with you as part of the example. I also questioned your claim about my intelligence due to leaving the ''r'' off of one word in my previous reply.

In this reply I gave a run down of our whole interchange

7---You---then copied my previous reply and claimed that my chronicle of our exchange was incorrect. You said to go back and read it again and I did and it is just as pointed out in both replies.

You also claimed that you only responded to me after I replied to you and ''went off about tidepods'' which you also claim to have no clue what I was talking about even though it was you who first brought up the topic of tidepods

Remember? See your first reply in the thread

7---me--- replying once again and wondering why you don't seem to see this.

I said “ever heard of sarcasm” you proceeded to insult me in your next post. Stop being so obtuse and trying to start petty and trivial arguments and insults that yes, you started, not me. GET SOME COMPREHENSION SKILLS AND GO BACK AND READ. Till then,I’m done with your ignorance.

a reply to: mtnshredder
Man, you really are a piece of work ain't ya. You make direct insults at me though out your replies all the while accusing me of insulting you. I have already pointed out that your only claim to my insulting you was not an insult to you but rather an example of sarcasm in which I used you as a generic example. I have said this three times now.

If you took offense at a comment that was not directed at you then that is your own problem, not mine. I did not insult you I now have said for the forth time. Make me say it again and I just might start insulting you.

You have now told me in no uncertain terms to go back and read the posts. I told you I have and in doing so have posted to you a run down of this interchange. TWICE. Do you need me to do that once again?

As you have now said that you are finished with this exchange I will also finish with this. You posted a statement in your first comment in this thread stating that Nancy Pelosi had eaten Tidepods in public. You didn't state it as sarcasm or anything else. You did not seem to question the validity of your comment. You stated it as fact. Do you need me to quote you one more time here? Need if or not here it is

Pelosi has sent a dangerous precedent eating Tide pods in public.

and again

Pelosi has sent a dangerous precedent eating Tide pods in public.

and again

Pelosi has sent a dangerous precedent eating Tide pods in public.

I first replied to you commenting that I had not been able to find any case for this accusation other than that phony conservative comic video .

You replied it was sarcasm

I replied with a text book definition of sarcasm and offered an example

You took offense.

So good by guy. Have fun with your postings. But next time I come across false accusations such as you originally posted, I will point it out again.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Do you need me to do that once again?

Apparently second thought nvm it’s futile with you and your obvious comprehension skills.

a reply to: mtnshredder

In your last love letter to me you said '' GET SOME COMPREHENSION SKILLS AND GO BACK AND READ. Till then,I’m done with your ignorance.''

I then told you I had already gone back and read it at least once. I did not go back and read it again.

Therefore your pledge to '' be done with me'' until such time has been broken.

Do you see how I characterized your replies to me, as a ''love letter'' ?.. Now see, that was sarcasm. Sarcasm because I called it a ''love letter'', the exact opposite of what they really are.

OK then, I guess that finishes it up. That is unless you want to reply again with more inconsistencies for me to straighten out.

originally posted by: vonclod
Um, I thought she almost die too?

I little sip to fake innocence me thinks.

Very TV sleuth stuff there. "Murder she wrote" perhaps.

Who is complaining?

a reply to: trollz
Fake news. Not surprised the good folks here believed it though.

From what is known about her now, it's impossible to believe she thought a substance labeled as toxic was good medicine because a person she hated said one of the ingredients in an amount prescribed by doctors could be beneficial in some instances.

It would be like Trump saying microdosing lsd has shown promise in treating ptsd and Casey Anthony feeding her children batteries.

Tiger king fixin to chime in.

He says, he knows who really did this...