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.
I know I didn’t finish the rest but the double standards, the immediate referencing of black people to gang members and the prosecutors attempts to even widen the context of what and how to charge blacks to increase lengthy jail/prison time is demoralizing and modern day slavery
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
8 minutes ago, HiddenAngels said:
Does anyone know what Elon Musk meant by “extremely hardcore” when he gave him employees the ultimatum to commit to this or get out.
Mr Musk likes to appear cryptic and mysterious from time to time. At least that's my take on things like carrying a sink into the building after purchasing the business, or making subjective statements as if that definition or standard isn't open to every type of interpretation.
Twitter's new owner Elon Musk has given employees until Thursday evening to commit to "extremely hardcore" work or else leave the company, according to a copy of a late-night internal email sent by the billionaire and obtained by CNN.
"Going forward, to build a breakthrough Twitter 2.0 and succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we will need to be extremely hardcore," Musk wrote in the memo. "This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade."
Actually, she is a he. This is why I generally use both (e.g., ,he or she, her or his, etc.) unless I know the poster's preferred pronouns/gender, which I typically don't.
This is why I was a huge fan of the gender neutral pronouns.
Oops, sorry. I think you may have had to tell me before. I'll be more careful in the future.
Her questions were not ignored. I proposed that excess profit be defined after congressional research. And profits are still allowed so stock owners will receive dividends. Are you saying a middle income family deserves to be price gouged so that an imaginary retiree won’t lose stock value? Last I heard, stocks carry risk.
I do recall that, now that you mention it. I stand corrected.
If I remember right, you first threw out a number of 15%. Then, I pointed out that wouldn't net much as most companies don't ever have a profit margin that high.
I didn't argue one way or another if it's a good idea. I'm simply asking for some research or examples that shows a windfall tax will work as intended and without unintended consequences.
Do you have something like that? Or, this another case of liberals thinking corporations and rich people have a unlimited supply of money that should be confiscated in order to solve all our problems?
They trusted the wrong employee. Story removed; employee fired. Time to move on. No conspiracy here. Even Fox News has no facts to refute anything; just innuendo. Not the first reporter to release a false story. Check our Stephen Glass. This isn't the first time a reporter was caught with their pants down.
So, other than your blatant bias, what makes you believe one version of the story is more accurate than the other?
Do you have something like that? Or, this another case of liberals thinking corporations and rich people have a unlimited supply of money that should be confiscated in order to solve all our problems?
No, I don’t. However, if corporations are making record profits and the wealth gap is ever wider, that those who are doing well could kick in a little more. Alternatively, corporations could direct those profits toward employers or improving the conditions of the communities where they are located.
No, I don’t. However, if corporations are making record profits and the wealth gap is ever wider, that those who are doing well could kick in a little more. Alternatively, corporations could direct those profits toward employers or improving the conditions of the communities where they are located.
I think it is worth looking into.
You say those "doing well" could "kick in more". But, it seems you don't really know what doing well means, or what kicking in more would be. You want to rely on "congressional research" to figure it all out.
I agree that companies should use profits to improve things for workers and the communites they are located in. Many do.
Really, the difference between you and I is that you believe those things should be legislated and companies should be forced to do those things.
Yes, corporations benefit from services that my taxes provide, so I think they should help pay for them. Take Amazon, for example. They did a great deal of building in Seattle, displaced affordable housing, pushed up housing costs due to demand for workers, and worsened traffic. Or oil companies. As they produce their products, they create pollution, and as their products are used, even more pollution. When oil trains derail, entire communities can be incinerated, oil spills kill wildlife and impact fishing. If these corporations are doing so well, I don't think we need so beg for alms to mitigate the damage they do.
Mr Musk likes to appear cryptic and mysterious from time to time. At least that's my take on things like carrying a sink into the building after purchasing the business, or making subjective statements as if that definition or standard isn't open to every type of interpretation.
Yes, corporations benefit from services that my taxes provide, so I think they should help pay for them. Take Amazon, for example. They did a great deal of building in Seattle, displaced affordable housing, pushed up housing costs due to demand for workers, and worsened traffic. Or oil companies. As they produce their products, they create pollution, and as their products are used, even more pollution. When oil trains derail, entire communities can be incinerated, oil spills kill wildlife and impact fishing. If these corporations are doing so well, I don't think we need so beg for alms to mitigate the damage they do.
I think Amazon is a great example...to make my point.
What else would you legislate for them to be required to do?
HiddenAngels
1,085 Posts
I know I didn’t finish the rest but the double standards, the immediate referencing of black people to gang members and the prosecutors attempts to even widen the context of what and how to charge blacks to increase lengthy jail/prison time is demoralizing and modern day slavery