Published
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.
https://apnews.com/article/new-jersey-newark-bomb-threats-d0a59b80d460f9354f6bfe86f65475c6
QuoteAccording 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.
2 minutes ago, chare said:What are you trying to say here?
I am saying that the petitioner ,Lori Smith, is claiming that she is being forced to do business with gay people and that violates her Christian faith. If that is a violation of her faith, isn't there some New Testament scripture to back that up?
1 minute ago, MaybeeRN said:Sorry separation of church and state remember. Funny how liberals won’t dare try this with Muslims.
What are you trying to say here?
19 minutes ago, nursej22 said:I am saying that the petitioner ,Lori Smith, is claiming that she is being forced to do business with gay people and that violates her Christian faith. If that is a violation of her faith, isn't there some New Testament scripture to back that up?
What are you trying to say here?
19 minutes ago, nursej22 said:I am saying that the petitioner ,Lori Smith, is claiming that she is being forced to do business with gay people and that violates her Christian faith. If that is a violation of her faith, isn't there some New Testament scripture to back that up?
What are you trying to say here?
It’s a private decision between her and her pastor
45 minutes ago, nursej22 said:AshleyMadison is a dating website aimed at married people. You think joking that another justice might use it is appropriate for the Supreme Court? Yeah, that's a real knee slapper.
Another source that has more context:
Thanks, but before my reply to you I actually listened to the audio of all that. That's how I arrived at my opinion.
Which is, youre making much ado about nothing.
4 hours ago, chare said:Aside from Mr. Rivera, whe was neither an elected official or appointed official, which Republican officials, either elected or appointed, were identified as unregistered foreign agents?
How exactly did you come to this conclusion? That there was contact between Mr.Rivera and Mr. Rubio, a longtime friend?
When I mentioned elected officials I was definitely out of line. Thanks for the correction. Michael Flynn is the most obvious appointed official with unclaimed foreign priorities.
Yes. There was contact.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:Thanks, but before my reply to you I actually listened to the audio of all that. That's how I arrived at my opinion.
Which is, youre making much ado about nothing.
I don't agree. Alito's remarks represent considerably more than nothing. Particularly in context with the spectrum of information about The Court's loose ethical requirements.
1 hour ago, MaybeeRN said:Sorry separation of church and state remember. Funny how liberals won’t dare try this with Muslims.
Nope - gotta call BS on this one. You don’t get to argue religious freedom as justification for violating mine.
IOW, what you really mean is freedom of religion for me but not for thee. Dobbs v. Jackson is theocracy in action.
2 hours ago, nursej22 said:I am saying that the petitioner ,Lori Smith, is claiming that she is being forced to do business with gay people and that violates her Christian faith. If that is a violation of her faith, isn't there some New Testament scripture to back that up?
[...]
She isn't saying she is "being forced to do business with gay people," she's saying that if she were forced to work on a same sex wedding web project, doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
10 minutes ago, chare said:She isn't saying she is "being forced to do business with gay people," she's saying that if she were forced to work on a same sex wedding web project, doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
This is where the fist meets the nose. I agree that no one is obligated to do business with me. I can either find someone else, do it for myself, or do without. Whether that’s a good business decision for her is her problem.
Word gets around …
MaybeeRN
797 Posts
Sorry separation of church and state remember. Funny how liberals won’t dare try this with Muslims.