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 do not care of those of you who watch Tucker Carlson and voted for Trump think. I will still call out the racist white nationalisttrash that walk the halls of Congress and the Senate.
Provide actual names with evidence supporting the republican that is a white supremist.
I asked and you provided me with what I asked. . These discussions sometimes lead into a situation in which I will be accused of being a: insert derogatory name here.
I am discussing the evidence and media's/politician only. I am in no way defending racist of any creed or color, sexual orientation,gender,sex or other. I condemn all forms of bigotry, hate and discrimination of any person,place or thing.
If you can separate myself with whome you deem a supremacist, and can understand that I am referencing the information only, I am interested in discussing this with you.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
Provide actual names with evidence supporting the republican that is a white supremist.
I asked and you provided me with what I asked. . These discussions sometimes lead into a situation in which I will be accused of being a: insert derogatory name here.
I am discussing the evidence and media's/politician only. I am in no way defending racist of any creed or color, sexual orientation,gender,sex or other. I condemn all forms of bigotry, hate and discrimination of any person,place or thing.
If you can separate myself with whome you deem a supremacist, and can understand that I am referencing the information only, I am interested in discussing this with you.
With abortion rights under attack in conservative states we likely will need more assistance with the expenses associated with more children born to vulnerable women. Maybe this will help.
All the welfare rats can move to blue states and bleed them dry. States are broke and the only thing you are going to get is an IOU.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
I wonder if the funding for Planned Parenthood could reallocate to programs to support families with children?
Seems reasonable considering some think there will be an increase of birth rates due to abortion law changes.
Do you think that decreasing funding that provides affordable reproductive healthcare, including birth control, to vulnerable and poor women will decrease birth rates or the child poverty that results from lack of access to these services?
That doesn't appear fiscally responsible or morally sound, IMV.
Why wouldn't birth rates rise if women are denied access to abortion?
Do you think that decreasing funding that provides affordable reproductive healthcare, including birth control, to vulnerable and poor women will decrease birth rates or the child poverty that results from lack of access to these services?
That doesn't appear fiscally responsible or morally sound, IMV.
Why wouldn't birth rates rise if women are denied access to abortion?
Maybe they and their male partners will take more responsibility.
Keeping in mind that bills of attainder are unconstitutional, what would that reallocation look like?
Bill of attainder! That's a term I learned about during the Nixon administration and haven't heard it used since.
The concept of "attainder" by legislation dates back at least to 16th Century England. Traditionally, it was used by Parliament to single out and punish – often, by death -- the political enemies of the crown. Some of America's pre-constitutional colonies followed the practice to punish individuals loyal to the English crown, but those who wrote the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 were determined to forbid the practice and did so as part of Article I.
The Supreme Court once remarked that the clause was "an important bulwark against tyranny.”
Since the likelihood today is that the two highest-profile cases testing new laws as forbidden "bills of attainder" both involve President Trump or his Administration in one way or another, it is useful to note that the Supreme Court went the furthest to spell out the meaning of the clause in a famous decision in 1977, Nixon v. Administrator Of General Services, involving another President, Richard M. Nixon.
Reacting to the Watergate scandal which had led to Nixon's resignation from the presidency in 1972, Congress two years later passed a presidential records law that, for the first time in U.S. history, overturned the long-standing view that a President's records were the personal, private property of the occupant of the office.
I wonder if the funding for Planned Parenthood could reallocate to programs to support families with children?
Seems reasonable considering some think there will be an increase of birth rates due to abortion law changes.
Roitrn: I don't think you realize that Planned Parenhood is a primary care provider for women. It's supposed to help PREVENT poverty, partly by keeping poorer women healthy. Who is going to decide what "support" is to families with children?
Roitrn
618 Posts
So who are they and what evidence do you have?