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.
It has everything to do with him being black tho. And I don’t care if 4 years of Obama fueled conservatives because they were called out on their BS. Try 400+ Years of rape murder torture. Actual bodily harm perpetuates by a conversative belief system
Past the first sentence, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 minute ago, Beerman said:
Past the first sentence, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
She was referencing the 400+ years of racial inequity in our country's history. A system that has caused actual bodily harm and is perpetuated by conservative beliefs.
She was referencing the 400+ years of racial inequity in our country's history. A system that has caused actual bodily harm and is perpetuated by conservative beliefs.
Another member who like you is unable to discern the real concerns facing our country vs the ones that are perpetuated by the far-left media and websites you get your news and information from.
We're starting to see why the left be bookoo trippin over the Twitter takeover.
“Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership,” read the tweet from the official White House account Tuesday afternoon.
Twitter, which was purchased last week by billionaire Elon Musk, appended a note to the claim that said: “Readers added context they thought people might want to know.””Seniors will receive a large Social Security benefit increase due to the annual cost of living adjustment, which is based on the inflation rate,” the note said, linking to the Social Security Administration’s website for an explanation on the Nixon-era legislation behind the increase – known as COLA."
We're starting to see why the left be bookoo trippin over the Twitter takeover.
I'm not sure I know what "bookoo trippin" is but I have an idea. I don't see how the White House's boast has anything to do with it. People were bookoo trippin already.
I do like they are still holding the White House responsible for factual social media. Even some liberal media like Newsweek criticized the Tweet and I don't think people are upset about it being fact checked and taken down.
I mulled over my Twitter today. I like Twitter and my feed is pretty tame. I follow the BBC, and several vegan people and I learn something often but am not active on it like I am here, facebook and Instagram.
I don't like the rise in hate speech that has been reported, and I certainly don't like Musk's conspiracy Tweet about Pelosi. Right now I'm staying on it but am giving serious consideration to dropping it.
They both knew the crowd would be receptive. I call BS on Bryan's claim that it was "raise awareness to help victims of a natural disaster you help.”
They both also knew it was a campaign stop.
I'm sure they both knew the crowd would be receptive. It certainly had a campaign stop like feel. What I know of Luke Bryan, I feel like he was sincere in his statement. But, like I said a few days ago, we don't really know these people. And, much of what we do know if them comes directly or indirectly from a PR firm.
Still, boycotting him because his beliefs may differ is dumb, imo.
Fair enough and I think people threw out the race card a bit much.
But I don't buy into the idea that four years of being labeled caused them to be divisive and angry. They were angry from the get go and weren't shy about expressing any opposition to Obama even if some people called him racist. The immediate rise of the Tea Party is testament to that. I understand their opposition wasn't racially motivated in most cases but it was harsh. Obamacare and "stimulus" became dirty words.
Laying the blame for divisiveness at Obama's feet and his supporters alone doesn't ring true to me. Both parties were involved.
It was racially motivated. Period.
On 10/31/2022 at 10:48 PM, Tweety said:
Fair enough and I think people threw out the race card a bit much.
But I don't buy into the idea that four years of being labeled caused them to be divisive and angry. They were angry from the get go and weren't shy about expressing any opposition to Obama even if some people called him racist. The immediate rise of the Tea Party is testament to that. I understand their opposition wasn't racially motivated in most cases but it was harsh. Obamacare and "stimulus" became dirty words.
Laying the blame for divisiveness at Obama's feet and his supporters alone doesn't ring true to me. Both parties were involved.
Obama wasn’t involved in creating the divisiveness that already existed. They did that. Always have always will!
Congressional Republicans, eyeing a midterm election victory that could hand them control of the House and the Senate, have embraced plans to reduce federal spending on Social Security and Medicare, including cutting benefits for some retirees and raising the retirement age for both safety net programs.
Prominent Republicans are billing the moves as necessary to rein in government spending, which grew under both Republican and Democratic presidents in recent decades and then spiked as the Trump and Biden administrations unleashed trillions of dollars in economic relief during the pandemic.
The Republican leaders who would decide what legislation the House and the Senate would consider if their party won control of Congress have not said specifically what, if anything, they would do to the programs.
Yet several influential Republicans have signaled a new willingness to push for Medicare and Social Security spending cuts as part of future budget negotiations with President Biden. Their ideas include raising the age for collecting Social Security benefits to 70 from 67 and requiring many older Americans to pay higher premiums for their health coverage. The ideas are being floated as a way to narrow government spending on programs that are set to consume a growing share of the federal budget in the decades ahead.
So Republicans would like to trim government spending on the backs of retirees and disabled recipients of social security? And they think that American seniors can afford higher premiums?
I plan on being alive and collecting social security in 2034 when it's predicted the Social Security Trust Fund will no longer be adequate to pay the premiums to people. It would be nice if we take a look at how to solve that issue now.
Raising the tax rate, raising the retirement age, raising costs are certainly painful but it might be necessary.
It would be also nice while they are so worried about spending that they look at the big military pig.
Quote
For millions of retirees, Social Security provides an essential source of income in retirement. In 2020, around 50 million retired workers collected Social Security benefits, according to the Social Security administration.
However, the recent 2022 Social Security Trustees report finds that in 2034, retirees will start receiving a reduced benefit if Congress doesn’t fix funding issues for the social program. In other words, Social Security will exist after 2034, but retirees will only receive 77% of their full benefit starting then.
Beerman, BSN
4,422 Posts
Past the first sentence, I have no idea what you're trying to say.