How is Moore "anti-capitalist"
Just because he criticizes the criminality of Wall Street and has issues with income inequality, wealth disparity, etc. doesn't make him "anti-capitalist"
I'm pretty sure you have to pay to see his movies
Just more bullshit from the right wing echo chamber
The question I have is do they know this meme is bullshit or are they really this stupid?
How is Moore "anti-capitalist"
Just because he criticizes the criminality of Wall Street and has issues with income inequality, wealth disparity, etc. doesn't make him "anti-capitalist"
I'm pretty sure you have to pay to see his movies
Just more bullshit from the right wing echo chamber
The question I have is do they know this meme is bullshit or are they really this stupid?
How is Moore "anti-capitalist"
Just because he criticizes the criminality of Wall Street and has issues with income inequality, wealth disparity, etc. doesn't make him "anti-capitalist"
I'm pretty sure you have to pay to see his movies
Just more bullshit from the right wing echo chamber
The question I have is do they know this meme is bullshit or are they really this stupid?
His movie Capitalism: a love story, while it does have some funny/good parts, is clearly anti capitalist especially towards the end...it absolutely derides capitalism as a concept.
Surely you can see the hilarious irony in the guy who has made tons of wealth in a capitalist system...by bashing the wealthy and the capitalist system.
um yeah he made a movie showing how bad capitalism is. and thousands of people went to see it and he made millions of dollars off of it.
its called "fleecing the sheep". and I think its hilarious.
I am not a Michael Moore fan. I think he's a fat loud mouthed slob. His 911 movie was over dramatized and manipulative as far as i am concerned.
I didn't watch Capitalism a love story because of it.
But unless he's a member of the communist party, i don't see how its a direct hypocrisy. Not even a indirectly really.
He's a capitalist for sure that has some issues about some facets or products of capitalism.
You don't see a contradiction between someone railing against capitalism while at same time profiting off of capitalism? And it's not just profiting, it's placing himself in the top one percent, using an anti-capaitalist message to get there.
You don't see a contradiction between someone railing against capitalism while at same time profiting off of capitalism? And it's not just profiting, it's placing himself in the top one percent, using an anti-capaitalist message to get there.
Was he railing against the entire concept of capitalism or a facet or what he sees as an abuses with-in the frame work capitalism?
Like i said, if he's a member of the communist party promoting it and such, then YES he's a hypocrite. But criticizing abuses? NO.
That's like calling me a Raider fan if i say the Niner's O-line was over rated in 2013.
The entire concept
The entire concept
he actually lost money
I assume you're aware of the difference between revenue and profit
If you aren't aware of some of the abuses of our current form of capitalism then you're most definitely part of the herd that is being fleeced
Moore didn't lose anything. The movie might have lost but he still made his money...a lot of money.
did you even watch that before you posted it
he talks about raising taxes and bringing jobs back to America
wow - shocking
We've never heard anyone say that before
Dude - just go back to posting about how Obama is gay and stay out of the way of people trying to discuss/debate a topic
did you even watch that before you posted it
he talks about raising taxes and bringing jobs back to America
wow - shocking
We've never heard anyone say that before
Dude - just go back to posting about how Obama is gay and stay out of the way of people trying to discuss/debate a topic
He engages in the very behavior he rails against.
I didn't see the clip but raising taxes is a way to turn business away, not bring them back.
You are truly a dunce aren't you?
He spent 20 million and made about 17.5 million in revenue
Have one of your 8th graders do the math for you
He engages in the very behavior he rails against.
Are you business inept? He didn't spend shit, no one seeking approval for INVESTORS uses their own money to fund a movie...lol. Are you shitting me? Every movie made is business risk because IT'S A BUSINESS. I'm sure his negotiations included his salary (like most ventures) plus a percentage of the movie proceeds. If there is no profit from the movie, he makes nothing FROM THE MOVIE. Understand?
Thats completely besides the point retard...the point is is that he HAS become wealthy off his movies- through pure capitalism. The fact that he made a movie disparaging capitalism and the wealthy is the height of irony
How is Moore "anti-capitalist"
Just because he criticizes the criminality of Wall Street and has issues with income inequality, wealth disparity, etc. doesn't make him "anti-capitalist"
I'm pretty sure you have to pay to see his movies
Just more bullshit from the right wing echo chamber
The question I have is do they know this meme is bullshit or are they really this stupid?
he actually lost money
I assume you're aware of the difference between revenue and profit
If you aren't aware of some of the abuses of our current form of capitalism then you're most definitely part of the herd that is being fleeced
I'm well aware that people invest in movies
he may or may not have had investors but that doesn't mean the movie didn't lose money
also, since he and his wife produced it and it's a condemnation of the abuses of capitalism I suspect it was self financed (he certainly could afford the 20 million budget himself)
If you have some actual proof that he made money on this film then post it
Was he railing against the entire concept of capitalism or a facet or what he sees as an abuses with-in the frame work capitalism?
Like i said, if he's a member of the communist party promoting it and such, then YES he's a hypocrite. But criticizing abuses? NO.
That's like calling me a Raider fan if i say the Niner's O-line was over rated in 2013.
The entire concept:
Capitalism is an organized system to guarantee that greed becomes the primary force of our economic system and allows the few at the top to get very wealthy and has the rest of us riding around thinking we can be that way, too - if we just work hard enough, sell enough Tupperware and Amway products, we can get a pink Cadillac.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/michaelmoo580038.html#pyywPmHGUHBi2XRW.99
Capitalism is against the things that we say we believe in - democracy, freedom of choice, fairness. It's not about any of those things now. It's about protecting the wealthy and legalizing greed.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/michaelmoo579994.html
I'm tired of this discussion of capitalism and socialism; we live in the 21st century, we need an economic system that has democracy as its underpinnings and an ethical code.
If I were a capitalist I would not give my employees health insurance with no deductible, which I do, including dental, and paid pregnancy leave. That's not called capitalism, that's called being a Christian and someone who believes in democracy, so that everyone should get a fair slice of the pie.
Here's what I don't think works: An economic system that was founded in the 16th century and another that was founded in the 19th century.
Looks to me that's he criticizing capitalism, NOT denouncing it.
Here's some other quotes of his from the same site:
Does Michael Moore say: No one should be wealthy, all wealth belongs to the people blah blah? NO.
Dude you are splitting hairs.
lol You are clumping then all together and using a wide brush.
How does tacking other peoples' money giving it to the govt for more taxes create more jobs? LOL - only two californication nut cakes can explain that one.
His comments were a broad brush. I don't see how you read that first quote and don't see a contradiction between that and the fact get used that kind of commentary to become the very thing he condemned.
His comments were a broad brush. I don't see how you read that first quote and don't see a contradiction between that and the fact get used that kind of commentary to become the very thing he condemned.
LOL! are you sitting here telling me that you believe that Michael Moore actually paid out of his own pocket to have that movie made? AND HE PAID OUT MORE THAN HE MADE?
you're a fucking idiot.
If you pick out 1 or 2 quotes about Capitalism you then need to look at all his comments on the subject to put them in the context of his main point:
Which is "pure" Capitalism has flaws.
Also in order for you to validate the charge of hypocrisy i think you need to establish that he's a communist first. If anything he seems to be a socialist.
His comments? Uh, OK.
What about the message of the movie? Did you see it?
I haven't seen the movie* but from what I've read, it's primarily an indictment of the banking industry.
*I do want to see the movie now since it seems to have received generally good reviews (better than the ones I remembered from when it first came out).
He couldn't have been criticizing pure capitalism, because we don't have pure capitalism in this country. He was criticizing our current, heavily regulated capitalist system that "allows the few at the top to get very wealthy and has the rest of us riding around thinking we can be that way, too - if we just work hard enough, sell enough Tupperware and Amway products, we can get a pink Cadillac."
He's not the "rest of us." He's one of "the few at the top to get very wealthy," pushing a message condemning those "few at the tope to get very wealthy." Blatant contradiction.
And who said I have to show he is a communist? I just need to show he profited off the very system he condemned, which I've done using his own words.
Yeah, he criticizing what he sees as a unfair disparity caused by "our" present form of imperfect capitalism between the rich and large corporations and ordinary people. However, even with that, he was able to become wealthy. So what?
Me. Your charge holds water if he's a communist, otherwise its basic right wing propaganda at Mike
I don't care if he gets wealthy. And I don't care if he gets wealthy pushing an anti-capitalist message. It just makes him a hypocrite.
Ok. I disagree. I'm not using rightwing propaganda. Nothing I've posted is false.
I'm well aware that people invest in movies
he may or may not have had investors but that doesn't mean the movie didn't lose money
also, since he and his wife produced it and it's a condemnation of the abuses of capitalism I suspect it was self financed (he certainly could afford the 20 million budget himself)
If you have some actual proof that he made money on this film then post it
Feel free to show me that he didn't have an investment in the movie
BTW - stop the hysterics. The movie itself LOST MONEY. You seem to be unaware that happens sometimes (quite often actually)
You're aware that the movie theatres get a cut of the ticket sales (apparently 50% is standard) and then you take away marketing, production and distribution expenses and then Moore would have a % of the what is left (depending on whatever the agreement was with the distributor). Now if that # is negative that what does he make?
Again, try to keep in mind (I know this is asking a lot of you) that I have said from the beginning of this thread that the guy is not "anti-capitalist" and I'm sure his goal with movies is ALWAYS to make money
Holy shit, really? He has a worth of $50mil and the movie cost $20mil. You really think he's going to risk his own money. Btw, pretty sure that isn't $50mil liquid. Straw, here's a thought. Go to your local juco and enroll in business 101. Start there. If you don't know anything about business you shouldn't speak about capitalism. Fuck!
I'm well aware that people invest in movies
he may or may not have had investors but that doesn't mean the movie didn't lose money
also, since he and his wife produced it and it's a condemnation of the abuses of capitalism I suspect it was self financed (he certainly could afford the 20 million budget himself)
If you have some actual proof that he made money on this film then post it
this post is so full of stupid I don't even know where to start.
you really need to go to college.
I guarantee you..........GUARANTEE you that Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture. you would have to be a fucking idiot to believe that. Michael Moore's compensation was an expense of the venture to arrive at net income. do you know anything about accounting? you're really unfucking believable. the guy is worth $50 million and you think he would make a deal like that?
and just so we're clear. do you believe that Michael Moore made this movie and made ZERO money? better yet, do you believe he paid money out of his own pocket to make this movie that grossed over $14 million dollars?
jesus fucking H Christ someone please just fucking shoot me!
spare me guarantees and show me some proof of any of your claims
keep in mind my original statement was that the film lost money and that is a fact
please go research how movie profits get disbursed (I provided some info for you on this thread)
do you know how many people make profitable movies still wind up screwing their investors
Again, also try to keep in mind the topic of this thread is the false narrative that Moore is somehow anti-capitalist and shouldn't own real estate.
Typical Get Big Thread - we start with a false premise an then a confederacy of dunces can't even keep track of the original topic and confuse themselves with another off topic false premise of their own making
BTW - I have to say that you belief that Moore compensation on this film (or any of his films) was not in some way based on the "net income of the venture" is fucking HILARIOUS
I actually have a degree in finance and work in the field (not that it's needed for this conversation given that you're a glorified gym teacher)
scroll back to the top of this page and you'll see this quote from me
Are you aware the Francis Ford Coppola mortgaged his properties to make The God Father and that he financed Apocalypse Now himself because no studio would touch it. I'm sure you remember that Sado Masochistic snuff film, The Passion of the Christ. Mel Gibson famously financed that via his production company.
So yes, people put money into their own films. It happens all the time.
And like I've pointed out three times now, the film lost money and I'm sure that was not Moores intention.
seriously can't believe that you're plowing ahead with this idiocy.
Moore's three biggest movies, "Bowling For Columbine", "Fahrenheit 911″ and "Capitalism A Love Story" have earned over $300 million at the box office to date. Fahrenheit 911 set the record for highest grossing documentary of all time when it earned $230 million in theaters worldwide. Fahrenheit eventually earned an additional $3 million from DVD sales. How much of that money goes into Michael Moore's pockets? Prior to the release of Fahrenheit 911, Michael signed a deal with movie distributor which would entitle him to 27% of his film's net revenues..
With Fahrenheit, after the theaters took their standard 50% cut of box office receipts, roughly $130 million in revenue was left over. When you take away marketing, production and distribution expenses, Miramax and Moore were left with an estimated $80 million payday. Moore's 27% cut on this film alone would eventually work out to roughly $21.6 million. He was actually entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which reportedly generated an additional $17 million payday for Michael. Moore is the author of eight books to date, several of which have gone on to be New York Time best sellers. Michael received a reported $1 million advance for "Dude Where's My Country" plus a generous percentage of the book sales
I'm well aware that people invest in movies
he may or may not have had investors but that doesn't mean the movie didn't lose money
also, since he and his wife produced it and it's a condemnation of the abuses of capitalism I suspect it was self financed (he certainly could afford the 20 million budget himself)
If you have some actual proof that he made money on this film then post it
Read this again, carefully..
Are you business inept? He didn't spend shit, no one seeking approval for INVESTORS uses their own money to fund a movie...lol. Are you shitting me? Every movie made is business risk because IT'S A BUSINESS. I'm sure his negotiations included his salary (like most ventures) plus a percentage of the movie proceeds. If there is no profit from the movie, he makes nothing FROM THE MOVIE. Understand?
"If there is no profit made from the movie, he makes NOTHING FROM THE MOVIE"
You have a degree in finance (yet you can't figure out that raising taxes kills business, but I digress) in some part of that you have to had covered business finance (Business loans, venture capitol, private investors, etc) if you did, you should know when putting a business plan together to present to a lender, investor or whatever, you include salaries. This includes his own.
pay attention Dopey
I never claimed that he used solely his own money or any of his own money. I merely said he may well have done so
What I did say is that the movie lost money
Now if you have some details of the budget and his salary (IF ANY) or proof that he had none of his own money invested in this film then provide it or or STFU
We're not even discussing the topic of this thread
Again, we're discussing your unproven claim that Moore personally made money on this film/invested none of his own money.... which I will point out again is something I never said in the first place
I said the film made no money and now I've spent more time trying to help you pull your head out of your ass based on your apparent misunderstanding of what I wrote (or maybe it's just your profound stupidity)
Yeah Dummy, I'm quite sure he's going to make his budgets known to the public. This discussion has direct correlation to this topic.
This is you and Dopey Coach's premise
remember
I'm the one who said Moores film lost money and I'm sure that wasn't his intention
you're the one who "guaranteed" me that "Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture." and that I would have to be an "idiot to believe that"
So you believe that the guy who directed, produced and wrote the film had received no compensation based on the "net income of the venture" as you put it
Kind of odd given that is exactly how he made money on many of his prior films and exactly how most producer/directors and even actors make money on a film
Seriously man, this belief of yours ...which you wrote "I guarantee you..........GUARANTEE"
is one of the dumbest comments I've even seen on this board (and that's saying something)
For some proof of the stupidity of your claim let's review exactly how Moore was "compensated" on some of his other films
Do you see his "compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture".... as you wrote
.
I should remind all of you libs that this is also a perfect example of why large corporations don't have a federal tax liability in a given year. and all the libs lose their minds with these little factoids.
take Michael Moore's venture, for example. Let's assume that it is structured as a C-corp for arguments sake.
Now lets say the movie grosses $100 million. now everyone looks at that and automatically thinks, "Hey they made a shit ton of money, they should have a huge tax bill". Well no they have NO TAX BILL. why? because they passed out that money as either salary, or distributions to the officers and employees of the company and at the end of the day they spent more than they brought in. but everyone got paid straw.
and what college kid liberals have to understand is that all of those people who received that compensation will be taxed on that income at their individual rates, which are usually less than the corporate rates. so people bitch about the corp not paying tax but what they don't understand is that the individuals making up the corp took the money out of the corp and had to pay the individual tax rates on that money. so that money was taxed. just not at the corporate level, they were taxed on the individual level. and with the high income tax payers, they're saving just a couple 2-3 points on that tax. the corp also gets to carry forward that net operating loss and set it against income in future years. and that is tax planning. there's nothing nefarious about it.
this is the exact scenario that occurred with facebook. and every lib lost their mind when they found out "facebook paid no taxes".
i'm confused. your quote says that he is paid based upon the net revenues of the film. and that's what i'm saying.
he gets paid before taking into account any expenses. he gets paid on the net revenues that the film generates. PERIOD. that means that he is paid a certain percentage of revenues no matter what the other expenses are. if the movie grosses 100 million at the box office, he gets 27 million dollars. the movie could lose $50 million.........and he'd still get $27 million. and yes he ALSO gets a piece of the net income.....AFTER HE GETS HIS CUT OF THE GROSS REVENUES. but make no mistake he made sure he got his 27% of the gross revenues FIRST. then if the venture's statement of profit and loss is in the black he gets a cut of that too.
you do know what net revenues means right? Oh God you don't. please.........just..... ....stop.
With Fahrenheit, after the theaters took their standard 50% cut of box office receipts, roughly $130 million in revenue was left over. When you take away marketing, production and distribution expenses, Miramax and Moore were left with an estimated $80 million payday. Moore's 27% cut on this film alone would eventually work out to roughly $21.6 million. He was actually entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which reportedly generated an additional $17 million payday for Michael. Moore is the author of eight books to date, several of which have gone on to be New York Time best sellers. Michael received a reported $1 million advance for "Dude Where's My Country" plus a generous percentage of the book sales
Stone cold hypocrite.
Another anti-capitalist liberal hypocrite.
MICHAEL MOORE OWNS 9 HOMES
by JOHN NOLTE 23 Jul 2014
Added: The Smoking Gun was the first outlet to report this, and did so weeks ago.
According to the Detroit News, anti-capitalism "everyman" filmmaker Michael Moore owns 9 homes. On top of a $2 million, 10,000 square foot lakefront mansion in Torch Lake, Michigan, there is a Manhattan condo that was once 3 condos, and 7 other properties. Moore's secret role as a land baron was revealed in divorce papers:
The filmmaker, 60, who split his time between a home here and one in New York, is leaving his wife of 22 years, Kathy Glynn.
His hit movies and best-selling books have begat a lifestyle far from most ballcap-wearing, duck-waddling denizens of Flint.
Moore and Glynn own nine properties in Michigan and New York, including a Manhattan condo that once was three apartments. CelebrityNetWorth.com pegs their wealth at $50 million.
In legal pleadings, Moore blames his wife for the expansion of the 10,000-square-foot home on Torch Lake, which has a value of $2 million.
Since his 1989 "Roger and Me," Michael Moore has earned upwards of $50 million trashing capitalism.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/07/23/michael-moore-owns-9-homes
In closing, Moore is summarized as having become extremely wealthy and an icon of the ”international left wing” due to frequently painting the American public as being ”racist, greedy, exploitive, uncaring, and criminal,” but Moore exhibits many of those same traits that he criticizes.
Activist, author and documentary film maker, Moore brings into the spotlight less-known perspectives on serious issues. He is the director and producer of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 and most recently Sicko, three of the highest-grossing documentaries.
In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world’s 100 most influential people.
Moore invited Madonna to show her documentary, I Am Because We Are, on the tragedy of Malawi’s AIDS orphans, at his home town film festival in Traverse City, Michigan.
Not famous for his singing voice, Michael contributed to the “Occupy This Album” box set that came out in May 2012 in support of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.
Charities & foundations supported 1
Michael Moore has supported the following charities:
Raising Malawi
Not even close.
more cherry picking.
It's spot on and consistent with his anti-capitism hypocrisy. He should donate his money to the other 99 percent. Turn one or two of his nine houses into a homeless shelter.
It's spot on and consistent with his anti-capitism hypocrisy. He should donate his money to the other 99 percent. Turn one or two of his nine houses into a homeless shelter.
the quote regarding Moore's take on various films mentions his compensation is based on "net revenue" and "profits"
For most types of business net revenue is Revenue less sales returns and allowances.
Clearly it has a different meaning in this industry because Box Office Receipt less 50% to the theaters left 130 million in what should be "net revenue" but then they deducted the expenses of "marketing, production, and distribution" before arriving at "net revenue". Production likely includes the cost to make the film. So Net revenue sounds a lot more like "net income" or "profits" than it does "net revenue"
Further on in the same quote it said he was entitled to "50% of the profits" of Sicko"
So in both cases his income is directly tied to the financial success of the film whether is net revenue (calculated after a bunch of expenses are deducted) or "profits"
Either way it shows your guarantee to me that Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture is complete bullshit. Even if you want to argue that net revenue doesn't "walk and talk" like net income you can't argue that regarding Sicko which explicitly says "profits"
Once again this has nothing to do with the false premise that started this thread
straw i'm an accountant. what you are saying is absolutely wrong. you can futz around with your wording and fool a bunch of drunk college kids but not a practicing CPA. SALES RETURNS AND ALLOWANCES are NOT the amounts they pay to the theaters. and the author of the article has it wrong as well, which is why you made the mistake. Net Revenues is NEVER defined as sales less commissions, or anything else. it is always defined as exactly how YOU defined it. sales less returns and allowances.
your problem is that you are relying on the accounting knowledge of some author who doesn't know the first thing about accounting. I also know enough to know that people like Michael Moore don't get into deals to make movies unless they KNOW that they will be compensated well. Maybe at the beginning of their career they use some of their own money and take risks. but at the point he made this movie it's nothing less than silly to think he wasn't in a deal to make a shit load of GUARANTEED MONEY.
the bottom line is this guy makes tons of money by convincing college kids who know nothing about the world that they are owed something they don't have to earn. and it works.
Not even close.
more cherry picking.
He's definitely no Michael Gates in the charity department.
straw i'm an accountant. what you are saying is absolutely wrong. you can futz around with your wording and fool a bunch of drunk college kids but not a practicing CPA. SALES RETURNS AND ALLOWANCES are NOT the amounts they pay to the theaters. and the author of the article has it wrong as well, which is why you made the mistake. Net Revenues is NEVER defined as sales less commissions, or anything else. it is always defined as exactly how YOU defined it. sales less returns and allowances.
your problem is that you are relying on the accounting knowledge of some author who doesn't know the first thing about accounting. I also know enough to know that people like Michael Moore don't get into deals to make movies unless they KNOW that they will be compensated well. Maybe at the beginning of their career they use some of their own money and take risks. but at the point he made this movie it's nothing less than silly to think he wasn't in a deal to make a shit load of GUARANTEED MONEY.
the bottom line is this guy makes tons of money by convincing college kids who know nothing about the world that they are owed something they don't have to earn. and it works.
Lmao, YOU are cherry-picking, moving the goal posts and setting ridiculous standards. Have you even seen the movie in auestion?? Capitalism: a love story?? It is CLEARLY a case against the capitalist system...esp towards the end.
But he could prob come out and say 'i hate capitalism' and you would still say that 'didnt count' lmao
http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/01/michael-moore-signs-10-million-deal-for-documentary-on-socialism/
see the deals he signs? $10 million off the top. then 10% of GROSS profit. not net income. Gross profit. this is a deal a seasoned film producer receives. not fucking 27% of the NET INCOME of a film.
no one who made those kinds of deals would be worth $50 million.
The Daily Currant is a satirical news website.
Lol everyone keep in mind that Strawman is the same guy who claimed last year that "the majority of NRA members were for obama's gun control legislation".
This is the mind you guys are trying to argue with.
He will literally defend ANY Leftist talking point no matter how ridiculous
http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/01/michael-moore-signs-10-million-deal-for-documentary-on-socialism/
see the deals he signs? $10 million off the top. then 10% of GROSS profit. not net income. Gross profit. this is a deal a seasoned film producer receives. not fucking 27% of the NET INCOME of a film.
no one who made those kinds of deals would be worth $50 million.
Spot on again.
Let me get this straight. You are a "certified public accountant" and you link to an obviously ridiculous and satirical article on a website that openly advertises itself as "The Global Satirical Newspaper of Record"?
The only thing you're certified as is "fucking idiot" and if you are an accountant - and it's a big if - then I feel sorry for your clients, because you're liable to get them in deep shit when you shift from using GAAP reporting requirements because you confused a McDonald's breakfast burrito wrapper for new official guidance.
Like I previously wrote, it's pretty clear that "net revenue" has another meaning in the movie biz since it appears to come after a bunch of expenses are deducted, including the cost of production. Either that or the author used the wrong term because he explicitly detailed how Moore's 27% was calculated and it wasn't calculated on the 130 million that was left over after the theater owners took their share but on the 80 million left after "expenses" were deducted
the bottom line is that Moore absolutely makes income from the profits of the film or the "net income of the venture" as you put it.
If you want to debate semantics that is fine but that is still the bottom line
Again, completely contrary to you guarantee to me that "Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture."
again, completely irrelevant to to the false premise that started this thread
Looks to me that's he criticizing capitalism, NOT denouncing it.
Here's some other quotes of his from the same site:
Does Michael Moore say: No one should be wealthy, all wealth belongs to the people blah blah? NO.
Is he talking about abuses in our capitalistic system or is he talking against capitalism in general going as far to say no one should be rich?
Details and distinctions NOT regurgitated conservative talking points.
the premise that started this thread was that Michael Moore makes a shit ton of money lambasting people who make A SHIT TON OF MONEY.
then you started in saying that he spends his own money and that he LOSES money on his films.
all i'm saying is that you're wrong. and you are. come on the guys is worth over $50 million. he makes sure that when he signs his contracts with the film companies that me makes damn sure that he makes millions when all is said and done.
if his film loses money he doesn't lose money. he still gets paid. come on.
and i did post a article from a ridiculous rag in my haste to prove you wrong. oops. i actually just read the whole thing. wow. yeah i'm stupid.
but even a stupid guy like me knows i'm right about this.
I guarantee you..........GUARANTEE you that Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture.
Wrong again, as usual
Let's review:
The false premise that started this thread was that Moore is a hypocrite because he owns 9 homes.
As I said in my first post on this thread that Just because he criticizes the criminality of Wall Street and has issues with income inequality, wealth disparity, etc. doesn't make him "anti-capitalist"
I also pointed out that you and everyone else actually has to pay money to see one of his movies and then merely pointed out that his Capitalism movie actually lost money so he failed at that capitalist experiment
Then Coach jumped in and claimed that the Moore still made a lot of money on the film. Of course I never said that Moore didn't receive a salary (though who really knows) and Coach was never able to prove that Moore made "lots of money or any money on this film and that's where you decided to go off on a tangent
Then you jumped in with the idiotic claim that Moore does not share in the financial success of his films
or as you put it
then I showed you examples of where he did in fact receive compensation based on the net income of his venture (which is common practice in that industry). Remember the deal for Sicko actually mentioned "profits" and Fahrenheit 911 mentioned net revenues which was described as 50% of ticket sales less marketing, production and distribution expenses which I pointed either means that they have a different definition of net revenue in that industry or the author just used the wrong term because clearly he received a compensation based on net revenue (i.e 50% of ticket sales) less expenses.
All the time I kept pointing out that this little side battle you chose to start was not only false but had nothing to do with Bum's other false premise on which he started this thread
he does say verbatim "capitalism is evil. and you cannot regulate evil"
Spot on again.
And what are his reasons for saying its evil?
Is he saying its evil because people can accumulate wealth while others fail at it? Or is he saying its evil because of the some of the abuses that occur in it?
Wrong again, as usual
Let's review:
The false premise that started this thread was that Moore is a hypocrite because he owns 9 homes.
As I said in my first post on this thread that Just because he criticizes the criminality of Wall Street and has issues with income inequality, wealth disparity, etc. doesn't make him "anti-capitalist"
I also pointed out that you and everyone else actually has to pay money to see one of his movies and then merely pointed out that his Capitalism movie actually lost money so he failed at that capitalist experiment
Then Coach jumped in and claimed that the Moore still made a lot of money on the film. Of course I never said that Moore didn't receive a salary (though who really knows) and Coach was never able to prove that Moore made "lots of money or any money on this film and that's where you decided to go off on a tangent
Then you jumped in with the idiotic claim that Moore does not share in the financial success of his films
or as you put it
then I showed you examples of where he did in fact receive compensation based on the net income of his venture (which is common practice in that industry). Remember the deal for Sicko actually mentioned "profits" and Fahrenheit 911 mentioned net revenues which was described as 50% of ticket sales less marketing, production and distribution expenses which I pointed either means that they have a different definition of net revenue in that industry or the author just used the wrong term because clearly he received a compensation based on net revenue (i.e 50% of ticket sales) less expenses.
All the time I kept pointing out that this little side battle you chose to start was not only false but had nothing to do with Bum's other false premise on which he started this thread
the point is that you cannot argue after watching his documentary that he's not anti capitalist.
and sorry but I still GUARANTEE you that Michael Moore's income was not based solely upon the net income of the venture. you're pointing to the fact that PART of his compensation was. and yes I agree that part of his compensation was. but again, i'll say it. I GUARANTEE YOU that his income was not solely based on the net income of the venture.
he literally said in his documentary verbatim, "capitalism is evil. and you cannot regulate evil" how else can you possibly interpret that?
"What I'm asking for is a new economic order," he says. "I don't know how to construct that. I'm not an economist. All I ask is that it have two organising principles. Number one, that the economy is run democratically. In other words, the people have a say in how its run, not just the 1%. And number two, that it has an ethical and moral core to it. That nothing is done without considering the ethical nature, no business decision is made without first asking the question, is this for the common good?"
No Straw, lets ignore Michael Moore's other statements, and instead cherry pick ones that we can use to support a charge of hypocrisy even if those cherry picked statements do little to show a hypocrisy.
Let's then also ignore his actual criticism of capitalism and just ignorantly assume that any criticism he makes against capitalism means he totally against capitalism.
Just me criticizing the San Francisco 49'ers but also wearing a 49'er baseball cap.
Sound logic for the easily manipulated unthinking masses.
No Straw, lets ignore Michael Moore's other statements, and instead cherry pick ones that we can use to support a charge of hypocrisy even if those cherry picked statements do little to show a hypocrisy.
Let's then also ignore his actual criticism of capitalism and just ignorantly assume that any criticism he makes against capitalism means he totally against capitalism.
Just me criticizing the San Francisco 49'ers but also wearing a 49'er baseball cap.
Sound logic for the easily manipulated unthinking masses.
even funnier is Faux News taking this one snip out of context and then trying to make a story out of whole cloth about Moore being a hyporcite
how the fuck is this nonsense considered "news" in the first place
No. You saying the 49ers are evil and profit off of poor people, then selling 49er caps and using that income to make money off of poor people would make you a hypocrite. That's a much closer analogy.
are they taking it out of context?
i'm honestly asking.
No, Moore's criticism of Capitalism and its abuses are not related to him making movies and profiting off those movies. does he say in his movies ITS NOT OK to profit? Or is he saying there are abuses that are unethical with in capitalism?
therefore..... your analogy of the 49'ers profiting from poor people and him selling caps doesn't fit at all.
Yes, calling capitalism evil, claiming he is not part of the 1 percent, etc., etc., then making enormous profits using that same evil system is completely hypocritical.
Actually, he's not part of the 1 percent. He's part of the 1/10 of 1 percent. Good too see that the evil capitalist system was so good to him. It's almost comical that he made is fortune selling the very thing he condemns, likely on the backs of people who can never afford to own nine homes.
But if there is one thing I don't expect from many liberals, it's consistency.
Its comical how California liberal dolts like ozmo straw buy into this bullshit hook line and sinker
I don't have access to the movie online and I don't necessarily agree with Moore's blanket statement but it's also a snip of a quote and I don't have the full context. If you have a longer clip then please post it.
I found this quote which I think (don't know for sure) is also from the film and may even follow the "evil" statement
It doesn't sound to me like he has any problem with PRIVATE OWNERSHIP or real property or businesses and we know he has no problem with some forms of capitalism such as making movies and selling tickets to those movies.
Given that, I see no hypocrisy at all in owning a bunch of real estate.
Yes, calling capitalism evil, claiming he is not part of the 1 percent, etc., etc., then making enormous profits using that same evil system is completely hypocritical.
Its comical how California liberal dolts like ozmo straw buy into this bullshit hook line and sinker
Yeah, when you take his comments out of context, paint it with a broad brush, and then ignore everything else he says on subject. You are right, very hypocritical. ::)
That's how we should go about things right? Just pick out the one thing that fits into our BIAS VIEW and block everything else out. Brilliant.
We all should be striving for that kind of awareness. We could even do it physically. We could paint over the lenses of our glasses except for a little tiny hole the size of a pin..... that way we can have tunnel vision and not have to see anything we don't want to see allowing us to DAM anyone or anything that doesn't fit into the stereotype we place on them.
Progress, the conservative way:
LABEL IGNORE DEMONIZE!
I doubt your stupid ass has anything intelligence to contribute to the conversation other than, CHOOB, THUG CHUMP QUEER blah blah.
So keep to yourself you conservative cry baby.
LABEL IGNORE DEMONIZE!
Or, we could cherry pick some comments, split hairs, and ignore the actual words the man said. I prefer my approach.
FAGbama and her husband should focus on more important issues than this nonsense.
EXACTLY!
You LABELED him a hypocrite
You have IGNORED the other words he said and the context upon which he said "CAPITALISM IS EVIL"
And then have proceeded to DEMONIZE him.
Progress and truth in action folks!
Tunnel vision truth!
I labeled him a hypocrite because that's what he is.
You're the one inserting your own definitions, claiming he has to be a communist before we can call him a hypocrite. I guess that's one way to look at it, but it doesn't make sense to me.
I labeled him a hypocrite because that's what he is. You're the one inserting your own definitions, claiming he has to be a communist before we can call him a hypocrite. I guess that's one way to look at it, but it doesn't make sense to me.
I haven't demonized him. I didn't call him a bad person. I didn't fault him for making money. I have no problem with him making bank. He's just a hypocrite and all the poor saps who buy his product helped him profit off the very system he condemned. The irony is strong.
yes, because you've shown that Moore has stated he is opposed to private ownership of property
right?
You labeled him a hypocrite because that's what you think he is. Its you opinion nothing more. Its a label that's based on a BIAS that ignores all his other comments. It s also an opinion that ignores the reasons for the comment: "Capitalism is evil" so that you can demonize him by call him a hypocrite
Hence: tunnel vision truth.
No i gave an example of how a charge of hypocrisy would be better justified, INSTEAD of cherry picking, labeling, ignoring and demonizing.
Michael Moore may be a hypocrite or maybe he just found a way to make money. Every filmmaker needs a gimmick. Heck he might of actually believed in what he documented in his films in the beginning. In our society money equals power. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Obviously me calling him a hypocrite is my opinion. Just like you cherry picking comments, ignoring others, splitting hairs, and creating your own definitions to avoid calling him a hypocrite is your opinion.
Calling him a hypocrite is not demonizing him.
I've not ignored his comments. I.have used them in many of my posts explaining that there were reasons for why he said them. Perhaps that's another thing you are ignoring....how I have put them in my reponses
Have you taken into consideration any of Moore's other comments? See Straws post.
No, I usually ignore posts from the Village Idiot. :D
But I think where you and I disagree is the scope of the context. You are placing a much narrower focus on his anti-capitalist talk than me.
I've not ignored his comments. I.have used them in many of my posts explaining that there were reasons for why he said them. Perhaps that's another thing you are ignoring....how I have put them in my reponses
Have you taken into consideration any of Moore's other comments? See Straws post.
Lol. He posted a quote from Moore.
I am looking at why he called capitalism evil. If he owns company that is doing those things he points out or or he himself is doing them, then IMO he's a hypocrite.
You seem to be talking his comment and applying a broad brush to it ignoring the reason and context for it.
I'm actually applying his comments in the broad context in which they were made. He condemned the entire system, not just individuals within the system.
So you know exactly what he meant when he said it?
do you see any context or anything following that statement (such as the quote I posted)
do you see him say anything against private ownership of real property or businesses?
after all, it's the fact that he owns real estate that the Faux News people are trying to claim is hypocrisy
what would truly be hypocrisy is if Moore had his millions invested with Goldman Sachs instead of in real estate
if I said "Gay people are evil. And it is impossible to regulate evil.", would you be as forgiving with me as you are being with Michael Moore?
would you jump to my defense and say "what if he just meant the bad gay people"?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2011/11/03/hollywood-producer-questions-michael-moores-occupy-wall-street-chops-raises-goldman-sachs-tie/
what if his movies were funded by Goldman Sachs? would that be hypocritical? I thought I remember hearing this a while ago. i'm not sure if its true. i'm sure you don't think its true.
It would be hypocritical if he benefited from the things that Goldman Sachs did regarding the mortgage/credit crisis and other specific actions that he criticized.
I don't see how GS creating an investment vehicle for a third party that was used in part to finance Sicko qualifies but if you'd like to connect the dots then feel free.
This hypocrisy thing is actually not hard to understand as long as you're not trying conflate things that are not related (same goes for your trying to compare homosexuality to a an economic and political system)
well he did. they backed the Weinstein's who funded his movie.
Michael Moore can play 25 degrees of separation in Fahrenheit 9/11 and everyone is convinced GWB planned 9/11. I play 2 degrees of separation and you don't believe it. wow.
again. i'm not sure if its true what I posted. if it is. YES. that's hypocritical.
well he did. they backed the Weinstein's who funded his movie.
Michael Moore can play 25 degrees of separation in Fahrenheit 9/11 and everyone is convinced GWB planned 9/11. I play 2 degrees of separation and you don't believe it. wow.
again. i'm not sure if its true what I posted. if it is. YES. that's hypocritical.
if I said "Gay people are evil. And it is impossible to regulate evil.", would you be as forgiving with me as you are being with Michael Moore?
would you jump to my defense and say "what if he just meant the bad gay people"?
"What I'm asking for is a neweconomic ordersexuality," he says. "I don't know how to construct that. I'm not aneconomistsexologist. All I ask is that it have two organising principles. Number one, that theeconomysexuality is run democratically. In other words, the people have a say in how its run, not just the 1%. And number two, that it has an ethical and moral core to it. That nothing is done without considering the ethical nature, nobusinesssexual decision is made without first asking the question, is this for the common good?"
So you know exactly what he meant when he said it?
There is no way to compare/conflate homosexuality with a economic/political system but let's just take Moore's follow up statement (which I'm not sure if you've ever commented on) and change the topic from Capitalism to Homosexuality(the same singular change that you made to his prior quote).
I asked you to connect the dots so please explain how Moore directly benefited from the actions of GS which he specifically criticized.
keep in mind the GS paid fines for specific actions that they took. They did not pay fines for merely existing or for other activities which are totally legal and not abusive to the society
Also keep in mind that Moore was not even a direct client of GS
Again, this hypocrisy thing is not hard to understand and you should not have to create a tortured pretzel logic in order to make your point.
wow.
you're really stretching it here dude.
no you're right Straw. you can't compare homosexuality to a political system.
but you can safely assume that when someone calls something "evil", they're most probably against that thing.
wow.
very safe to assume, especially when you ignore any other comments which serve to clarify the statement or ignore the context in which is was made
wow....just wow ::)
LOL!
don't roll your eyes at me mother fucker!
I'd like to see that if you can post something.
BTW fahrenheit 9/11 is the reason i think moore is a jack ass.
so I guess you think Moore personally invested in credit default swaps or shorted banks while selling the mortgages of those banks to unwary investors as "A" paper when he knew in fact they were crap and doomed to fail.
That's pretty much the same thing as not even being a client of GS and merely having an association with a third party who provided some financing for one of his films and of course no proof that he was even aware of the association of that third party with GS.
great point
what a hypocrite
so I guess you think Moore personally invested in credit default swaps or shorted banks while selling the mortgages of those banks to unwary investors as "A" paper when he knew in fact they were crap and doomed to fail.
That's pretty much the same thing as not even being a client of GS and merely having an association with a third party who provided some financing for one of his films and of course no proof that he was even aware of the association of that third party with GS.
great point
what a hypocrite
if you demonize a corporation publicly, mock them outside of their corporate office while filming a documentary, make god damn sure your documentary is not being funded by them.
he signed with a movie producer who was directly funded by the bank that Moore lambasted in his documentary. (again, not sure if this is 100% accurate, but if it is, yes its extremely hypocritical)
come on stop it. you know that's bullshit.
and this isn't like goldman sachs gave Weinstein a little bit of money. this was a $500 million investment vehicle that Weinstein had directly from Goldman Sachs. this was probably their largest liability on their balance sheet at the time.
feel free to post proof that those funds were involved in the abusive practices that Moore criticized
feel free to post proof that Moore was even aware of the relationship (since we know he wasn't a direct client)
who's balance sheet are you speculating about? Why are you even speculating at all?
Just provide some proof and I may well start agreeing with you
Of course not. Nobody knows what is in the man's heart. I'm just giving my opinion based his words, context, conduct, and common sense.
What context was he saying that in, and what other comments supports that context?
what are you saying? that Goldman Sachs can steal from people but as long as they give you other money that was not stolen its perfectly acceptable to do business with them? seriously? i'm seriously starting to think you're just fucking with me now.
Weinstein's balance sheet is the one i'm referring to. the article says that their company was funded with $500 million from Goldman Sachs and yes Michael Moore had to know that Goldman Sachs gave the Weinstein's $500 million dollars. like I said, it was probably the biggest liability on Weinstein's balance sheet.
he sure does a lot of investigating of everyone in his documentaries. are you saying he over looked the fact that the company who funded his documentary received $500 million from Goldman Sachs?
and yes I don't know if this is true. maybe its not. all i'm saying is that if it is true ............ fuck yes that's EXTREMELY hypocritical.
feel free to post proof that those funds were involved in the abusive practices that Moore criticized
feel free to post proof that Moore was even aware of the relationship (since we know he wasn't a direct client)
who's balance sheet are you speculating about? Why are you even speculating at all?
Just provide some proof and I may well start agreeing with you
He said capitalism is evil. He did not limit his comments to individuals or companies within the capitalist system. An indictment of the entire system is as broad as you can get. That's the context.
http://news.yahoo.com/gavin-polone-knocks-michael-moores-occupy-wall-street-231133595.html;_ylt=A0LEV0GsTNlTpz0AKnhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyNDEycmRnBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOARjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1FJMDQ5XzE-
ask Gavin polone.
I don't know I looked for the deposit slip but I can't find it. what proof can I give that you will believe?
I mean it IS on the internet.
if Gavin Polone is NOT lying, yes Michael Moore is a hypocrite. I will say no more on this.
No it isn't. You want it to be, but its not.
Its a broad brush statement that can mean many different things. Especially if its subject is something as complex and multifaceted as capitalism. That's why i can say the 49er's sucka nd they are the best team ever in the same sentence.
That's why his hypocrisy or lack thereof is in the details.
I don't want it to be anything. I don't care about that dude. I have nothing invested in this.
Yes, his comments can mean many things. I've reached my own conclusions about them. You've reached a different conclusion about them. No biggie.
You can say the 49ers are evil and profit off of poor fans, then sell 49er hats to poor fans making millions in the process. That would make you a hypocrite, just like Moore.
I've made Bum my bitch so many times that he knows he's better off ignoring me than getting his ass handed to him again.
How come nobody's ever seen that?
In fact, usually we see you dangling from his ball sack, pathetically desperate for him to even acknowledge your existence, endlessly hoping he'll toss you a word or phrase here and there.
Kinda pathetic really.
And creepy...
How come nobody's ever seen that?
In fact, usually we see you dangling from his ball sack, pathetically desperate for him to even acknowledge your existence, endlessly hoping he'll toss you a word or phrase here and there.
Kinda pathetic really.
And creepy...
go back a quite a few years to the Focus on the Family threads with Dobson's advice on how to ungay your kid as an example
Seriously? That was a thing that happened!?! ???
Absolute truth. She is like a jilted ex-girlfriend. Follows me around like a lost puppy. lol
Seriously? That was a thing that happened!?! ???
This debate is still going on? LOL
Don't forget to shower with your son and make sure he sees your penis and after that you can have him pound a square peg into a square hole.
Straw, you're a saint for debating rationally on a topic that isn't rational.
Dobson wrote an article (or maybe it was in one of his books) about you can make your kid not be gay by doing things like "roughhousing with him" and teaching him to pound round pegs into round holes and most important to shower with him so that he can see your adult junk and by doing so will be immune from gayness.
Of course this is fucking insane but Beach Bunny being the obedient christian could not bring himself to disagree with Dobson.
There are plenty of other examples
I will give Bum credit in that I was brutal to him and he never deleted my posts.
I have no issues with Bum but if he refuses to want to engage in a debate that's fine with me
OMG. I remember that bullshit about advocating kids to shower with adults males so they can stare at their adult penis and deter themselves from being gay.
I didn't think anyone else could be so stupid until Beach agreed with it. ::)
"Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."
Among other reasons:
1. I find it amusing that people who probably don't have a son (a straight one anyway) or kids at all criticize a child rearing expert.
2. I read the entire article and it is a great read. Makes sense to me.
3. I've read Dr. Dobson's books and I think he is a wonderful psychologist.
4. I particularly like this expert, which is a real eye opener IMO:
if I said "Gay people are evil. And it is impossible to regulate evil.", would you be as forgiving with me as you are being with Michael Moore?
would you jump to my defense and say "what if he just meant the bad gay people"?
not all adult males. just their father. Apparently seeing your Dads junk in the shower will render you immune from being gay. Of course Bum insists that is not what Dobson meant when he wrote the article titled
"Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented?"
Even if it isn't your own father, Dobson is preaching some borderline NAMBLA shit there.
I would say that anyone with common sense would find it repulsive, but we are talking about a guy that thinks Bachmann is "brilliant".
Even if it isn't your own father, Dobson is preaching some borderline NAMBLA shit there.
I would say that anyone with common sense would find it repulsive, but we are talking about a guy that thinks Bachmann is "brilliant".
Straw I agree there is room for interpretation and possibly some confusion.
One of the things I took away from the entire article is that boys and girls are different and cannot be raised the same way. They don't talk the same way, walk the same way, they are built differently, they look different. I remember looking at my soon a few years ago and thinking "he walks like a boy." He's a little soft for my tastes (thanks to his mother), but I don't raise him the same way I do my daughters. I recently had the "birds and bees" talk with him and one of the things we talked about is the difference between men and woman, complete with pictures. I have a book that we'll be reading together that talks about, among other things, the different stages of puberty, including how his little wiener will grow, complete with pictures. I don't do the shower thing, but I do the equivalent by showing him pictures of the different stages of, for example, pubic hair growth.
My son and I also recently had a talk about "crying like man." He will still occasionally cry when he is punished (not necessarily corporal punishment either). He was whining like a baby the other day. We talked about what distinguishes a boy from a sissy (I don't believe sissy = homosexual) and how crying when you don't get your way and/or when you get sent to your room makes you look like a sissy. I don't want him acting like a little girl.
So, when I read Dobson's comments, he affirmed what I've already been doing with my own son, namely, highlighting the differences between girls and boys, men and women. There are multiple ways to do this.
I don't have a problem with anything I said I that discussion, including this:
But what that discussion shows is she was the Village Idiot and remains so today. :)
And I'm sure you probably know this, but I take your comments with a grain of salt. You are one creepy mofo.
Absolute truth. She is like a jilted ex-girlfriend. Follows me around like a lost puppy. lol
Your link does not actually reference Polone's article and like your other link (again not his actual article) show no proof that Moore had any knowledge of the relationship between GS and The Weinstein Company.
You mentioned their balance sheet a couple of time. Do you think Moore personally demanded to review their balance sheet and do you think the money from GS was a single line item labeled "MONEY FROM GOLDMAN SACHS"
Are you really an accountant?
Your link does not actually reference Polone's article and like your other link (again not his actual article) show no proof that Moore had any knowledge of the relationship between GS and The Weinstein Company.
You mentioned their balance sheet a couple of time. Do you think Moore personally demanded to review their balance sheet and do you think the money from GS was a single line item labeled "MONEY FROM GOLDMAN SACHS"
Are you really an accountant?
Wait, did you just imply that you've had "girlfriends" who were actually puppies?
Bestiality post reported.
BTW, you're really not a good enough writer to throw in with religious weirdos who want their sons to be cock-gazers, persist in referring to a male poster as "she" (while maintaining that the other poster is the creepy one, no less) and have most people here think you're anywhere near normal.
I don't have a problem with anything I said I that discussion, including this:
But what that discussion shows is she was the Village Idiot and remains so today. :)
And I'm sure you probably know this, but I take your comments with a grain of salt. You are one creepy mofo.
and yes when you prepare a balance sheet you do write the name of the bank in the description line of a bank note or a line of credit or you have it documented in the notes to the financial statements, oftentimes both.
"Bank Note Goldman Sachs" $500,000,000
this entire post by you is ridiculously stupid. its amazing how you can get so much wrong in just a few lines.
Michael Moore follows every penny the Bush administration spent and he doesn't know who his own movie was funded by? again how many times have you heard Michael Moore say "follow the money"?
what? are you fucking serious? for Michael Moore, a guy who is so critical of Goldman Sachs and constantly tells his viewers to "FOLLOW THE MONEY" HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT THE GUYS FUNDING HIS FUCKING MOVIE HAVE A $500 MILLION DOLLAR LIABILITY OWED TO GOLDMAN SACHS. THE BANK HE IS ATTACKING IN SAID DOCUMENTARY!!!!!
you're absolutely ridiculous. you seriously just outed yourself as a fucking idiot.
How can a movie that grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget not turn a profit? It comes down to Tinseltown accounting. As Planet Money explained in an interview with Edward Jay Epstein in 2010, studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.
Confused? Imagine you're running a lemonade stand with your buddy Steve. Your mom says you have to share half your profits with your sister. But you don't wanna! So you pretend your buddy Steve is actually a corporation -- call him Steve, Inc -- charging you rent for the stand, the spoon, etc. "Dang, mom, I don't have any profits, I had to pay it all to Steve, Inc!" you say when you come home. But the money isn't gone. It's as good as yours -- in your best friend's pocket.
Can't be more creepy than sitting down with your child and showing him pictures of cocks and pubic hair. :o WTF? You sure this isn't what was making your son cry? The thought that his daddy was some kind of NAMBLA pervert?
What are you man a part time book keeper a pet shop because you're definitely not an accountant.
Are you really this naive to believe funds from a 500 million investment vehicle sit on their books as a single line item called "Bank Note Goldman Sachs". First of all you have no idea on the terms or tranches of the investment vehicle (I'm guessing you thinks it straight note with simple interest) and you clearly have no clue what kind of whacked accounting actually goes on in the world, much less in the movie business. I have a client who owns a modest amount of real estate and he's got multiple partnerships for various properties and even one partnership that was created just to manage another partnership. That money from GS was no doubt put into scores if not hundreds of different partners ships and corporations and each movie probably has multiple entities.
I thought you would have at least done some research on the completely fucked up world of Hollywood accounting.
Do you realize that Return of the Jedi (ranked 15th on the all time list of box office gross) grossed about 475 million on a budget of 32 million and still hasn't made a profit.
You can read about it here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
If you're too lazy to read you can actually listen to how it works here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/05/the_friday_podcast_angelina_sh.html
I that's still too much work for you here is a simplified version:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
So if Moore was going to look at any balance sheet it would have been for the corporation set up for his own film
If money from Weinstein came from GS then they likely created yet another corporation, partnership or LLC to allocate a portion of those funds to that project. They may well have created multiple separate vehicles to allocate funds to a single movie and they certainly didn't call these entities "Bank Note from Goldman Sachs". If they were going to do anything so simplistic the line item of the balance sheet for Moore film would have been Note from The Weinstein Company but I seriously doubt it would even say that. They may well have lent their own money to themselves (charging interest to the newly formed corporation). They have so many ways to slice and dice that shit it's well beyond your comprehension
So, to take a few lines from your post - you've seriously just outed yourself as a fucking idiot
wow
stop, just stop
::)
What are you man a part time book keeper a pet shop because you're definitely not an accountant.
Are you really this naive to believe funds from a 500 million investment vehicle sit on their books as a single line item called "Bank Note Goldman Sachs". First of all you have no idea on the terms or tranches of the investment vehicle (I'm guessing you thinks it straight note with simple interest) and you clearly have no clue what kind of whacked accounting actually goes on in the world, much less in the movie business. I have a client who owns a modest amount of real estate and he's got multiple partnerships for various properties and even one partnership that was created just to manage another partnership. That money from GS was no doubt put into scores if not hundreds of different partners ships and corporations and each movie probably has multiple entities.
I thought you would have at least done some research on the completely fucked up world of Hollywood accounting.
Do you realize that Return of the Jedi (ranked 15th on the all time list of box office gross) grossed about 475 million on a budget of 32 million and still hasn't made a profit.
You can read about it here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
If you're too lazy to read you can actually listen to how it works here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/05/the_friday_podcast_angelina_sh.html
I that's still too much work for you here is a simplified version:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
So if Moore was going to look at any balance sheet it would have been for the corporation set up for his own film
If money from Weinstein came from GS then they likely created yet another corporation, partnership or LLC to allocate a portion of those funds to that project. They may well have created multiple separate vehicles to allocate funds to a single movie and they certainly didn't call these entities "Bank Note from Goldman Sachs". If they were going to do anything so simplistic the line item of the balance sheet for Moore film would have been Note from The Weinstein Company but I seriously doubt it would even say that. They may well have lent their own money to themselves (charging interest to the newly formed corporation). They have so many ways to slice and dice that shit it's well beyond your comprehension
So, to take a few lines from your post - you've seriously just outed yourself as a fucking idiot
wow
stop, just stop
::)
I've made Bum my bitch so many times that he knows he's better off ignoring me than getting his ass handed to him again.
I was hoping that this time around that Bum would have had the courtesy to explain how the process of Treating and Preventing Gayness actually works. I'm not a christian so I don't understand it at all but Bum said "Makes Sense to Me" so I was really hoping he would help clarify it for the rest of us.
For example, do the three steps have a cumulative power or are they each curative on their own. Do you need to do them in the order listed for them to work. For example, first a bit of rough housing in the backyard then down to the basement for a few hours of square peg pounding and then off to the shower where, as Dobson wrote "the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger." Of course the kid cannot help but notice. His fathers junk is probably at the level of his face. Again, I just don't understand how that helps to "treat" and/or "prevent" gayness.
If the kid shows no signs of being queer can you just stop with the rough housing and a bit of peg pounding.
If the kids already shows signs of being queer will he need multiple "treatments" in order to be cured
I have to admit that I just don't understand how it's supposed to work
you just spent a lot of time and you're still getting it wrong. because your knowledge of accounting is based upon what you read in articles quickly on a search engine.
if Michael Moore is having his movie funded by the Weinstein's and his job is "following the money" of the people he's attacking he should also "follow the money" of the people who are funding him.
and yes formation is an issue for tax purposes as well as legal. so Weinstein could have created a partnership, corporation, etc. in order to minimize taxes and limited liability. but at the end of the day, if there is a loan from Goldman Sachs that is funding the venture then yes there will be a financial statement clearly stating who funded what. whether it be in the body of the financial statement or the notes.
for the purpose of brevity I used the example "Bank Note Goldman Sachs". and you got a little boner and jumped all over it after you looked up your little articles because you don't know anything yourself.
I am well aware of how these investment vehicles work.
my point at the end of the day was that if Michael Moore did ANY research on who was funding his production, it would EXTREMELY EASY to see that the Weinstein's were backed to the tune of $500 million dollars by Goldman Sachs.
you're trying to hard and making yourself look like an idiot.
please just stop it.
and did you realize that the person who directed Return of the Jedi got paid and is a fucking millionaire? are you aware that the movie didn't make a profit but that the directors, producers, actors all got paid millions because none of them are stupid enough to agree to be paid only if it makes money?
you're contradicting your own fucking argument here because you're confused.
please stop. it's embarrassing.
I don't think taking your kids in the bathroom and exposing them to your junk serves any purpose, nor do I think some forms of play or activities are reserved solely for one gender. I also don't ascribe to the notion that homosexuality is something learned and find Dobson's advice on this topic (and many others) to be idiotic.
With that said, based on the copy-pastes in this thread he does make one important point if only tangentially and in passing. That Fathers need to be involved in their kids lives and they are the archetype from which their kids (both male and female) will learn and internalize a lot about what being a man means. That much is certainly true.
So be there for your kids, spend time with them, laugh together, form a genuine connection and show them unconditional love. Behave honorably and teach them what you want to teach them not only by saying but by living it yourself. Your kids will pick up on all the important bits. Oh, and don't worry about the pegs and the holes.
I'm going to amend my statement
I'm guessing now that you are an assistant to a part time book keeper at a local pet shop
First and foremost, Moore would have no right whatsoever to inspect the books of the Weinstein Company and even if he did there is no way GS money is going to be a single line item (again reminding you that this money was likely allocated itself under various partnership, tranches, etc... and not just a lump sum distribution with a simple interest payment).
There is no way you had time to read or listen to any of the information I provided you so I'll make YET AGAIN this simple request
Find proof that Moore had knowledge of the money from GS
I'll ignore the fact that Moore was not a direct client and I'll ignore the fact that GS has many different business ventures which are perfectly legal and the mere fact of having money from them is not an issue.
Just go find me proof of Moore knowledge
technically correct. but Moore was making a movie demonizing Goldman Sachs. the question should have been asked.
"Hey you're funding my movie that is demonizing GS. Are you in any way funded by them?"
Maybe he didn't know. But he didn't question where HE gets HIS money. He just questions where everyone else gets theirs.
STRAW. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GODDAMN THREAD. MOORE IS HYPOCRITICAL BECAUSE HE DEMANDS THAT PEOPLE HOLD THEMSELVS ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY. BUT HE DOESN;T HOLD HIMSELF ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW HE MAKES HIS OWN.
in your quest to be right you ended up contradicting yourself.
and then you post an article on why movies don't make money. yes. that's because they have to pay everybody first. and the big names get the lions share of their money upfront. that's what the article says. and that's what you were saying doesn't happen.
seriously man?
do you not remember what your arguments were 2 pages ago?
I asked you to connect the dots so please explain how Moore directly benefited from the actions of GS which he specifically criticized.
keep in mind the GS paid fines for specific actions that they took. They did not pay fines for merely existing or for other activities which are totally legal and not abusive to the society
Also keep in mind that Moore was not even a direct client of GS
Again, this hypocrisy thing is not hard to understand and you should not have to create a tortured pretzel logic in order to make your point.
and just because you tell yourself that you made someone "your bitch" doesn't mean you actually did. I am finding that out by your posts back and forth with me. you're a tad delusional.
yes, 2 pages ago I made a few simple and obvious points and I asked you to show me some proof he had knowledge and you haven't been able to do so
You have convinced me that you're not an accountant (certainly not a CPA) so congratulations on that "win"
I was actually pretty nice to Bum in those threads and in this one too
I don't understand Dobson's advice about "treating and preventing" gayness
Bum said it made sense to him
I asked him to explain how it works (i.e. how pounding square pegs in square holes or exposing yourself to your child cures or prevents gayness)
that's all I've ever asked him to do
just help me understand how it works
because I can't provide proof that Michael Moore knew that the Weinstein's were funded by GS I can't be a CPA?
do you what a CPA does Straw?
and I don't have any clients the size of MGM or Universal. I do bookkeeping, review and compilation, and tax work for small to mid size businesses. and I know enough to know that if Michael Moore really wanted to know who he was funded by and who they were funded by. a small amount of research would lead him to the truth. you obviously don't know this. because you're not an accountant.
and for the record I never even said that I KNEW this was true. if you look back at my posts you will see that I say that. all i'm saying is that if it IS true, then yes it is extremely hypocritical. and then you go bezerk telling me to PROVE IT.
I can't. can you prove that he wasn't funded by GS?
you just have to scream real loud
"DON'T BE GAY!" and then give them chocolate. everyone knows that. fucking idiot.
you can't be a CPA because you don't seem to be aware of the various ways that this 500 million "investment vehicle" would have been sliced and diced and obfuscated.
There were likely many many people involved who all were creating multiple corporations,partnerships, etc.. to allocate these funds yet you seem to believe it could show up as a single line items on the Weinstein Company Balance Sheet as something as simplistic as "Bank Note Goldman Sachs" and you've claimed it would be "extremely easy" for Moore to be aware of this.
Fine
Then is should be extremely easy for you to prove this
again still ignoring the fact that Moore was not a direct client of GS and that GS engages in many legal business ventures
T
wrong. WHATEVER vehicle they used the notes to their financials of the parent corp for the Weinstein's would need to state the source, the terms, and the amounts. and i'm sorry but if I'm making a movie about GS, and being funded by a large corporation like the Weinstein's. I'm asking that question. and so would you.
like I said before. if Michael Moore did ANY research into where HE was getting HIS money. he would find the truth. but he doesn't care where he gets his money. he just cares where other people get theirs. and he asks until he finds the answer. that's what's hypocritical about him.
IF what the article I posted said was true, he's a hypocrite.
again, you have no clue how the "investment vehicle" was constructed just like you have no clue whether Moore had an knowledge of GS money. You're assuming it was a single lump sum distribution and a simple note when that vehicle could have actually been (almost certainly was) hundreds of corporations and partnerships with hundreds of various partners and owners.
Just stop this nonsense and go show me proof that Moore had knowledge of GS investment (again we'll ignore the obvious fact that GS does have legitimate business ventures for which they have not paid fines, penalties,etc..)
can you agree that if he did know he's a hypocrite?
It would be hypocritical if he benefited from the things that Goldman Sachs did regarding the mortgage/credit crisis and other specific actions that he criticized.
I don't see how GS creating an investment vehicle for a third party that was used in part to finance Sicko qualifies but if you'd like to connect the dots then feel free.
This hypocrisy thing is actually not hard to understand as long as you're not trying conflate things that are not related (same goes for your trying to compare homosexuality to a an economic and political system)
Like I said previously, GS was fined for specific activities and not merely for existing.
If you have any proof that Moore was aware of the association then simply post it and like I've said if he had knowledge of this association then I will absolutely agree with you.
Don't expect me to just believe it because it makes you feel better.
I've answered variations of that question multiple times
here are a couple
so basically he can use money from Goldman Sachs, a bank who is robbing the poor and middle class of America of their savings and ruining the fabric of the economy of the United States through underhanded and dishonest business dealings, as long as the money he gets from them is not from those dishonest business dealings.
Ok. I've heard enough.
...
Ok. I've heard enough.
Thank you. This thread is dumb.
Holy shit, Michael Moore isn't a saint? Stop the presses! I mean, for fuck's sake just because he doesn't live like a monk on a mountain top doesn't mean that he doesn't make good points about some of capitalism's pitfalls. Wasn't there recently a book about the life of Jesus Christ written by some scholarly academic who happened to be Muslim? (Hmmm, this comparison isn't so great when I think about it, but screw it.)
Other than when you accidentally posted that satirical news item, this thread is boring, too.
BTW, Bears, I think you're a standup guy for the way you admitted your mistake there. You did not beat around the bush or make retarded excuses. Rare for this place.
Kudos, honestly.
Another thing to consider.... Does the Mike being a hypocrite or not take anything away from his charges against abuses and unethical practices in the capitalism system?
It's common tactic to attack the messenger to invalidate the message.
I am 100% capilitalist and believe in it 100000% - what abuses do I engage in that the govt needs to get involved in?
The discussion is not about you or your business practices.
But, thanks for asking a question if answered that no one would have the means to verify or validate or even give a shit about. :)
PS: also thank you for not making another of many homo-obsessed OB attack
F that - did you see O-twink on the TV yesterday? Pure BETA - Mobacaa wears the strap on in that family for sure. ;) :D ;D
Thank you. This thread is dumb.
Holy shit, Michael Moore isn't a saint? Stop the presses! I mean, for fuck's sake just because he doesn't live like a monk on a mountain top doesn't mean that he doesn't make good points about some of capitalism's pitfalls. Wasn't there recently a book about the life of Jesus Christ written by some scholarly academic who happened to be Muslim? (Hmmm, this comparison isn't so great when I think about it, but screw it.)
Other than when you accidentally posted that satirical news item, this thread is boring, too.
BTW, Bears, I think you're a standup guy for the way you admitted your mistake there. You did not beat around the bush or make retarded excuses. Rare for this place.
Kudos, honestly.
I am 100% capilitalist and believe in it 100000% - what abuses do I engage in that the govt needs to get involved in?
F that - did you see O-twink on the TV yesterday? Pure BETA - Mobacaa wears the strap on in that family for sure. ;) :D ;D
No I missed this. -Interesting that you didn't though. Why do you bother watching the President when he speaks on television when you feel the way you do about him? Seems like you'd have better more positive things to do with your time.
Was changing channels between Criminal Minds and Law and Order and saw a clip on cable news.
You and my wife would get along well, she also watches Criminal Minds and Law and Order. She does not watch political speeches.....she's a wise woman, most of what nearly all politicians say is bullshit rhetoric designed to sway voters in their direction.
Why do so many liberals have a pro-Muslim, anti-Christian bias?
Why do so many liberals have a pro-Muslim, anti-Christian bias?
NY Times Runs Image of Pope Made of Condoms, But Not Muhammad Cartoons
Jul 01, 2015
(http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/2015/07/01/780/438/070115_nyt.jpg)
As seen on The Kelly File
The New York Times is under fire over its decision to publish a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI that is made of condoms.
The portrait is displayed at the Milwaukee Art Museum, angering Catholics in the area. It's made of 17,000 stretched-out latex condoms in a variety of colors.
The artist said she created the "Eggs Benedict" portrait to express opposition to the former pontiff's claim that condoms could contribute to the spread of AIDS in Africa.
On "The Kelly File," Megyn Kelly and Fox News contributor Marc Thiessen called out the paper for publishing this offensive image, but declining earlier this year to publish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Times and other news outlets refused to show the Muhammad cartoons after the attack on Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo.
"There's no simple, unwavering formula we can apply in situations like this," the Times' associate managing editor for standards Phil Corbett told the Washington Examiner on Monday.
"We really don't want to gratuitously offend anyone's deeply held beliefs. That said, it's probably impossible to avoid ever offending anyone. ... We have to make these judgments all the time. Reasonable people might disagree about any one of them," he said.
Thiessen slammed the Times' "hypocrisy" on the images, saying the Hebdo cartoons were "very newsworthy" once the terror attack took place.
Thiessen recalled that the Times justified the decision on the Muhammad cartoons by saying its policy is not to show images that are "deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities."
"Does a picture of the pope made out of condoms deliberately offend religious sensibilities? Of course it does. This is pure hypocrisy," he said.
Watch the full segment above.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/01/ny-times-runs-image-pope-benedict-made-condoms-not-muhammad-cartoons
I could care less about Michael Moore but why is he a hypocrite because he owns 9 houses???..if he can afford it, then good for him./..He probably gives a lot to charity as well
he gives zero to charity - it all goes to his liberal fat fucking twinkie and ice cream addiction. He is a slob like hillary w zero self control
Just ice cream for me, thank you.
Twinkies are amazing too ya know......sigh.....curse my diabetes.
Yeah well, they are just too sweet for me. I'm not fond of really sugary foods. It's not a diet thing either. When I was a kid I'd scrap all the frosting off a cake before eating it....the cake. s
Andre sticks twinkes in his ass
Scarborough Rips MSM’s Hypocritical ‘Freak Out’ Over Trump Refusal to Blindly Accept Election Result
Comments Permalink
Posted by Mark Finkelstein Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 8:12am
Scarborough to Liberals: Bathe In Your Hypocrisy!
mika-scarborough-mj-10-2o-16
Every couple of weeks, Joe Scarborough rebuilds lost conservative street cred by going on a good rant against liberals and the MSM. He did so in spades on today’s Morning Joe, comprehensively crushing libs for their hypocrisy in “freaking out” over Trump’s wait-and-see answer at last night’s debate to the question of whether he’d accept the results of the election.
Excerpts: “the media got something they can absolutely freak out about and claim that he is an agent of Vladimir Putin and destroying democracy in America and it’s just another example of the media having to find a little phrase and freak out when as a Republican I have listened to Democrats talk about the only two times we won the White House in like 800 years that we stole both elections . . . hell, even Bernie Sanders supporters just six months ago were saying that Hillary Clinton was rigging the election.”
Note: before Joe went on his impressive rant, Mika Brzezinski narrated a good montage that Morning Joe had assembled of statements by the MSM and Dem candidates over the years, including Al Gore and Howard Dean, accusing elections of being “stolen,” etc.
Note Dos: Things even got a bit chippy between Joe and the mild-mannered Harold Ford, Jr., a Hillary backer. When Ford tried to get Joe to acknowledge that there had never been a presidential candidate who had questioned the election results, Scarborough shot back “Harold, Harold, I’m not on the witness stand.”
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Do you know what? This is an example, the media got something they can absolutely freak out about and claim that he’s an agent of Vladimir Putin and destroying democracy in America and it’s just another example of the media having to find a little phrase and freak out when as a Republican I have listened to Democrats talk about the only two times we won the White House in like 800 years that we stole both elections.
I had to sit through Fahrenheit 911 and a lady was sobbing violently behind me on the Upper West Side about the election being stolen from George Bush and I patted her halfway through, I go, it’s all right, it’s all right, ma’am. It’s all right. It’s all a lie anyway.
Democrats have been whining for 16 years, they’re still writing articles about how Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. So this holier-than-thou attitude about this is the first time anyone has suggested that the election is not a sacrosanct process, it’s a joke! So you guys bathe in that hypocrisy if you want to, I’d just like to hear how the debate went. Go ahead, bathe.
HAROLD FORD, JR.: But Joe, you can’t you can’t–the difference is what Michael just said: it’s the candidate himself. You will have spectators, voters, political officials, elected officials all contemplating, writers saying that this didn’t happen this way, they stole it, Bush did this but you never had the presidential candidate do what he did last night —
JOE: So, let me be very specific. My target this morning for my mockery are the very people that are writing articles today on their blogs that are saying [mocking melodramatic tone]: this is a threat to the democracy, the electoral process in America is sacrosanct and if we ever doubt this are we no better than Putin? Those are the people I’m mocking. I’m not comparing him to Al Gore.
FORD: Can you acknowledge there has never been a presidential candidate to do what he did last night?
JOE: Harold, Harold, I’m not on the witness stand here. I am just saying it is rich that the very thing that the Democrats — I had a lady come up to me yesterday who I know very well, she’s a dear, dear friend of the family and she said, oh, Joe, oh, Joe, how horrible will it be if Kate has to grow up in a country with a president that doesn’t respect women any more than Donald Trump? I said, it will be about the same as having middle-school boys grow up in a world where Bill Clinton was President of the United States. It’s pretty bad. And, you know, said —
FORD: I don’t know how that relates to what we’re talking about.
JOE: It relates to the hypocrisy that Democrats forget everything that they’ve been saying on their blogs, in their newspapers, in their magazines over the past 16 years. I’m not even mad about it. It’s very funny and here’s the great thing: it’s all on Google. I ask you to do what Hillary Clinton asked last night. Just Google all of this and you will see that Democrats, who are shocked and stunned and deeply saddened this morning, were the very ones — hell, even Bernie Sanders supporters just six months ago were saying that Hillary Clinton was rigging the election!
Could you imagine if 9/11 happened with today's MSM?That is funny until you realize that probably would be the portrayal. "If only a white male had done it"
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/27/books/involuntary-immigrants.html?pagewanted=all
::)
Involuntary Immigrants
By James M. McPherson;j
Published: August 27, 1995
THE BLACK DIASPORA By Ronald Segal. 477 pp. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $27.50.
DURING the four centuries after Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, some 12 million people left sub-Saharan Africa for the Western Hemisphere. They were not voluntary immigrants. They came aboard slave ships, packed almost literally like sardines. At least one-tenth of them died before they reached the New World. Millions of others perished on the trek from the interior of Africa to the coast, or during the hard months of "seasoning" in the Western Hemisphere. The slave trade brought a demographic disaster to Africa outweighed only by the deaths of even greater numbers of indigenous peoples in the New World from the epidemic diseases Europeans unwittingly carried with them.
I recall a young hitchiker what once became my involuntary girlfriend. Tied to that bed and all, 48 hours of involuntary sex/violence like you wouldn't believe.
Best weekend of my life.
Sorry Ben Carson Critics: Obama Also Referred to Slaves as Immigrants
by Charlie Spiering
7 Mar 2017
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson was roundly criticized by celebrities like Samuel Jackson after he referred to the slaves from Africa as immigrants with dreams and hopes for their children’s futures.
But President Barack Obama used similar language to include African-Americans descended from slaves among the immigrants who helped shape America.
Here is Obama in 2015:
Certainly, it wasn’t easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves. There was discrimination and hardship and poverty. But, like you, they no doubt found inspiration in all those who had come before them. And they were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more.
Here is Carson:
That’s what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=111241
Delivery is a bitch man.
I don't think Carson would have received as much heat if he had delivered it the way Obama did.
Still, it's very hypocritical of people to jump over Carson like this. Absolute bullshit.
The rank and file GOP idiot wanted Trump instead of SEVERAL other decent conservatives that had a real shot at beating Hildabeast.
I voted for Rubio in the primary but I would have loved to vote for most of the other primary candidates.
Now we have an unhinged blowhard that will lose BIG time in the electoral college.
Congrats Trump supporters, you gave the Whitehouse to Hillary. Blame YOURSELF.
Delivery is a bitch man.
I don't think Carson would have received as much heat if he had delivered it the way Obama did.
Still, it's very hypocritical of people to jump over Carson like this. Absolute bullshit.
I agree. I don't have a problem with that either on of them said. Neither of them was trying to downplay slavery.
Very few people try to downplay slavery. Sure, there are some, but really, it's a very small minority.
I do not believe Dr. Carson meant anything negative about the situation and was simply trying to deliver a message about how the US itself is full of immigrants from different backgrounds and different situations.
Women in Elizabeth Warren's office make less than men - report
Published April 05, 2017
Washington Free Beacon
The gender pay gap in Sen. Elizabeth Warren's office is nearly 10 percent wider than the national average, meaning women in the Massachusetts Democrat's office will have to wait longer than most women across the country to recognize Equal Pay Day.
Equal Pay Day, created two decades ago by the National Committee on Pay Equity, is scheduled by using the Census Bureau annual unadjusted gender pay gap to determine how far into the next year women would have to work to match annual earnings of men. Last year's figures, showing that women earned 79.6 percent of what men earned, put Equal Pay Day on Tuesday April 4, more than three months into the calendar year.
However, women working for Warren were paid just 71 cents for every dollar paid to men during the 2016 fiscal year, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.
The median annual earnings for women staffers, $52,750, was more than $20,000 less than the median annual earnings for men, $73,750, according to the analysis of publicly available Senate data.
When calculated using average salaries rather than median, the pay gap expands to just over $26,051, or about 31 percent.
Click here for more on this from the Washington Free Beacon.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/05/women-in-elizabeth-warrens-office-make-less-than-men-report.html
http://www.dailywire.com/news/16567/mainstream-media-anchors-befuddled-when-reminded-hank-berrien
Report: Bernie Sanders Was Paid Over $1 Million in 2016
By Jeffrey Rodack | Monday, 05 Jun 2017
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., made over $1 million in 2016 — with $795,000 of it coming from his best-selling book, "Our Revolution," his U.S. Senate financial disclosure revealed.
Aside from his book, Sanders took in another $63,750 for his upcoming book: "Bernie Sanders' Guide to Political Revolution" and $6,735 in royalties from his 1997 book, "Outsider in the House," the Seven Day newspaper in Vermont reported.
"That's more than $865,000 for peddling his working-class ideas," wrote the paper's John Walters. "No bad."
On top of that, the newspaper noted all rank-and-file members of the Senate earn at least $174,000 a year.
This puts the "self-proclaimed Democratic socialist" in the top 4 percent of Americans in terms of income, The Daily Caller said.
The website said Sanders, who made an unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, has made a political career out of attacking the wealthy.
The Daily Caller also noted Sanders owns three homes, including a $600,000 home on the shore of Lake Champlain.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-paid-millions/2017/06/05/id/794168/
How's this hypocrisy, though? ???
The man whose primary calling card is attacking "millionaires and billionaires" made a million by peddling a book attacking millionaires and billionaires, likely purchased by his much lower income/net worth fans.
I didn't know he attacked millionaires much, but you must admit that the past several months have been the "big bang" for him in his very long life and the time when he's due for his biggest push.
So he made about a million bucks in his busiest year. I don't see how it's inconsistent with anything he's said.
[/youtube]
He's capitalizing on and profiting from his position as a public servant, where his primary message includes attacking people and companies that make and have money.
Things are not going to well for them these days.
Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, According to Donna BrazileTrump was correct again. He been claimed that.
Newsweek ^ | November 2, 2017 | Greg Price
Posted on 11/02/2017 8:52:53 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Hillary Clinton’s campaign took over the Democratic National Committee's funding and day-to-day operations early in the primary season and may have used that power to undermine her rival Senator Bernie Sanders, according to the party's one-time interim chairwoman.
The DNC official, Donna Brazile, now a political analyst, wrote in Politico Magazine on Thursday that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton’s campaign and fundraising arm that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” in exchange for taking care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.
It wasn't illegal, Brazile said, "but it sure looked unethical."
"If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead," Brazile wrote. "This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity."
Brazile wrote that she had “promised” Sanders to find out if the DNC had intentionally “rigged” the primary system in order to prop up Clinton and assure she became the nominee.....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
The 6 Big Ways Liberals Are Destroying America’s Culture
Townhall.com ^ | October 29, 2017 | John Hawkins
Posted on 10/29/2017, 10:14:54 AM by Kaslin
There was a time when we used to be a nation that pushed freedom, responsibility, decency, patriotism and hard work. Some of us still believe in those things, but because of liberalism, much more destructive values have seeped into our culture like toxic waste. There are many ways that liberals have degraded our culture, but these are the worst of the worst.
1) The Politicization Of Everything: Want to watch football? There are players protesting the flag. Turn on a Hollywood awards ceremony? There are actors making political statements. Want to go to the bathroom in peace? Well, first, we need to know if you’re okay with sharing it with someone who feels like the opposite gender today. You’re just a regular person telling an off-color joke you heard? Better be careful; that could turn into a front page scandal if the wrong group gets offended. Want to buy a Halloween costume for your kid? Well, you better make sure it’s someone of the same race or people will be upset. Want to go on a date? If you date someone of the same race, you may be racist. Ready to marry your honey? Then you better support gay marriage or you’re a homophobe. I can remember a time in America where you could just live your life without paying attention to politics at all if you wanted and that was a good thing. Remember that old saying? Never discuss race, religion or politics in polite company? Well, because of liberals, you don’t have a choice anymore.
2) Political Correctness: I hate the idea that some normal person can tell a joke on Twitter and have his life destroyed for it by the liberal fun police. I think it’s disgusting to see that liberals have embraced fascism to such an extent that they can’t tolerate a contrary idea on their college campus. It’s like the whole country is in a relationship with someone who has borderline personality disorder. Everyone’s walking on eggshells because some buttercup might get horribly upset at, well….just about anything. Whatever happened to the idea that if some ordinary thing triggers you, YOU have the problem and it’s something YOU need to work on? Oh, yeah, liberals happened to it.
3) Victimhood: Only in America do people get so excited about the idea of being a victim that they will even fake hate crimes against themselves to get that status. Only in America are there women publicly crying that they were sexually assaulted and traumatized because a 93 year old, wheelchair-bound President pinched their butt. Only in America do we have to come up with things like white privilege and institutional racism because there’s not enough real racism happening to allow liberal minorities to feel like victims. There was a time in America when people wanted to feel strong, capable and able to handle their own problems instead of being victims. There still are people like that today and they’re called conservatives.
4) Liberal Feminism: The original “Women should have the same rights as men” feminism has been so widely accepted in society that it made feminism irrelevant. So, liberal feminists reinvented feminism as a combination of man-hating and victimization. Look out, it’s the patriarchy and rape culture! Don’t you dare hold the door for me! Stop mansplaining! Stop saying, “Not all men!” You just sit there in silence thinking about how you’ve oppressed women! Liberal feminism falsely makes women think they could have it all if those awful men weren’t getting in their way and it makes many guys unsure of what reaction they’ll get from women when they behave like men. Forget about the old “Women should be women and men should be men” philosophy; liberal feminism is about women being men and the men being shamed.
5) Tribalism: Liberals work incessantly to split Americans in ever smaller groups that are at each other’s throats. If you want to get a sense of how bad it has gotten, we’re having ferocious public debates about transsexuals who, depending on how you define it, make up less than .25% to .75% of the population. Increasingly, the attitude is moving from the annoying, “You just can’t understand because of your race/color/gender” to “You HATE ME and I HATE YOU” because of differences that are often unchangeable. This is incredibly dangerous to our future as a country because you can’t hold any group of people including a nation together long term when people no longer believe they share the same goals and values as their neighbors. Our nation’s motto is E pluribus unum (Out of many, one), but what happens when liberals insist that the many never become one?
6) “Non-Judgmentalism”: We’ve heard so many liberals talk about how important it is to be non-judgmental that it has seeped into the culture at large. When there’s a choice between what’s best for society and best for a particular individual who has done something wrong, we always default to protecting that individual. How’s that working out for us? Since the stigma around getting a divorce, having a child out of wedlock or having an abortion has faded, are we better or worse off? Are the kids who are aborted or who get raised by a single parent instead of a family better off? Are the guys who are extremely hesitant to get married because they fear divorce better off? Are we better off because people no longer wonder whether doing something horrible in public will hurt their good name or ruin their family’s reputation? The very fact that we are so unwilling to draw a line in the sand and say “That’s right” or “That’s wrong” has mired our culture in degeneracy. Maybe if there were more people who feel bad when they do things that “wouldn’t make their mothers proud,” there would be a lot more decent human beings.
I wrestle with the idea of being fair to others that are different.
My wife and I are a very wholesome ( aka boring :D) older couple.
We don't drink booze, do drugs, gamble or get into threesomes .
A big night for us, is watching DVR'd reruns of " The Waltons" and some cable news shows .
The highlight of our last vacation trip was watching the sunset from our deck hot tub in the N Ga Mts.
Yup, we're clean living, old farts aka boring old fuks. ;D
Politics aside, the Roy Moore , moral crusading, bible thumpers, puzzle me.
They declare the glory of good Christian values and act like anything sexual is evil.
BUT, behind the scenes, they're often sex freaks and perverts. WTF?
I don't go to any church and refuse to follow any organized religion.
Despite this lack of religion, I consider myself a moral man.
Look at the numerous liberals and conservatives now being outed for sexual harassment.
Many of 'em try to give the impression of being virtuous men .
Now we have a "circular firing squad" for any famous guy who grabbed some booty.
I never had any issues with sexual harassment charges.
Part of that is due to the fact, I've never been a rich or powerful man.
Most of it is from knowing where the harassment line was and being a
gentleman in the company of women.
I honestly think we need to separate the real predator perverts from the typical male.
For starters, stalking under age females like Judge Moore, should never be acceptable.
Using your position of power to coerce woman to have sex should also be declared unacceptable.
Harvey Weinstein is the poster boy for this crap, but it appears Bill Clinton may have tried a version of it
with various woman, like Paula Jones.
Trump's "pussy grabbing "comments crossed the line when he said, being a famous person , ALLOWED him to get away with it.
His other lewd comments might be considered as "locker room talk" or male bravado , etc.
So, in my view, when you try to coerce a woman into allowing you to do something sexual ,it's wrong.
BUT, just thinking or talking about it, may be ok?
LOL, imagine if schmoes around bodybuilding were investigated LOL?! :-*
Your thoughts?
| Newsweek ^ | 11/18/2017 | Tom Porter Posted on 11/21/2017, 11:30:40 AM by simpson96 Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton contrasted the response of Senator Al Franken following an accusation of sexual harrassment to President Donald Trump's reaction after multiple allegations of harassment that emerged during the 2016 election campaign. In an interview with Rita Cosby on WABC radio on Friday, the former secretary of state said that party colleague Franken, who was accused this week of groping a female broadcaster in 2006, acted responsibly by apologizing and requesting the Senate ethics panel investigate his conduct. "I deeply regret what he did," Clinton said. "There's no excuse for his behavior. But he's called for an investigation. He's apologized to the woman involved." She went on to say that is "the kind of accountability I’m talking about.” “I don't hear that from Roy Moore or Donald Trump.” (Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ... |
It beginning to appear that unwanted sexual harassment is the norm as more and more memories are ignited. Soon there will be almost no one who has no such experiences. I'm not sure how going public decades later changes anything.
When I was a teenager, a lady friend of my mom's aggressively kissed me during a party at my parent's beach house. I was a willing participant. The only negative memory of this experience I have is of my step-dad walking in on us and making a scene.
Remember This? Lauer on Trump's Access Hollywood Tape: New ‘Low,’ ‘Final Straw’lol karma is a bitch.
By Scott Whitlock | November 29, 2017
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2017/11/29/remember-lauer-trumps-access-hollywood-tape-new-low-final-straw
lol karma is a bitch.
The media landscape has changed MASSIVELY just over the past year.
Project Veritas. Sargon of Akkad. Alex Jones. Ben Shapiro. Styxhexenhammer666. Mark Dice. Rogan. The Rubin Report.
People are cutting the cords. They are ditching Hollywood. The NFL. Mainstream legacy media.
Favorable media coverage is worth 20 to 30 points come election night.
The Left owned that advantage wholesale for the past 50+ years and now they are losing it right before our very eyes.
W unleashes the massive Thug Life Bitch Slap to Matt Lawer "You mattered alot more back then"
You people seem to be fixated on the word "liberal" when in reality it is anything but.
The left has been hijacked by fringe groups commanded by billionaires.
It certainly isn't liberalism, it's something else.
I consider myself a true liberal and have no problem recognizing the fact that the current left isn't about leftist ideals, it's something else.
(https://s2.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/1YCTV7RCv2VwO6wyMVZjUA--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3E9NzU7dz02NDA7c209MTtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/d891b64aac624fef870207dfcca02e60.jpg)
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Democratic Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, the head of the Legislative Women's Caucus and a leading figure in the state's anti-sexual harassment movement, is accused of groping a male staffer from another lawmaker's office, according to a report published Thursday.
The incident occurred in a dugout after a softball game in 2014 and now is being investigated by the Assembly, Politico reported. Daniel Fierro didn't report it at the time but in January mentioned it to his former boss, Democratic Assemblyman Ian Calderon, who reported it to Assembly leaders.
Fierro, who was 25 at the time, said after the game Garcia stroked his back, squeezed his buttocks and attempted to touch his crotch. He said he was interviewed by an outside law firm hired by the Assembly Rules Committee last Friday. Politico also reported that a lobbyist who declined to be named claimed Garcia made crude sexual comments and tried to grab his crotch at a 2017 fundraiser.
Garcia, who has spoken out strongly against her male colleagues who have been accused of sexual harassment, said she was unaware of the claims until Thursday.
"Every complaint about sexual harassment should be taken seriously and I will participate fully in any investigation that takes place," the Los Angeles-area lawmaker said in a statement. "I have zero recollection of engaging in inappropriate behavior and such behavior is inconsistent with my values."
Fierro and the lobbyist said it appeared Garcia was inebriated at the time of the encounters.
In a November interview with The Associated Press about alcohol-fueled fundraisers and other after-work events that are a part of regular business in Sacramento, Garcia said blaming alcohol isn't an acceptable excuse for sexually inappropriate behavior. It's men who chose to misbehave, not the social events themselves, that create the problems, she said.
"I would say that most of the public realizes that our job is based on relationships, and so we are expected to go out there and socialize," she said. "I think our public also expects us to hold ourselves to a higher standard."
The Assembly committee said last week that eight allegations of sexual harassment are pending in the Assembly but did not divulge any names. Debra Gravert, the chief administrative officer, didn't respond to an email from The Associated Press seeking confirmation that Garcia is under investigation and clarifying whether Fierro's allegation is one of the eight pending.
Fierro, of Cerritos, now runs a communications firm. He previously worked for Calderon, who became the majority leader. Lerna Shirinian, Calderon's communications director, said Fierro told her about the incident right after it happened.
"He was in shock, I was in shock — but the culture was very different back then," Shirinian said.
Garcia was elected in 2012 and has carved out a name as a champion of women's issues and environmental health for poor communities. She chairs the Women's Caucus and her photo was featured in Time Magazine's Person of the Year issue on being one of the "Silence Breakers" on sexual harassment.
"I refuse to work with (Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra) and anyone who takes part in harassment or assault," she tweeted in October after it was reported Bocanegra had been disciplined in 2009 for groping a colleague. Bocanegra later resigned after more women made public accusations.
Garcia was a fierce advocate for legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday giving legislative staff members whistleblower protections for reporting sexual misconduct or other misbehavior, speaking at a rally on the Capitol steps after its passage. She's tweeted repeatedly about the importance of sexual consent in recent days.
Democratic Sen. Connie Leyva, co-chair of the women's caucus, said she was "shocked and disturbed" at the allegations and she will ask the group to meet soon to discuss Garcia's fate as leader.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/male-staffer-accuses-california-assemblywoman-misconduct-003752466.html
Nancy Pelosi Didn’t Used To Think $40 Was ‘Crumbs’
AMBER ATHEY
Media Reporter
02/08/2018
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been trashing the $1000 bonuses companies are giving to employees because of tax reform, but her comments don’t square with what she said about an Obama-era payroll tax cut.
In Obama’s second term, the White House boasted that they had extended a payroll tax cut that would give Americans $40 extra dollars per paycheck — about $2000 a year.
Pelosi tweeted about how helpful the $40 would be for families, writing, “each paycheck will make a difference.”
Nancy PelosiVerified account
@NancyPelosi
Follow Follow @NancyPelosi
Today's agreement is a victory for the American people-they spoke out clearly & #40dollars each paycheck will make a difference.
4:08 PM - 22 Dec 2011
Yet after businesses began giving employees $1000 and $2000 bonuses, plus additional benefits, Pelosi repeatedly called the money “crumbs.” (RELATED: Pelosi: $1,000 Is ‘Crumbs’ For The Middle Class)
Despite backlash over her insistence that the bonuses weren’t significant for middle class families, Pelosi doubled down on her comments, stating, “They give banquets to… the high end, to corporate America, and I say ‘crumbs.'”
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/08/nancy-pelosi-didnt-used-to-think-40-was-crumbs/
GOP rep unveils 'Crumbs Act' to make bonuses tax-free, in swipe at Pelosi
A Republican lawmaker is set to unveil legislation that would make most bonuses given out as a result of President Trump's tax reform plan tax-free -- and took a jab at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi with the bill's name.
Rep. Todd Rokita, R-Ind., has dubbed his bill the "Creating Relief and Useful Middle-Class Benefits and Savings" -- or "CRUMBS" Act. Pelosi, D-Calif., famously referred to the bonuses as "crumbs" in criticizing the tax plan last month.
"Americans are receiving thousands of dollars in bonuses and more money in their paychecks thanks to President Trump's tax reform, but out-of-touch Democratic leaders believe they only amount to crumbs," Rokita said in a statement. "The CRUMBS Act will let Americans keep more of the money they receive as a result of President Trump's tax reform, and allow them, not the government, to choose how best to spend their bonuses
Rokita's bill would make bonuses received by workers in 2018 tax-free up to $2,500. Since tax reform was signed into law this past December, multiple companies have given out bonuses and pay raises in anticipation of increased tax savings.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/13/gop-rep-unveils-crumbs-act-to-make-bonuses-tax-free-in-swipe-at-pelosi.html
GOP rep unveils 'Crumbs Act' to make bonuses tax-free, in swipe at Pelosi
A Republican lawmaker is set to unveil legislation that would make most bonuses given out as a result of President Trump's tax reform plan tax-free -- and took a jab at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi with the bill's name.
Rep. Todd Rokita, R-Ind., has dubbed his bill the "Creating Relief and Useful Middle-Class Benefits and Savings" -- or "CRUMBS" Act. Pelosi, D-Calif., famously referred to the bonuses as "crumbs" in criticizing the tax plan last month.
"Americans are receiving thousands of dollars in bonuses and more money in their paychecks thanks to President Trump's tax reform, but out-of-touch Democratic leaders believe they only amount to crumbs," Rokita said in a statement. "The CRUMBS Act will let Americans keep more of the money they receive as a result of President Trump's tax reform, and allow them, not the government, to choose how best to spend their bonuses
Rokita's bill would make bonuses received by workers in 2018 tax-free up to $2,500. Since tax reform was signed into law this past December, multiple companies have given out bonuses and pay raises in anticipation of increased tax savings.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/13/gop-rep-unveils-crumbs-act-to-make-bonuses-tax-free-in-swipe-at-pelosi.html
Brilliant. lol :)Agreed love it.
Obama Called Putin in 2012 to Congratulate Him on His Election Victory
By Theodore Bunker | Wednesday, 21 Mar 2018
In 2012, President Barack Obama called Russian President-elect Vladimir Putin to "to congratulate him on his recent victory," just as President Donald Trump and other world leaders did following Putin's re-election this year.
Trump congratulated Putin on Tuesday, over the objections of his national security advisers, for winning what international election monitors called an "overtly controlled" election, according to CNN.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., slammed the president for "congratulating dictators on winning sham elections," in a Tweet.
In 2012, the White House released a statement in the late afternoon on a Friday stating that "President Obama called Russian President-elect and Prime Minister Putin to congratulate him on his recent victory in the Russian Presidential election," according to Foreign Policy.
Putin's election in 2012 sparked similar criticisms from international election authorities, one observer noted that the race had "no real competition," and that "the ultimate winner of the election was never in doubt," according to The New York Times.
However, The Washington Post notes that even Trump's own advisers warned against congratulating Putin at this time, following the poisoning of a former Russian spy in the U.K. and the ongoing investigation into Russian election interference and connections to the Trump campaign.
In his briefing materials that day, Trump's advisers had included a note stating: "DO NOT CONGRATULATE."
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama-putin-victory-congratulations/2018/03/21/id/849925/
What’s genius for Obama is scandal when it comes to Trump
BY BEN SHAPIRO, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/20/18
On Sunday, The Guardian reported on the supposedly nefarious workings of President Trump’s data-gathering team at Cambridge Analytica. The report suggested that Cambridge Analytica had essentially issued questionnaires through a third party; those questionnaires, which were personality quizzes, requested that you use your Facebook login. Cambridge Analytica then compiled data regarding those who completed the quiz and cross-referenced that data with political preferences in order to target potential voters.
This isn’t particularly shocking. In 2012, The Guardian reported that President Obama’s reelection team was “building a vast digital data operation that for the first time combines a unified database on millions of Americans with the power of Facebook to target individual voters to a degree never achieved before.”
What, exactly, would Obama be doing? According to The Guardian, Obama’s new database would be gathered by asking individual volunteers to log into Obama’s reelection site using their Facebook credentials. “Consciously or otherwise,” The Guardian states, “the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page — home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends — directly into the central Obama database.”
Facebook had no problem with such activity then. They do now. There’s a reason for that. The former Obama director of integration and media analytics stated that, during the 2012 campaign, Facebook allowed the Obama team to “suck out the whole social graph”; Facebook “was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.” She added, “They came to [the] office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”
Not so with Trump. As soon as Facebook realized that Cambridge Analytica had pursued a similar strategy, they suspended the firm.
Again, this isn’t surprising. Since Trump’s election, Democrats — in search of a rationale for their favored candidate’s defeat — have blamed a bevy of social media outlets. Senate Democrats trotted out pathetic Russian-created memes on Facebook, viewed by a handful of human beings, as an excuse for Hillary’s loss; Democrats claimed — without evidence — that “fake news” had swamped Facebook and thus led to Trump’s victory. Democrats have also insisted that Facebook be regulated. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) raged, “You’ve created these platforms, and now they’re being misused, and you have to be the ones to do something about it. Or we will.” Facebook’s former privacy manager called for the government to step into an oversight role regarding Facebook.
In February, Wired magazine ran a cover story specifically dealing with Facebook’s role in the election of 2016, and their subsequent attempts to “fix” the problem. After the election, Mark Zuckerberg even met with Barack Obama, apparently in an attempt to convince Obama that he was serious about stopping the “misuse” of the platform. And in February, Zuckerberg said he wanted to re-jigger the algorithms on his platform to benefit content that Facebook deems “trustworthy, informative, and local.” Wired celebrated: “You can’t make the world more open and connected if you’re breaking it apart.”
The result of Facebook’s algorithmic changes: conservatives have been slammed. And that’s the point. A study from The Western Journal found that conservative sites have lost an average of 14 percent of their Facebook traffic; leftist sites saw a minor increase. Even major publications saw that effect: The New York Daily News saw a bump of 24.18 percent, while the New York Post dropped 11.44 percent.
And that’s the goal in covering Cambridge Analytica, and Russian interference on Twitter, and all the rest — even without any serious information suggesting that such interference shifted votes, the left can rest assured that its Silicon Valley allies will act to de-platform Republicans and conservatives. There’s a reason Twitter has suspended alt-right racists but continued to recommend that others follow Louis Farrakhan; there’s a reason YouTube is being sued by Prager University; there’s a reason Google used automatic fact-checking on right-wing sites but did no such thing for left-wing sites.
We’re in the midst of a radical reshifting in social media. Ironically, the people who have stumped against regulation — conservatives — are those being targeted by social media companies. If companies like Facebook, YouTube, Google and Twitter don’t start acting like platforms again rather than like motivated left-wing outlets, Republicans likely won’t let principle outweigh practicality for long.
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-for-obama-is-scandal-when-it-comes-to-trump
Very interesting & quite worrying at the same time if the above is true
Looks likely we are attempted to be “controlled” “brainwashed” by many
Different forms of media.
Do any of us really escape all of it
I’d like to think I was - Now the more that comes out I’m doubting that is the case.
Man it is worse than you think. If you want an eye opening look at how the public gets manipulated by the media you should read The Smear by Sharyl Attikisson. I really don't trust anything I read or hear from news outlets.
That’s the same as me - question everything I read or hear from news providers
And very frequently I’m proved right to do so - as when the full facts / story is uncovered
It bares little resemblance to what was put out by the news.!!
I will be looking for a 2nd hand copy of that book.
Thanks.
Man it is worse than you think. If you want an eye opening look at how the public gets manipulated by the media you should read The Smear by Sharyl Attikisson. I really don't trust anything I read or hear from news outlets.
Sheep follow, not lead. Regardless of what side of the political spectrum folks are on, the tend to mirror the media from that perspective. What is most lacking is independent thinkers who are not afraid to buck the flock.
I agree.
We agree. Who would of thought?
Dershowitz is absolutely right. Where is the ACLU? Where are all those leftists who supposedly care about privacy and individual rights?
Alan Dershowitz: Today is a 'very dangerous day for lawyer-client relations'
by Pete Kasperowicz
April 09, 2018
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz warned Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller's decision to raid President Trump's personal lawyer's office is an assault on the privileged lawyer-client relationship.
Dershowitz said on Fox News that he believes the decision to raid Michael Cohen's office would be a sign that Mueller is trying to turn Cohen against Trump.
"This may be an attempt to squeeze Cohen," he said. "He's the lawyer, he's the guy who knows all the facts about Donald Trump, and to get him to turn against his client."
"This is a very dangerous day today for lawyer-client relations," he added.
Dershowitz, who has drawn the ire of Democrats for defending Trump, said Mueller's move is also dangerous because it gives the FBI the option of deciding what information seized from Cohen to pursue.
"I tell [clients] on my word of honor that what you tell me is sacrosanct," he said. "And now they say, just based on probable cause ... they can burst into the office, grab all the computers, and then give it to another FBI agent and say, 'You're the firewall. We want you now to read all these confidential communications, tell us which ones we can get and which ones we can't get.'"
"If this were Hillary Clinton being investigated and they went into her lawyer's office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America, jumping up and down," he added.
"The deafening silence from the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling," Dershowitz said.
The famed law professor said Mueller's move will only convince more people not to cooperate and said he believes Mueller has "lost perspective" in the case.
Dershowitz recommended that Trump make a motion in court to take Cohen's materials away from the FBI and make a judge decide what evidence can be used and which cannot.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-today-is-a-very-dangerous-day-for-lawyer-client-relations
Alan Dershowitz says a lot of very interesting things in that statement
And he’s likely very right how this could pan out in the long run for
Every one & the future of client / lawyer confidentiality
It not just trump all politicians etc are now vulnerable if the lawyers are raided.
Dangerous precedent.
Agreed
I don’t see how anyone can argue that it isn’t a dangerous precedent
Though I’m sure Some will be along to say we’re wrong & this is all for the best... ::)
I'm really concerned about the overall climate. I have some very smart friends who are off the reservation. They hate Trump so much they don't care what it takes to injure him or get him impeached. What do they think is going to happen if a Democrat ever wins the White House again?
Dershowitz is absolutely right. Where is the ACLU? Where are all those leftists who supposedly care about privacy and individual rights?
Alan Dershowitz: Today is a 'very dangerous day for lawyer-client relations'
by Pete Kasperowicz
April 09, 2018
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz warned Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller's decision to raid President Trump's personal lawyer's office is an assault on the privileged lawyer-client relationship.
Dershowitz said on Fox News that he believes the decision to raid Michael Cohen's office would be a sign that Mueller is trying to turn Cohen against Trump.
"This may be an attempt to squeeze Cohen," he said. "He's the lawyer, he's the guy who knows all the facts about Donald Trump, and to get him to turn against his client."
"This is a very dangerous day today for lawyer-client relations," he added.
Dershowitz, who has drawn the ire of Democrats for defending Trump, said Mueller's move is also dangerous because it gives the FBI the option of deciding what information seized from Cohen to pursue.
"I tell [clients] on my word of honor that what you tell me is sacrosanct," he said. "And now they say, just based on probable cause ... they can burst into the office, grab all the computers, and then give it to another FBI agent and say, 'You're the firewall. We want you now to read all these confidential communications, tell us which ones we can get and which ones we can't get.'"
"If this were Hillary Clinton being investigated and they went into her lawyer's office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America, jumping up and down," he added.
"The deafening silence from the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling," Dershowitz said.
The famed law professor said Mueller's move will only convince more people not to cooperate and said he believes Mueller has "lost perspective" in the case.
Dershowitz recommended that Trump make a motion in court to take Cohen's materials away from the FBI and make a judge decide what evidence can be used and which cannot.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-today-is-a-very-dangerous-day-for-lawyer-client-relations
The FBI's Labor Day weekend document dump regarding its investigation of Hillary Clinton gives those who thought the result was predetermined much to complain about. The FBI's notes confirm that her former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was among the several lawyers representing Clinton in her FBI interview. Mills was hip-deep in the events at the heart of the FBI's criminal investigation and was herself a material witness who had previously sat for her own interview. Yet not only was she allowed by the Department of Justice to participate as counsel in Clinton's interview, her communications with Clinton and other material witnesses also were actively protected by the Department of Justice throughout the criminal and civil investigations.
Typically, the DOJ would look askance where a material witness sought to act as a lawyer for the subject of a federal criminal investigation. In Mills's case, Justice lawyers went out of their way to accommodate this highly unusual dual-hat role. For those who wonder whether Clinton's FBI interview was all for show, Mills's participation as a lawyer should be Exhibit A.
Mills, who was a regular correspondent with Clinton on Clinton's home-brewed email, testified as a fact witness about her personal knowledge of Clinton's email setup in both the FBI investigation and related civil depositions. At the same time, Mills purported to represent Clinton as her lawyer. Mills was not, however, a lawyer for Clinton during her tenure at the State Department. Her title was "Chief of Staff and Counselor." But the "counselor" position was, according to Mills's testimony in one of the many Clinton email FOIA cases, "not a lawyer role"; it was a "policy role." Mills contends that, after leaving the State Department in 2013, she was hired by Clinton as her personal lawyer to coordinate the response to State's demand for return of her emails.
Mills's dual role as fact witness and lawyer posed considerable obstacles to uncovering the truth about Clinton's email scheme. In a civil deposition ordered by a federal judge, Mills frequently invoked the attorney-client privilege to avoid answering questions about Clinton's email setup. When asked about the email setup and in particular conversations that she might have had with Clinton's IT specialist, Bryan Pagliano
If you remember back in May, the Washington Post reported that Mills and her attorney walked out of her FBI interview after an agent apparently asked about a topic that was “off-limits.” The article stated:
The questions that were considered off-limits had to do with the procedure used to produce emails to the State Department so they could possibly be released publicly, the people said. Mills, an attorney herself, was not supposed to be asked questions about that — and ultimately never was in the recent interview — because it was considered confidential as an example of attorney-client privilege, the people said.
The article did note that Mills was an attorney, but never really explained the circumstances surrounding what happened and why that topic was protected by attorney-client privilege. We found out more information a few weeks after Mills’ gave a separate deposition in a FOIA lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch.
During the deposition, Mills’ attorney, Beth Wilkinson, objected to a number of questions on the basis of attorney-client privilege and instructed Mills not to answer various questions. It was further explained that Clinton left the State Department in 2013, she then hired Mills to serve as part of her personal legal team. In that capacity, Mills claimed she helped coordinate Clinton’s response to the demand that she return her emails to the State Department. Therefore, Mills would claim attorney-client privilege prevented her from answering questions about how they decided to turnover documents.
However, Mills could not claim attorney-client privilege covered information she learned during her time as Clinton’s Chief of Staff. So, as Shannen Coffin, a former DOJ attorney, recently explained in an article at the Weekly Standard, “To fix that problem, Mills conveniently claimed that she did not know anything about Clinton’s email setup during her tenure at the State Department and only learned of relevant facts in her later capacity as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer.”
For example, during the FOIA deposition, Mills was asked a question about why Clinton started using the clintonemail.com system. Her attorney objected to question, saying that was also covered by attorney-client privilege.
“[Mills] — she learned this — refreshed her recollection — when she was acting as the Secretary’s lawyer, producing documents to the State Department,” Wilkinson said.
This essentially allowed Mills to claim attorney-client privilege covered any question, so long as Mills either first learned the information or refreshed her recollection about the information in her capacity as part of Clinton’s legal team, after leaving the State Department.
What do you think will happen when a Democrat is elected President? More to the point, what do you think will happen in the 2018 midterm elections when Democrats out number Republicans in the House?
Should Trump be impeached, Pence will become president. Mike Pence is known to be much more conservative than Trump. If Pence was impeached, Paul Ryan becomes president.
I think the next Democrat president (if any) will be viciously attacked using any means necessary, regardless of merit, which is precisely what is happening now.
I have no idea what will happen in 2018. I don't trust the polls. I also don't discount the effect of two years of 90 percent negative news coverage, Republican voter apathy, etc.
Trump isn't going to be impeached or removed from office. That is crazy talk.
In reference to the Don Equis post regarding Alan Dershowitz comments on Fox News.
Hillary Clinton was never accused of having extra-marital affairs which she covered up by paying off her lovers hush money. Why even bring up Hillary. She was not elected President, at least not by the Electoral College.
Rob Rosenstein personally signed the FBI's order to raid Michael Cohen's office. Armed with court-approved search warrants, FBI agents fanned out across Manhattan and reportedly seized computers, tax documents, emails, communications and business documents from Cohen's home, his office at a law firm in Rockefeller Center and his hotel room on Park Avenue.
The raids were carried out by FBI agents working with the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan, which is headed by a Trump administration appointee, Geoffrey S. Berman.
FYI not everything discussed between a client and their lawyer is protected by attorney client privilege. This suggests Dershowitz either lies to his clients or he's intentionally omitting the exceptions. It's interesting to note that not all attorney's seem to understand the complexities of laws.
Are you calling me crazy? ;D
Another question, do you think Trump will pardon those who are implicated and criminally charged in this mess, including possibly himself?
If we are being intellectually honest, and looking at all of the facts and circumstances, this has to start with Hillary Clinton and the DNC. Some facts:
1. Hillary Clinton and DNC paid for the Russia dossier. Varying reports, but apparently more than $10 million.
2. The dossier includes information obtained from Russian operatives.
3. The dossier, according to Comey, is "salacious and unverified."
4. The dossier was used by the Obama administration to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. In other words, Hillary Clinton paid for a warrant to spy on her political opponent.
5. McCabe confirmed that without the dossier, there be no warrant.
6. The dossier was used as the basis to start an investigation into Trump conspiring with Russia to win the presidential election.
7. To date, there is zero evidence of collusion.
8. All of the criminal charges and convictions to date have nothing to do with collusion or implicate Trump in any wrongdoing.
9. Mueller made a "referral" to the U.S. Attorney's office to seize the files of Trump's personal attorney to investigate whether his lawyer's payment to a porn star violated campaign spending laws. This, obviously, has nothing to do with collusion.
10. No Clinton/DNC $10+ million dollars, no Russia dossier. No Russia dossier, no investigation or appointment of a special counsel. No special counsel, no warrant, no seizure of files.
So yes, Hillary Clinton is at the center of all of this.
Also, you should read up on Mueller's history of accusing innocent people of crimes. It's very disturbing.
You're off on another distracting tangent, I see.
Will you provide me the link to Mueller's history of accusing innocent people of crimes. I'd like to find out for myself how disturbing it is.
In reference to the Don Equis post regarding Alan Dershowitz comments on Fox News.
Hillary Clinton was never accused of having extra-marital affairs which she covered up by paying off her lovers hush money. Why even bring up Hillary. She was not elected President, at least not by the Electoral College.
You're off on another distracting tangent, I see.
Will you provide me the link to Mueller's history of accusing innocent people of crimes. I'd like to find out for myself how disturbing it is.
Look up Steve Hatfill (also Bruce Ivins for more context). Mueller remains unrepentant.
You asked this question:
I responded by explaining why Hillary Clinton is at the center of this. You can disagree, but I gave you facts.
Regarding Mueller, check out this story:
Robert Mueller Has Been Botching Investigations Since The Anthrax Attacks
By Daniel Ashman
FEBRUARY 8, 2018
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/robert-mueller-botching-investigations-since-anthrax-attacks/
I've already read that article, it is not worth wasting my time on again.
The Federalist....what a laugh! https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/. You should think about finding some new sources because currently the ones you use are too bias. ;)
::)https://d2l0v4hxjnvcrz.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/15/ajQYnOSeCjqS9wxIsq2c-480x336.jpg
We go from "Occupy wall street" to this in the matter of one presidential election:
This is an excellent question.
this writer really activates my almonds :-\;D
Video: Eric Schneiderman receives award from women's group on May 2, 2018
Daily Mail ^ | May 2, 2018
Posted on 5/9/2018, 7:35:53 AM by grundle
New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman was honored by the National Institute for Reproductive Health as one of the 2018 Champions of Choice.
Video at link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1684492/Video-Eric-Schneiderman-receives-award-womens-group-2.html
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!
Ayanna Pressley, 'cancel rent' advocate, discloses thousands of dollars in rental income
Rep. Pressley has been one of the most prominent advocates for canceling rent during the COVID-19 pandemic
By Peter Hasson | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ayanna-pressley-cancel-rent-thousands-dollars-income
round here......... all the landlords are starting to out smart the system and making sure their apartment building accidentally catches on fire..
No need for rent when you can just collect from insurance :-)
thats one way to deal with freeloaders
I heard the son of an elderly couple from WA talk about how his elderly, retired parents who rely on rental income got screwed. Talked to an older friend of mine today who is in the same boat. All the talk is about renters. Not much gets said about the landlords.
2019:Now:
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/09/01/21/47389529-9947471-image-a-37_1630527313713.jpg)
"I'm not going to get into private diplomatic conversations or leaked transcripts of phone calls"
As long as you are "feeling the spirit," and a Democrat, you are good.
San Francisco Mayor Defends Criticism After Video Catches Her Dancing Maskless at Night Club
September 20, 2021
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/09/20/san-francisco-mayor-london-breed-defends-criticism-after-video-dancing-maskless-night-club/
It was obvious at the time, but it’s no longer disputable that the CIA, Big Tech & corporate press colluded with the DNC to censor true reporting about clear political corruption by Hunter Biden, and serious evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement.
Conservatives and Trump supporters will not be surprised by this, but my hope is that any liberal/left-leaning who consider themselves good-faith actors, and not simply win-at-all-costs ideological fighters, will listen to this and consider its meaning & long-term implications.
It is possible to be happy, in a general sense, that Trump is no longer President while still recognizing that what the CIA & Big Tech did w/the Hunter laptop reporting was a perhaps unprecedented perversion our system. It’s the kind of thing that ends republics.
Imagine in 2016: If Big Tech & the corporate press banned any discussion of the Trump Access Hollywood tape. Imagine the execs making the decision were long-time GOP operatives. Imagine the CIA published conscious lies about its authenticity. What would you think?
You might think: This election was stolen. And you’d be right. The CIA, Big Tech & media didn’t do this to protect Biden’s historical memory; they did it to affect the outcome of the 2020 election. The Founders would’ve done more than break a few windows at the Capitol over it.
The FBI spied on the 2016 Trump campaign. The CIA colluded against the 2020 Trump campaign. When these things happen, we no longer have even the fig leaf of a representative government. When these things happen, the government is no longer legitimate.
This pretty much sums up how the 2020 election was influenced/impacted by big tech / gov't coverups.
No conspiracies, all facts.
Yes the liberals who cried afoul after 2016 will turn a blind eye here, or make excuses.
https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1441063320975396867?s=20
Probably the biggest scandal of my lifetime. But don't expect any apology tours from all of the people (in media, Congress, etc.) who participated in and pushed this conspiracy theory.
Probably the biggest scandal of my lifetime. But don't expect any apology tours from all of the people (in media, Congress, etc.) who participated in and pushed this conspiracy theory.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_XIDEIWUAE0GBA?format=jpg&name=large)
Probably the biggest scandal of my lifetime. But don't expect any apology tours from all of the people (in media, Congress, etc.) who participated in and pushed this conspiracy theory.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_XIDEIWUAE0GBA?format=jpg&name=large)
They will not be punished.
And the TDS infected will keep their heads in the sand, because it helped accomplish their goal, democracy be damned.
They are such incredible partisan hack hypocrites.
O’Donnell added to the liberal MSNBC audience that Biden has stressed the importance of the climate change meetings that might have put him to sleep.
"A moment like that in a session, can be a political obstacle," O’Donnell said before attempting damage control.
(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2021/11/1862/1048/sleepy-Biden.png?ve=1&tl=1)
Former President Trump has long referred to his political rival as "Sleepy" Joe Biden. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
"It is also true that the hours are long, the time differences are real and the president has kept a rigorous schedule over several days, having lots of meetings, appearances and speeches," she said. "And, quite a late night last night."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nbc-news-reporter-biden-nap-political-obstacle
A video clip first shared by a reporter for The Washington Post shows Mr Biden listening to a speaker remarking that the world leaders assembled for the conference have the “power to make decisions and reach agreements which will affect the lives of generations to come” when the president appeared to close his eyes for roughly 20 seconds.
An aide then approached and began to whisper to Mr Biden, who turned his head to listen briefly before he began listening to the speech once more.
Is that the best you can do Trumptard ?
Did Faux News happen to mention his eyes were closing for a WHOPPING 20 SECONDS
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-falls-asleep-cop26-today-b1949270.ht
Is that the best you can do Trumptard ?
Did Faux News happen to mention his eyes were closing for a WHOPPING 20 SECONDS
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-falls-asleep-cop26-today-b1949270.html
What's next - will you idiots bring up the controversy of the color of his suit or that he used a binder clip
Ted Lieu Can't Fly to DC Due to 'Ongoing Health Emergency' But Just Vacationed in Bermuda and Hawaii, Attended NFL Game
By Jennifer Van Laar | Jan 14, 2022
https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2022/01/14/ted-lieu-cant-fly-to-dc-due-to-ongoing-health-emergency-but-just-vacationed-in-bermuda-and-hawaii-attended-nfl-game-n506897
Just think about how the Media would have reported this 24/7 if this was Trump.
Democrats Decried Dark Money. Then They Won With It in 2020.
A New York Times analysis reveals how the left outdid the right at raising and spending millions from undisclosed donors to defeat Donald Trump and win power in Washington.
For much of the last decade, Democrats complained — with a mix of indignation, frustration and envy — that Republicans and their allies were spending hundreds of millions of difficult-to-trace dollars to influence politics.
“Dark money” became a dirty word, as the left warned of the threat of corruption posed by corporations and billionaires that were spending unlimited sums through loosely regulated nonprofits, which did not disclose their donors’ identities.
Then came the 2020 election.
Spurred by opposition to then-President Trump, donors and operatives allied with the Democratic Party embraced dark money with fresh zeal, pulling even with and, by some measures, surpassing Republicans in 2020 spending, according to a New York Times analysis of tax filings and other data.
NYT actually trying to get back to journalism?And they reported the illegals being flown all over the country in the middle of the night at the Tax payers dime.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats-dark-money-donors.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Gavin Newsom's claim about wearing mask at NFC championship contradicted by Rams 'fan cam'
Newsom claimed he only took off his mask to snap a photo with Magic Johnson and have a glass of water.
By Sam Dorman | Fox News
(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/01/1862/1048/Newsome-Rams-stadium.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gavin-newsom-claim-wearing-mask-rams-game-fan-cam
Shots fired. :o
Marjorie Taylor Greene Says Stacey Abrams ‘Has a Real Issue With Obesity,’ Accuses Her of Being a ‘Hypocrite’
By Michael Luciano Feb 16th, 2022
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said in a radio interview on Wednesday that Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D) “has a real issue with obesity” and that “if anyone should be wearing three or four masks, it should be Stacey Abrams.”
Earlier this month, Abrams received a wave of criticism after she posted a photo of herself maskless at elementary school in Georgia as children around her were all wearing masks. She later apologized.
Greene has long been an opponent of Covid-19 restrictions, including masks. She has been particularly outspoken against masking children. She reiterated her opposition to them on The Chris Salcedo Show.
“Don’t forget,” said Salcedo, “in your home state, Stacey Abrams – who is a perfect candidate to have co-morbidities and vulnerabilities to the China virus – she shows up into a classroom, the kids are all masked miserably and she’s sitting there like a big hypocrite without a mask.”
“She’s the biggest hypocrite of them all,” replied Greene. “Obesity–you know, Stacey Abrams has a real issue with obesity. And obesity is one of the top risk factors for hospitalization and death with Covid-19. If anyone should be wearing three or four masks, it should be Stacey Abrams.
“You know, this is an issue where, if people are fearful or feel like they’re at risk of Covid-19, they should wear the mask. You don’t mask the healthy people, which are the kids. The kids are the least vulnerable from Covid-19. And death is such a rarity. So, yeah, Stacey Abrams is the biggest hypocrite of them all and we’ll do everything we can to stop her from becoming our governor.”
Abrams is considered the favorite to win the Democratic nomination for governor after capturing it in 2018 before losing a close general election.
https://www.mediaite.com/radio/marjorie-taylor-greene-says-stacey-abrams-has-a-real-issue-with-obesity-accuses-her-of-being-a-hypocrite/?utm_source=mostpopular
Thank you ! About time. Fat mess
Shots fired. :o
Marjorie Taylor Greene Says Stacey Abrams ‘Has a Real Issue With Obesity,’ Accuses Her of Being a ‘Hypocrite’
By Michael Luciano Feb 16th, 2022
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said in a radio interview on Wednesday that Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D) “has a real issue with obesity” and that “if anyone should be wearing three or four masks, it should be Stacey Abrams.”
Earlier this month, Abrams received a wave of criticism after she posted a photo of herself maskless at elementary school in Georgia as children around her were all wearing masks. She later apologized.
Greene has long been an opponent of Covid-19 restrictions, including masks. She has been particularly outspoken against masking children. She reiterated her opposition to them on The Chris Salcedo Show.
“Don’t forget,” said Salcedo, “in your home state, Stacey Abrams – who is a perfect candidate to have co-morbidities and vulnerabilities to the China virus – she shows up into a classroom, the kids are all masked miserably and she’s sitting there like a big hypocrite without a mask.”
“She’s the biggest hypocrite of them all,” replied Greene. “Obesity–you know, Stacey Abrams has a real issue with obesity. And obesity is one of the top risk factors for hospitalization and death with Covid-19. If anyone should be wearing three or four masks, it should be Stacey Abrams.
“You know, this is an issue where, if people are fearful or feel like they’re at risk of Covid-19, they should wear the mask. You don’t mask the healthy people, which are the kids. The kids are the least vulnerable from Covid-19. And death is such a rarity. So, yeah, Stacey Abrams is the biggest hypocrite of them all and we’ll do everything we can to stop her from becoming our governor.”
Abrams is considered the favorite to win the Democratic nomination for governor after capturing it in 2018 before losing a close general election.
https://www.mediaite.com/radio/marjorie-taylor-greene-says-stacey-abrams-has-a-real-issue-with-obesity-accuses-her-of-being-a-hypocrite/?utm_source=mostpopular
(https://citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/hochul-masks.jpg)
New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell held maskless ball after reimposing mask mandateShe is just like the rest of the Dem mayors.
Videos of maskless New Orleans mayor deleted following Fox News' inquiries
By Jessica Chasmar, Sam Sullivan, Mija Maslar | Fox News
Published February 21, 2022
(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/02/1862/1048/latoya-cantrell-resized.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-orleans-mayor-latoya-cantrell-maskless-mask-mandate
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FO358nvXIAoi_oZ?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSxkmSLWUAAAz_o?format=jpg&name=large);D :D
;D :DDam retards.
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/09/02/you-know-it-backfired-badly-biden-now-desperately-trying-to-backpedal-his-despicable-speech-n621701
Frigging lying hypocrite.
https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/06/peter-doocy-karine-jean-pierre-tweets-trump-stole-2016-election/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2680&pnespid=t7A2DT8ba7xG1OPSrW.uEJKArwj0VZcnJ.Cu0O0yrEBmgNfIIvOJ69TDFpm4RwZW2UlDrxv1Wg
BOOOMMM!!!!!!!
Keep Flying them in to martha's They got Loads of space in their
Big Houses & Hotels - Flood them with immigrants
I'd happily contribute $$$ to do this
So would I & I'm one of the Few on Getbig that's not Super wealthy .
Wish they'd send 100 or more every time - The Fucking Liberal 2 Faced Fucking
Hypocrites on that Island , Bollocks to Them They're all for Immigrants let them
Fucking have Them. 😀
I've not commented here on this topic yet. I have a couple of thoughts about it though. One is that these migrants are possibly better off in the places they get bussed to. Another is an analogy; if a neighbor’s dog shits in my yard and their owner leaves it for me to clean up, it seems fitting that I put their dog's shit in a bag and dump it in their yard.
What is wrong with my analogy is that immigrants are human beings, so it is wrong to treat them like they are dog shit. Martha's Vineyard's only homeless shelter is small. It houses a total of 20 people. I do not know how many homeless folks were already living in the shelter prior to the arrival of the immigrants, but it was likely already full as there were at least twice that number of homeless folks on the island. Another issue is that not everyone who lives in Martha's Vineyard is a liberal or a Democrat, moreover some liberals disagree with current U.S. immigration policies.
Search General/Chat
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Hypocrites: Martha’s Vineyard Leftists Claim There is NO ROOM on Island for Illegals — but Hotels and Vacation Homes can House Thousands! [Spokesperson says, “We don’t have housing for 50 more people.” But Lots of pictures at link prove she is lying.]
Gateway Pundit ^ | September 17, 2022 | Jim Hoft
Posted on 9/17/2022, 5:20:39 PM by grundle
The meltdown over the 50 illegals flown to Martha’s Vineyard is fun to watch.
On Wednesday, Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis sent two planes carrying illegal immigrants to the island of Martha’s Vineyard.
The racist white limousine liberals on Martha’s Vineyard are not happy about their new poor, brown neighbors.
Martha’s Vineyard Homeless Shelter Coordinator Lisa Belcastro melted down over the 50 illegals during an interview with the Cape Cod Times.
“The difficult challenges are — we have to, at some point in time they [illegals] have to move from here to somewhere else – we cannot, we don’t have the services to take care of 50 immigrants and we certainly don’t have housing. We’re in a housing crisis as we are on this island! We can’t house everyone here that lives here and works here!”
She continued, “We don’t have housing for 50 more people.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
So it's okay if all the other places where the immigrants go are overflowing & have far to many
People there already - Just Not Martha's Vinyard ?
Nope I doubt all on Martha's Vineyard are Liberals- Simple Let all The Liberal Folk with
Their Liberal Slogans & Thoughts & Cares Take in the Immigrants & Show the world
Just how much they value & believe in Their Liberal ideologies 😀👍🏻
Or are They All NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard Liberals .
As For your Dog Crap Analogy it's best I don't comment on that at Risk of upsetting
or Annoying you.
It is very considerate of you to not make comments which risk upsetting or annoying me. I'll try to return the favor.
It is a fact that Martha's Vineyard is short on places to house the homeless immigrants or other folks. This fact has nothing to do with whether other communities are short on housing. My guess is there is nowhere in the U.S. where there is an overabundance of housing for the homeless.
West Linn, OR where I live has no housing for the homeless. If you check the West Linn homeless shelter website, the two places listed are on the eastside of the Willamette River in neighboring Oregon City which is also the county seat. https://www.homelessshelterdirectory.org/city/or-west_linn
West Linn has close to 20 parks. Some of them are large, heavily forested wilderness parks. It is possible there are a few very small homeless camps in these parks that escape notice, at least for a little while, like a day or two. It is extremely rare to see someone panhandling in West Linn. The few that try it are quickly gone.
The situation is very bad in Portland where an estimated 5,228 people are experiencing homelessness, and there are only approximately 1,365 shelter beds available. The result is these people are living in tents, vehicles, and on sidewalks across the city. Homelessness huge problem in Portland that has very little to do with immigrants flooding into the country across our borders, although no doubt some of these people are immigrants.
You might find this interesting. The migrants flown to Martha's Vineyard from Florida are suing Governor Ron DeSantis. Maybe it isn't such a good idea to send immigrants to wealthy areas. I doubt they came up with the idea to sue DeSantis on their own. No doubt this action is sponsored by some of the good citizens of Martha's Vineyard. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/migrants-sue-florida-gov-ron-desantis-over-marthas-vineyard-flights
Its the total & utter hypocrisy of them they got big houses why don't they take a few in & look after them .
Nope they're Libturd Hypercritical Khunts
And Talking of Libturd Khunts why you White Knighting for Potty Boy Khunt J.oak in the other thread??
Have you asked Potty Boy Khunt why he deleted his post replies to me??
Its the total & utter hypocrisy of them they got big houses why don't they take a few in & look after them .
Nope they're Libturd Hypercritical Khunts
And Talking of Libturd Khunts why you White Knighting for Potty Boy Khunt J.oak in the other thread??
Have you asked Potty Boy Khunt why he deleted his post replies to me??
Jeez, golly, I neglected to ask Oak why he deleted his replies to you... perhaps this is because I hadn't noticed. Now that I do, I be sure to ask him about it. :-\
I have nothing against Oak. He brings some balance to Getbig and all the posters who are adamantly against COVID vaccines.
As for people living in big houses taking in a few homeless folks, do you honestly think it would solve the problem? Also, how do you know they don't offer them temporary shelter?
Portland, OR is looking at programs for building an ADU on one's property to house the homeless or low-income folks in exchange for a property tax break. However, there are still a lot of kinks to work out, so it has not been as successful as hoped.
Before you ask me why I don't take a homeless person or two, it is because ATM this house is full up with family. There are no spare bedrooms left. In my opinion, helping family always comes first. There has hardly ever been a time when someone wasn't staying with us until they got otherwise situated. My late wife and I had cousins, nephews, sisters, our daughter, grandchildren, and great granddaughter etc. share our home. If more families did this, it might somewhat reduce the number of homeless folks.