search results matching tag: Foreclose

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (20)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (4)     Comments (80)   

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Oh sweet zombie Jebus….Boebert was a hooker in Colorado and had multiple abortions. Her weak denials are less believable than Cawthorn’s, and the evidence is her “sugar daddy meets.com” page with provocative photos of her looking for “pay to play” dates, and an unreported $70000 “donation” from Ted Cruise after her sugar daddy introduced them and she visited Ted in Texas (when she was still an “unlicensed escort”).

The investigators that made this public have BEGGED her to sue them so they can depose her under oath about these charges. She’s toast.

This on top of the revelation recently that her mileage fraud, where she was reimbursed for her claim that she drove almost 40000 miles in a few months campaigning in Colorado, was perpetrated because she was bankrupt and needed $20000 to save her family restaurant (she hadn’t been paying taxes and the state was going to foreclose on her), almost exactly the amount she was overpaid for her fake travel expenses. Now under investigation.

And let’s not forget she was with her husband when he exposed his penis to two 15 year old girls in a bowling alley and defended him over it, making her complicit in child sex abuse.

This is the Trumpist heroine, his “best people”. Oof.

dag (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on What Happens To This Stuff Left In A Foreclosed House? has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

How our government manages the U.S. debt and its limit

TheFreak says...

Plus, we owe most of that money to ourselves.

So it's not like going to a bank to raise your limit. It's more like, you've borrowed money from your retirement fund and your kid's college fund while times are hard and you'll pay it back when your economic situation improves. Because basically, when things are tough, everyone dips into their savings to pay their mortgage and utilities. If you don't, try to explain that to your mortgage company while they're foreclosing on your house.

The 1% Are The True Hardcore Gangsters - Rich Man's World

eric3579 says...

"Rich Man's World (1%)"

[Arthur Jensen:]
"You get up and howl about america and democracy.
There is no america there is no democracy,
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies.
The world is a college of corporations... inexorably
Determined by the... immutable bylaws of business.
The world is a business.
And I have chosen you to preach this evangel"

[Immortal Technqiue:]
For all my free market, healthcare robbing, stock stealing, retirement fund
Fucking with niggas. Fuck your little credit card scammin, jewlery stealing,
Crack selling, liquor store robbing mother fuckers (Its a rich mans world)
Hahahaha. Shout to the homies, Carnegie, OG, Willie Randolf Hearst,
Rockefeller, the real Rockefeller, my main bitch Leona, pour out a little Louie the
Thirteenth, Jack Abramoff, hold ya head, my Rothschild niggas, LET'S
GET THIS MONEY

[Verse 1: Immortal Technique]
I spend my day repping america overseas
Pensions for the workers? nigga please
Embezzlement etiquette private settlement
I'm better with confederate rhetoric from my mansion in connecticut
Foreclose and evict homes at the tenement
I twist words like a speech inpedIment
I hope you got good credit bitch
If not better get a new job with benefits
When I play golf with niggasii get cheddar with
New money buys brand new karats
My old money bought your great grand parents
You got grills in ya mouth I ain't mad at ya
I own every gold mine in South Africa
Thanks baby you made me a billion
Plus I own a building for each one of my children's children
That's the shit, snort coke in the whip miss USA sucking my dick
Yea what fuck the law 'cus real jail is for suckas
I go to country club prison you dumb mother fuckers
(I am the 1% fucking bitch)

[Hook]
You know my CEO corporate steeez please
Overthrow governments overseas in a breeze
Politicians in my pocket for a few hundred Gs
So if I'm never in court my assets a never freeze

[Verse 2: Immortal Technique]
I got a job and house and a bank account
When I'm out I doubt that's something you could say
And if not then I fake death like Kenneth Lay
Make money every day the world burns
Wanna tax us while y'all struggle to pay taxes
I'm getting my money the fastest
Memos and faxes shredded up documents
Slush funds through the corrupt continents
But they don't want me indicted
'Cause they don't want my dirty laundry aired when I fight it
Don't get my lawyers excited
'Cause what good is a law if you can't rewrite it
I got CIA traders, dictators so fuck y'all whistleblowers and haters
(Its a rich mans world) Shiiieeeaaat
I'll invest money from Al Qaeda
In the bank 911 widows go to later
Capitalism so I pray to fuck the state of the world
Money talks so what the fuck I need to say to ya girl
(I don't pay em to fuck, I pay em to leave)

[Hook]
You know my CEO corporate steeez greed
I'll treat countries like the IMF down on your knees
Real gangsters run the world fuck what you believe
I'll cut down the forest while y'all niggas burning some trees
I'll get your family murdered for a couple of Gs
'Cause your working class money ain't fucking with me
You think rappers are rich 'cause of songs you heard?
My labels make the money and haven't rapped a fucking word

[Verse 3: Immortal Technique]
Y'all in the ocean coastin' with the sails out
Hey America thanks for the bailouts
I made off at the banco ambrosiano
Got away scott free like el Vaticano
Acitvists activist get mad at me
'Cause I'm a tax free charity
80% to the staff and company
And 20% to the homeless and hungry
The country gotta pay the fed reserve
Kick back to the banksters haven't you learned
You protest cops or patrols on the street
But I bought city hall so I own the police
Email facebook and the shit you tweet
On the phone companies so I heard you speaking
My suggestion is no correction no elections, sex with no affection
No invention would benefit the world of man
Will exist till I got the money in my hand
World bank, interest rate damn rape on the spot
But I'm a gangster you gon' take my money like it or not, nigga
(I got your country in my pocket, motherfucker!)

[Hook]
You know my CEO masonic steeez cheese
Only little people pay all these taxes and fees
Since you were born we controlled what you watch and you read
And pretty soon were gonna own the fucking air that you breathe
I take what I want fucker I don't have to say please
I'll convince you that it's good for you, take it and leave
You think presidents are the face of a nation
I put em all where they are, end of the conversation

Hahaha

Maher exposes Republicans Secret Rules

bareboards2 says...

@eric3579, here is a transcript. So you can get the info without the annoying delivery:


And finally, New Rule: there are scandals, and then there are scandals. And perspective is important. Yes, to explain Benghazi, Susan Rice used talking points. But at least she didn't have to read them off her hand! [graphic of Palin looking into her palm]

Now this week, someone was taken off a cross-country flight in handcuffs for singing "I Will Always Love You" for three straight hours. And that's still fewer times has said "Benghazi". I've seen this woman [Megyn Kelly] say Benghazi on my TV so many times, I don't know if it's a problem with the set, or I'm in an Asian horror movie, and there's a monster named Benghazi.

Congressman and friend of Real Time Darrell Issa is the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, and as most Californians know, he made his fortune in car alarms. And now, ironically, has become a loud, repetitive, but ultimately pointless device that you wish to God someone would shut off so you could get some sleep. (audience applause)

But here's the difference between Darrell Issa and a car alarm. Sometimes when a car alarm goes off, there's an actual crime. I keep looking for the crime here, I feel like Reese Witherspoon arguing with the cop. Why are you arresting me? Susan Rice said "mob" instead of "al-Qaeda"? Obama said "act of terror" instead of "terrorist act"?

Republicans are constantly coming up with these never before stated secret rules, that they only tell you about once you've broken them.

"You don't make important speeches from a teleprompter!"

OK.

"No golfing until we have a budget!"

All right.

"Thou shalt not criticize the President when he's on foreign soil, unless he's a Democrat, of course, then it's OK."

Congressman Peter King thundered that the President was almost four minutes into his first Benghazi statement before he mentioned an act of terror! Ah yes, the four-minute rule. Fuck, how could I forget?!

'Scuse me, Nixon ran a burglary ring out of the Oval Office. Reagan traded arms with terrorists. Bush ginned up a war where thousands died by sending Colin Powell to lie to the UN with props, remember that? He turned an American hero into General Carrot Top! But I let it go. I said this is the business we've chosen.

But please, don't tell me that freedom died because Susan Rice broke the scared bond between citizens and talk shows. In a poll this week, 4 in 10 Republicans said Benghazi is the worst scandal in American history. Second worst? Kanye West snatching the mic from Taylor Swift.

If you think Benghazi is worse than slavery, the Trail of Tears, Japanese internment, Tuskegee, purposefully injecting Guatemalan mental patients with syphilis, lying about WMDs, and the fact that banks today are still foreclosing on mortgages they don't own, then your hard-on for Obama has lasted more than four hours, and you need to call a doctor. (wild audience cheering and applause)

And while the press has been occupied with scandal, the biggest scandal, and the most important story of the century so far, happened last week. Scientists reported that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed the long-feared milestone of 400 parts per million. And unless you're a chimney sweep, that's bad news. Because humans have never lived through it.

You think Susan Rice gave bogus talking points about Benghazi? What about the bullshit talking points the entire Republican Party has been spewing on climate change since the 90s? (audience applause)

I wanna see the e-mails to find out who came up with the talking points that global warming is just a theory, and that it needs more study, and climate change is a hoax. The Obama administration isn't dirty, the air is.

You're not a scientist!

bmacs27 says...

@dirkdeagler7

You keep saying I'm being fanatic, or aggressive. Nothing in that quote could be construed as such. It was a direct response to the following quote from your previous post:

"Explain to someone who has no insurance or has a problem with medical bills or has no job or has family members fighting abroad or is getting foreclosed on....that we need to spend money to better understand hermaphroditic snails and the intricacies of their mating rituals in order to better understand evolution and reproduction to maybe one day apply that technology to genetic research or fertility programs."

Presumably you would also argue that they would not be convinced by the need to study the intricacies of sea-slug gill withdrawal reflexes. Your posts seem to suggest that someone other than scientists (some vaguely defined "greater good") should be dictating which specific research aims should be funded. You suggest we should be "asking" these people if that money should be spent.

My contention is that scientists have spent their (already meager) funds with remarkable efficiency. My example was meant to illustrate that asking lay people what science should be funded is likely to have prevented some of the most critical research of the last century from ever having taken place. They don't understand the broader impacts of the research, and thus lack the expertise necessary to evaluate its merit. Sure, someone in pain will probably balk at those sorts of studies. However, if you ask them "are you glad someone did the necessary research to develop ____insert_medical_procedure here____," then I think you'll find they're happy their forefathers spent a few pennies studying snails. The fact is the reverse argument does not hold up. We all, scientists not withstanding, are experts in basic human needs and suffering. For many, scientists that's what drove us to the work. You act as though we can not evaluate the merit of research with respect to the larger picture. I think you're wrong. We do it all the time.

Also, I'm a bit insulted by your reference to people with medical bills, or family members fighting abroad as I fall into both categories. We all have our cross to bear. I don't think I'm alone in responding "I'll be fine, spend the money on the future."

You're not a scientist!

dirkdeagler7 says...

I was attempting to say that people should not be fanatic on either side of this argument, as not all scientific research is the most efficient topic or use of resources and not all research deemed "insignificant" is actually insignificant.

The fact that people reacted so strongly to ANY criticism of current research or justifications for it shows just how fanatic some people are about the need to defend any and all research.

It's the nature of a scientist or science minded people to find value and merit in almost any scientific pursuit. But in a world of limited resources and with many other problems, we have to accept that there is an opportunity cost to any and all research, no matter how important.

For some the valuation of this opportunity cost will differ.

Explain to someone who has no insurance or has a problem with medical bills or has no job or has family members fighting abroad or is getting foreclosed on....that we need to spend money to better understand hermaphroditic snails and the intricacies of their mating rituals in order to better understand evolution and reproduction to maybe one day apply that technology to genetic research or fertility programs.

Then watch them give you the look of "thats great but why do I care about that now?" and understand that they are part of the greater good too.

bmacs27 said:

I'm sorry, but there are lots of bogus points in here. First of all, no one is arguing that the scope or impact of funded science should be anything less than great. The question is who should decide it. It seems the republicans want to take the awarding of scientific grants out of the hands of peer review, preferring that politicians micromanage the appropriation of research grants. Personally, I think that will lead to an end of basic science. Politicians are bound by their sponsors whom for the most part have an interest in public funding of applied rather than basic research.

This particular research is not about ecology or the environment, or some squishy bleeding heart first world problem. It's about the relative value of sexual and asexual reproduction. This particular snail can reproduce in either fashion, and it raises fundamental questions about when and why sexual reproduction would be preferred. It will likely lead to a deeper understanding of the genetic mechanisms that underlie sexual recombination, and how they relate to the success of progeny. Sounds like it's got some scope to me. The competition for grants is so stiff within science today that it's highly improbable that narrow research aims will be awarded. The fundamental question you need to ask yourself is "should basic science be funded, or should the only funding available be for applied science." My answer is an emphatic yes to basic science. It has proven its value beyond all doubt. Further, I personally feel that the applied work should be forced into the private sector as anything with a 5 year pay off will be funded naturally by the market anyway.

You also sing the praises of defense funding. I agree, many great discoveries have been funded by, say, DARPA. However, break it down by dollar spent. Because the money isn't allocated by peer review, but rather the whims of some brass, I personally don't feel it is efficiently allocated. Our impression when dealing with ONR (for example) is that they had absolutely no clue what they were interested in as a research aim, and had no clue what we were actually doing. They just thought we had some cool "high tech looking" stuff. Further, we as researchers didn't really care about their misguided scientific goals. It was sort of an unspoken understanding that we were doing cool stuff, and they had money to burn or else they wouldn't be getting anymore. All the while, the NIH is strapped with many of their institutes floating below a 10% award rate. Most of the reviewers would like to fund, say, 30-40% of the projects. Imagine if a quarter of that defense money was allocated by experts how much more efficiently it would be spent.

Biden Slams Romney, Ryan For "47 Percent" Video

volumptuous says...

"regulating the economy"?

"attacking gun control"?

From what I recall, regulation of our economy has been watered down to the point where we have corporate welfare and the public picks up the tab when things go bust, as they just recently did. Wall Street got off scott-free, was given boatloads of money, while millions were foreclosed on, lost their jobs, healthcare and net worth. I'd like you to point out one negative regulation of the economy that has happened during this Democratic presidency.

As for gun control: What are you on about? Obama is the one who eased gun control laws and concealed carry permits in federal parks. Please name a single gun control law that Obama has "attacked".

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I believe I am entitled to an opinion, so I'll share mine:
People call me a democrat, a republican, and a libertarian. I don't subscribe to any. I don't like democrats for regulating the economy and attacking gun control; I don't like republicans for violating personal rights (women) and drug wars, and I don't like libertarians for their ideological castration of government services. My ideal federal government is one that protects your human rights, educates you when you are young, and takes care of you when you are old or sick. I would gladly pay my taxes for these three key points. Everything else should rest with the states.
>> ^deedub81:
I like to think that everyone's political opinions are at least slightly different. I'd love for you to tell me what you think conservative beliefs are. You seem to be pretty sure of yourself.
This is me: http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.50&a

mp;soc=-4.41
>> ^NetRunner:
You think conservatism isn't a religion? What is it, then?
>> ^deedub81:
What does conservatism have to do with faith?




Noam Chomsky on Professional Sports as a Distraction

Yogi says...

This was made more relevant the past couple weeks as the country ERUPTED in anger at the fact we have "Replacement Refs" making bad calls in NFL games. It was just shocking, I was seeing this shit reported up to the minute on the BBC. Every news channel and website was constantly harping on it, but that wasn't the worst part. THE WORST PART of this was the fans, the people in this country who's lives are being fucked over by the government and corporations. Their major concern was that some refs weren't doing a good enough job and the good refs were at home instead. It's ridiculous.

The American people deserve the country they have and the country they work for. I love sports, I'm a referee, it's my Job. But I understand better than most the difference between Sport and Life. Some people brag about a certain sport being their Life. Those people have never been foreclosed on, or had to watch their children walk to school with no breakfast. This country man, I'm just fucking sick every day.

Skipper Learns A Lesson

Obama Rejected Concession To Write Down Mortgages -- TYT

surfingyt says...

FTW>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Give it up. Obama is a just another crook.
Thousands of people have had their homes foreclosed on. Had their lives ruined based on that choice.
And you're going to suggest that Obama had some valid reason for refusing to help the people that need help the most?!
The very people he explicitly campaigned to help?

Are you deluding yourself cause it's fun?
Or cause you're too upset/depressed to acknowledge the truth?
>> ^Edgeman2112:
So instead of trying to find out "WHY," you just go on some rant. I'm done with you.


Obama Rejected Concession To Write Down Mortgages -- TYT

GenjiKilpatrick says...

Give it up. Obama is a just another crook.

Thousands of people have had their homes foreclosed on. Had their lives ruined based on that choice.

And you're going to suggest that Obama had some valid reason for refusing to help the people that need help the most?!

The very people he explicitly campaigned to help?


Are you deluding yourself cause it's fun?
Or cause you're too upset/depressed to acknowledge the truth?

>> ^Edgeman2112:

So instead of trying to find out "WHY," you just go on some rant. I'm done with you.

Boise_Lib (Member Profile)

Top 1% Captured 93% Of Income Gains In 2010 --TYT

Porksandwich says...

Some sort of spending policy was needed, but the bailout as it was put forth was pretty dismal in it's results. The companies that received it were the ones who created the mess for the most part (banks), and we really still haven't addressed punishing them OR putting laws in place to either:
A) Punish them if it happens again, really the laws now should be sufficient.
B) Make it impossible to happen again....all those acts, they repealed over the last 20-30 years.
C) Prevent some of the more insanity driven investing, such as over abundant speculation and similar cost creating but non-value creating (Call it a Private Tax, if you will) things.

Really the more I look back on the bailout, and look at the attitudes of most of the politicians at that time...they were saying let the auto industry fail. But the bailouts to the auto industries have at least halfway been paid back. Chrysler is likely going to short the government 1.3 billion last I read. GM gave the government stock and 22 billion. Stock is worth about 13.5 billion. They borrowed 50 billion. So 28 billion is what we have to get out of that stock to recover fully. And as far as I know there is no interest accumulated, so losing money in those deals is a kick to the crotch considering.

I think the auto industries might have been able to enter bankruptcy and come back out of it with some lessons learned. But vehicles like the "Volt" show that......they don't really know who they are selling to. Chrysler ended up being taken over by Fiat. And Ford handled it's own business. The one in the worst shape was GM, and I can't say that they probably didn't have it coming. And they still ended up pretty much killing the economy dead in my area despite the bailout when they shut their plants down that they really hadn't "kept up" in DECADES...place was really dumpy looking. No one would take it over because it was just utter trash when they left. I'm more against than for the bailout of the auto industries, but I can see that they were probably beneficial there although GM seemingly learned nothing of note from it.

Banks on the other hand......they took in 1.2 trillion. And a bunch of the borrowed money went to European firms. Along with other financial institutions. And many kept taking loans into 2010.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/that_federal_bank_bailout_in_2008_was_bigger_than_we_knew_a_lot_bigger.html

Has lots of info on it. I haven't taken the time to confirm every last portion of it, but we know the bailout/loans of 2008 that were announced ended up being MUCH larger than they told us. So the information is kind of hit and miss since they kept it hush hush for awhile.

But, the money was to help keep the banks off people's backs about foreclosures. It hasn't, in fact they took the money and foreclosed anyway to get both the cash to make it possible to allow the person to keep the house AND the house. That should be criminal.

The bailout of those institutions probably did stop a economic meltdown, but I think that bailout still should be criticized. The people who caused it suffered no punishment by law, financially, or by failure. And they have been fighting have regulations and such put in place to stop it from happening again and from practices like speculation being allowed in such quantities. It's affecting the oil prices and they are using it as a argument for "foreign oil" ALL the time.

Sure the bailout saved us from financial meltdown, but we aren't safe from it happening again. In fact we're probably even more precariously perched at the edge than we were before, and people are making money off that instability. If they could have made money during the total collapse, I don't think they would have gotten bailout to all those institutions.

So, we should criticize the bailout, simply because it has made it possible for the people who control the money to continue making money, and no one has corrected the conditions that caused the collapse in the first place. The people who caused it keep on keeping on, the politicians get some money stuffed in their pockets, and the people who got hurt most by the crash whether you lost your house, job, savings, pension, etc are just lined up to be knocked down again and no one is trying to fix it. The people who had money to weather the crash, are recovering and the people who didn't are still hurt by the crash they had no way of avoiding.

Too big to fail institutions are still too big to fail. Now they know that they can leech all the money from the government whenever they start to lean a little as a collective. Nothing was learned by anyone there, because nothing ended up happening to them besides some bad press...when they should have gotten a major investigation that was more like a full cavity search to determine wrongdoing.

St Pauls closes doors to 'Occupiers'



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon