Such bullshit *lies @bobknight33. Nice try trying to hurt BLMs ability to generate donations with these unfounded accusations, but it's pure bullshit as usual from you and your ilk. Liars.

There's absolutely zero evidence a single dime of BLM money was used, nor is there evidence these homes were actually owned by her or her family, or even evidence they were owned at the same time. The houses described in the articles were two were small homes in South Central and Inglewood, severely depressed areas you would call ghettos, the modest family home in Topanga, not near Beverly Hills as claimed, has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a tiny guest "house" (shed) and sits on just over a quarter of an acre-sized lot, so not a mansion but a small family home, the fourth reported purchase was a home in rural Georgia, so not worth much.

There's actually no evidence she bought anything. Dirt’s article, which is the source that all of the stories and posts about the Topanga home purchase are based on, didn’t report that Cullors purchased the home with BLM donations. It said the home was sold “to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled” by Cullors, but didn’t name the corporation.

Besides being a public figure who is paid to speak at events, Cullors is a best selling author who last year signed a lucrative contract with Warner Brothers, so she has her own money, and filings show she was paid a total of $20000 a year by BLM until 2019 when she stopped taking a dime. There's zero evidence BLM had a thing to do with these purchases, no timeline of when they were purchased or sold, no mention of who lived there....There's nothing but supposition by dishonest people like yourself who have no problem making up hurtful lies about their enemies like 4 year old snot nosed spoiled little girls trying to make themselves feel better....you lying little crybaby snowflake.

We don’t have enough information from the Dirt or Post story to answer questions like: Were these homes consecutively purchased, lived in and sold? Were other parties involved in the reported purchases? Were they lived in by family members? Did any of the addresses crop up due to errors in public records databases?

Such utter bullshit and *lies Bob. Another factless racist and just stupid attack against non whites who you think couldn't possibly buy a house without stealing the money for it.

Gonna leave this here, but I know Bob isn't interested in finding out how his game of radical right wing telephone started so he won't read it.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrisse-cullors-topanga-house/

Btw, this isn't fear, isn't philosophy, is only Wtf because Wtf are you thinking posting these baseless accusations, and only fail because you once again failed to be honest. It's pure political lies by the party of lies that repeatedly make the argument that they aren't required to tell the truth about anything. Facts have a liberal bias, and truth and honesty are for liberals and have no place in your party. You're such a dishonest tool.

Edit: with Trump dividing the country and starting a failed coup with his election fraud fraud he used to bring in hundreds of millions in donations to fight against, a fight he never fought and instead put those hundreds of millions he duped you and your ilk out of into his own pockets to pay off his massive debts, including not just his failed campaign debts (that he still didn't pay for the most part) and his own private debts, it's just hilarious you would try this lie, knowing full well Trump did what you accuse Cullors of a hundred times over AFTER the election with proof he took the money, but not one scintilla against Cullors. 🤦‍♂️

Far leftist.....lol. Hardly....but i understand, all fact checking is far leftist in your eyes, because as the right said in 2016 " “The mainstream media continually insists on dealing with facts, and as we all know, facts are for liberals and progressives. Factual data is something that is diametrically opposed to the conservative movement.” - Marco Rubio
Also...
"It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert

As if the dozens of debunked, blatantly faked videos they've been successfully sued or prosecuted over aren't enough.

Nothing could satisfy you, anything more honest than OAN or Glen Beck is far leftist and to be discarded.....and only Trump can be trusted.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/29/project-veritas-ilhan-omar/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/

I noticed you can't argue against a single point, not one, that they make in their case proving veritas is a lying, always fake propaganda wing of the far right....but it's never about facts or proof with you, just blank denial of any proof.
But this is how you argue facts...https://youtu.be/Jmrd1MbNkFs

No sir. There is a world of difference between slight bias in reports about the nationalistic leader who continues to attack all actual news reporters like a 2 year old and direct his terroristic followers to attack them as enemies of the people and a deeper level of bias against all non right wingers paired with outright campaigning for the same anti free press candidates.

Wait...you still defend Fox as having reporting but claim you don't need someone to bend facts? Bending facts like using proper English to describe a scene? But reporting on the birther movement for years as true, and the ridiculous waste of money named the Benghazi investigation, continued denial of climate science, etc. does bother you? Fox doesn't bend fact, they omit it. They don't get credit for using 5% (yes, that's exaggerated) truth to sell their lies.

I watched Chris Wallace interview Conway just yesterday (for as long as I could stand it, which admittedly was only a few minutes), his questions were ok, but delivered with a slow underhand pitch and with no follow-up or contradiction of her ridiculous rambling factless replies. That's not good reporting, it's being the setup for spreading their agenda/propaganda.

You think CNN goes to far by using words like "accost" to describe 3 policemen tackling a topless woman in tights, and while you claim to have looked up the definition , you still claim the word is somehow loaded and not proper. Please explain.

When the police were going after the fleeing armed supporters of Mr Bundie under Obama I think you likely called them violent thugs who attacked that poor innocent man unnecessarily....Fox did. That man was armed and an anti American terrorist, but right wing so Fox called him a strong patriotic American standing up for American values that the unAmerican Kenyan thug in the Whitehouse wanted to murder.
There is no equivalence. Fox is (disgusting unAmerican) entertainment, not news. There is no right wing news outlet, they are all propaganda outlets and little more today.
The Ministry of Truth doesn't need fact, you will believe any nonsense they tell you to, even when it contradicts what they had you believe yesterday. They have you believing any non Trump biased news is fake news reported with hyper liberal bias, even in other countries, but Fox has good reporting and less bias.
*facepalm

As Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Honestly, it's farcical, if you'd make the slightest attempt to examine both sides with some semblance of intellectual rigor and honesty, there's no contest. Trump and Faux aren't even internally consistent, often they'll say completely different things about the same subject as it suits their needs.

Debunking them, or you, is a waste of time. If you have any interest in finding the truth it's out there, but I can't be bothered trying to force-feed it to people like you.

Uh, pretty sure it's been made clear Trump was referring to the marked rise in crime among the immigrant population there relative to before the recent migrations into Sweden. Seriously, it's this sort of liberal bias even in humor that got Trump elected. Keep pissing off the majority of voters like this and it's just gonna get worse. Would someone please shut John Oliver and Bill Maher the hell up so more rational liberal analysts can properly explain why Trump is not good for the country?

It's a good thing she told us she's not racist, or we might have gotten the wrong idea.
Now, if only the rest of these people that LOOK and ACT racist would tell us they aren't, racism would be over.
Then we can just wait and hope that cops will tell us how they aren't bullies, thieves, or murderers and we can all relax knowing they're just there to help us and only appear to be acting criminally because of my skewed, ignorant, liberal bias, and not when viewed through a rational examination of their actions.
Then we can move on to politicians hash tagging their lack of influence peddling, underhanded backroom dealing, and selling of our government to the highest bidder.
It's sure going to be nice to have these issues resolved.

Glad you read it.
Yes, 'reality has a liberal bias' and the media, corporations and politics have a massive right wing bias.
(Just though I'd spell it out for you)

'reality has a liberal bias' lol

Yes, more than half of those are owned by massive corporations.
The others are massive government propaganda machines.

I'm sorry if you think there is too much truth and facts reported on them.
They are not left wing it's just that Reality has a well know Liberal bias.

Oh Bob, how I envy you. The world must be such a nice place if you can view it only in black or white. Binary thinking must be easy on the synapses.
Here's one thing I don't understand, though. Maybe you can help me out.
Why do you hate liberty so much?
I mean, you're an american, right? Land of the free, home of the brave?
Home of the Liberty Bell? The country whose most famous landmark is called the "Statue of Liberty".
Why so much hate the most american thing? I always wanted to asked somebody who's so obviously republican as you.
Here's something I found on Wikipedia:
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."

Hmmm... generally supporting following ideas:
- free and fair elections (voter id laws and voting fraud prevention)
- civil rights (Dude! Don't tread on me!)
- freedom of the press (concern about lamestream media and "liberal bias" in the media)
- freedom of religion (for example the freedom of teaching children creationism)
- free trade (capitalism yay!)
- private property (for some reason the name "Ron Jeremy" came to mind but I think I got the name wrong)

I can understand a dislike for equality (come on, slaves are super useful) but not for liberty. Not if you're a true american.

Shouldn't you call yourself a liberal? Is it just a weird closet you're in?

(Because I know you won't really read any links: Texas VOTED to REMOVE Capitalism from their textbooks. Yes, you read that correctly. Texas, REMOVED the word Capitalism from their textbooks because of negative connotations. Instead, you should use the term Free-Market Enterprise. So yeah, good thing those pesky liberals didn't vote to keep the word capitalism in the textbooks . . . )

You do know we have an education BECAUSE of liberalism. Much like everything else conservatives hold sacred . . .

You WILL mind dumb kids when they can't pay their taxes to support your liberal/socialist social security checks later in life, or the roads you have to drive on.

You WILL mind dumb kids when statistically speaking, less educated men are more likely to commit violent crimes and less educated women will have more children, which means more food stamps. You know, the things conservatives hate spending .5% of our annual government budget on.

So while us "liberals" have been petitioning for more teacher freedom, higher pay to attract better teachers, been against standardized tests and against for-profit schools, you conservatives can keep trying to hawk your proven to fail for-profit "capitalist" schools.

Oh, and I hate to tell you, but public schools don't teach kids to hate capitalism. Neither does the Lego Movie either. Turn off Fox News once in a while and step outside. Maybe talk to a total stranger (which means putting the gun down for a minute and not Standing Your Ground). Which coincidently, would diminish greatly with a robust liberal education. (In case you didn't get the play on words, as in teaching kids more than how to recite words and flip hamburgers. It's called A Mile Wide, An Inch Deep.

But hey, you would know all this if the Texas School Board wasn't eliminating pieces of history because they don't fit their current political agenda.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/texas-school-board-approves-controversial-textbook-changes/954/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20131122-texas-education-board-approves-science-books-that-fully-cover-evolution.ece (They wanted to prevent evolution from being taught despite the piles of evidence supporting it.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html You want to talk about "bias"? Yeah, conservatives are trying really hard to rewrite history in their favor by making sure no experts ever have a say in the selection of textbook material, but people who "feel" like there is a bias. You know, because truth has a well known liberal bias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/education/texas-education-board-flags-biology-textbook-over-evolution-concerns.html?_r=0

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/

Yeah, I'm sorry, but the facts don't bear out in your case. Except, that our system is going downhill, but it's not because of their "liberal" education, that's for sure.

More proof that facts have a definitive liberal bias, as your claim is 100% absolute bullshit. Guess you need another bogeyman. Unfortunately, about the only group you asswipes haven't blamed for some perceived ill in this nation is the 50+ million paranoid, angry, rightie dolts that vote directly against their interests every two years because they believe every oily huckster that tells them that the country is going to come to an end unless they check all the "R" boxes on election day. Blaming blacks and Mexicans makes it even easier, doesn't it? Douche.

RSNML.

It's mostly a semantic quibble, I don't really disagree with you about this lady's credibility.

It just seems like American culture has been under a sustained attack by Orwellian wordsmiths who are trying to achieve through manipulations of language what they can't achieve by just making an open and straightforward case for their ideas.

We've seen a decades-long project to destroy the credibility of the press, which started with them claiming it's got a liberal bias (under the old meaning of the word, where this is assumed to be both unintentional and mild), while simultaneously saying all day on talk radio that "liberal bias" is a nefarious plot to brainwash people.

A decade or two down the road, you wind up with this whole counterculture of angry old white guys simply apoplectic about a series of supposed injustices committed against them (that never actually happened) by people who are prejudiced against them (who aren't actually prejudiced).

It is more than a little bit of a tangent, but I definitely get why calling her "biased" provoked this reaction from dft.

The problem the GOP-faithful seem to have these days is they assume, because the news keeps reporting on the Republicans' failures, that it's a liberal bias. They never stop to consider that maybe the Republicans are actually out of control and need to be exposed.

Maybe if the Republicans moved back toward the classical conservatism that made them successful in decades past; maybe if they supported the citizens' freedom to make their own decisions about drugs, sex, religion, etc; maybe if they stopped this insane march toward Theocratic Authoritarianism; maybe then the media wouldn't have so many negative GOP stories to run.

As someone who leans toward classic conservatism on the majority of issues, it's plainly obvious to me how fucked up the GOP is. The Democrats are fucked up, too; don't get me wrong; they're just not on the same level right now. And no matter how fucked up one party gets, it doesn't justify the other party's fucked-up-ness.

Point 1: If by misquote, you mean substituted a larger term (religion) for a smaller one (churches), I suppose I did. But without religion, there -are- no churches. I don't see any meaningful difference.

Point 2: Texas has worked damned hard to earn its reputation as a major-league collection of wingnuts. I'm not sure how you can justify getting upset when that reputation is assumed to be true. You have a problem with the reputation, maybe you should start blaming the people who are going out of their way to earn it...like Rick Perry, or the Texas Board of Education. As long as the state is trying to rewrite history to eliminate reality's liberal bias, you're going to be stuck with that.

Point 3: Perhaps I should have slowed down and spent more time in the step-by-step logic...I really thought most people who read her could follow the shorthand, but I did indeed jump about a bit.

In many ways, churches are no different than any corporation. They exist as a means to concentrate funds and offer the controller(s) of those funds a method of avoiding personal responsibility for misuse of those funds. On top of that, churches pay no taxes, although they still make liberal use of publicly funded services, -and- in many cases, they keep lobbying for public funds to be handed over to them as well. Now add how many churches are politically active and advising their cult members how to vote, and you might begin to see why I refer to them all as corporate welfare queens. Or maybe not...I don't know if you're even going to try to follow it or not, and don't much care at this point.
>> ^chingalera:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^chingalera:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Someone just explained separation of church and state to him.

Jeeez dude, you are about a party-liner ain't ya?? Texas would be the first state to "separate" from the diseased political system you so faithfully believe in and, as we observe, believe in as fervently as any bible-thumping proselytizer determined to beat a moot point into oblivion.
As the government of the U.S. continues down her retrograde path, churches will become for many, a last bastion of sanity exempt from a really retarded form of totalitarianism and fascism. Retarded, because folks who talk shit from the comfort of their programming who belie intelligence with their words should have seen the shit coming from miles away but were too comfortable in their delusion to see the boots and badges-

I was gonna...but then decided it's not worth it, then changed my mind one last time.
I suspect aAnyone who can call religion "the last bastion of sanity" is too far gone to make sense, but... Religion supplies a cushy lifestyle for priests...that's the sum total of it's accomplishments. Churches have, if anything, helped push the government down the path you so self-righteously condemn...and they preach and stump political issues all without paying any taxes. Yet more corporate welfare.
It's time for the -real- welfare queens to start paying their share...churches, Wall Street, Defense contractors, big Pharma, etc. Time to either start contributing to the upkeep of society, or be broken up (or strung up, as the case may be).

No, you misquote me and then infer bullshit in that same smug manner that libby there used and that anyone on the receiving end of such smug could expect after reading a gajillion similar quips. I said CHURCHES and meant the members of the same whose communal efforts keep the building's physical plant in order and supports the members in time of want or need. You know...The first places to get raided and ransacked when the jackboots come??
This didn't start about about religion: I started it when Potato-libro there took a jab at Texas and lighted upon another opportunity to bash "them ignernt conservatives, etc.", NOT UNLIKE a shitload of folks with "holier than thou" attitudes concerning politics and government. QUITE laughable really, because the opinions they have and the conclusions they have arrived at, are based on limited and incomplete information or worse, they have been programmed to do so through systematic efforts by do-nothings in colleges or universities.
Stormsinger, YOUR rant began with religion and politics and manically concluded with corporations and Wall Street....WTF??!! By the way, my solution as an anarchistic, soon-to-be expatriate is to use the BIG TEX method on governments and corporations. You hate em so much, be like the Hulk. SMAAAASH! Then burn, repeat.
Can we talk about how fucking progressive IDAHO is now??? Jesus Christ, Allah Mustapha!!
I suspect anyone who can start with anti-religion rants, switch to blaming churches for the state of America's demise, bash tax-exemption and somehow blame corporate welfare (whatever the fuck!??...see where this is going?) and arrive at a total solution by blaming BELTWAY INSIDERS AND THE SENATORS/CONGRESSMEN THEY HAVE BOUGHT for pharma, defense, etc. shifting the blame to people without any power or influence???....I'd have to call them schizophrenic! Which is how most rabid concerning politics ion one side or the other are to me. ALLL OF THEM, conservative or liberal. I could give a fiddler's fist-fuck about working within a failed system. I prefer to keep to the fringes of this broken machine and put as little of my resources or mentations into it.
But some, like stormie and libby here...well, hopeless fiends and junkies for the dance politic. Playing right into the hands of the corporations iffn ya axe me!