search results matching tag: Serve
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds
Videos (864) | Sift Talk (99) | Blogs (63) | Comments (1000) |
Videos (864) | Sift Talk (99) | Blogs (63) | Comments (1000) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Where BLM co founder spends their money
TLDW, so if she answered it in the video forgive me, but....
Are you sure it was $120k per year?
According to the Snopes article.....
Since the organization’s inception in 2013, the Foundation said Cullors received compensation totaling $120,000 for work that included serving as spokesperson and engaging in political education. Since 2019, Cullors’ role with the Foundation has been voluntary and unpaid.
She didn't use illegal funds from BLM. She is a hypocrite of the highest order though. Of course, most rich people are, regardless of race.
1. She never took a salary from BLM: False. BLM stated they paid her 120k a year.
2. There is no proof she bought the houses or owns them: False, she admitted in interviews and statements she bought them for her family and herself. I question also that she is giving these homes to family, since she said herself that they disowned her and kicked out at 16 when she came out as queer. I can't find proof to counter that she gave them to family members, so that is just an opinion.
3. She is an avowed Marxist and Socialist, yet she is pursuing capitalist ideals hardcore. She tries to worm her way around this in her interview, but the Left themselves are criticizing her for doing this.
4. Wherever there is a white-dominant space, deep racism exists as well - no matter how progressive. If you cut too far into that progressive, if you do something that's too radical, white racism will emerge. - Patrisse Cullors: Also buys 1.4 million expansive property in Topanga Canyon district, which is 88% white and 1.8% black. Why would she want to live someplace where, per her previous quotes, deep racism exists?
Police in America - Where Are The Good Apples?
So fighting non violence with violence?
That's what been going on.
Gang and in Thugs as in not Cops?
BLM seem to strictly protesting against Cops.
Marxist BLM would serve their community better if they would march against those actually killing blacks in large #s.
Cops aren't the issue.
That's what the BLM movement is about, marching against gang violence. Where you been? It's been pretty widely reported on.
Rabbit wakes up his owners by sprinting on their heads
Serves you right for sleeping in the middle of the race track.
Also, not as bad as ferrets attacking your feet in the middle of the night.
Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost
What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?
I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.
My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.
Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.
Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.
No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.
Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"
And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.
Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.
You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.
I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.
Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.
It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.
You are projecting.
Marriage takes the honesty away from a relationship.
It's no longer me and you.
It's me and you and uncle sam.
I want *consensual* relations where me and my partner set our rules, not some 3rd party, and not when the rules are stacked against me.
^
But my lord there IS no such force
Don't forget that the Chinese serve some pretty good duck.
Eat more duck eggs.
Democrat Breaks Senate Rules To Call Out Racist Senator
Didn't forget. Just want to feed it in small servings so he has time to digest.
You forgot the damage and debauchery....costing upwards of $500000000 so far in repairs and added security costs. I'm sure he missed any reports about that too, too busy being focused on Dr Seuss's family running their business as they see fit and calling it censorship.
Burger King's "Madvertizing" | Real Time with Bill Maher
One of those languages is the language of men.
I pay people to do my shopping and prepare my food and serve it to me, then clean up after me. I definitely do not belong in the supermarket or the kitchen unless the help has a knife in their back.
Amanda Gorman translators into foreign languages are quitting one by one because they are not young black poetesses. Some languages lack young black poetesses.
People who want to be in the kitchen belong in the kitchen regardless of race and/or sex. But only if they can actually cook.
How to get a contempt of court charge as a lawyer
It seems she wanted to quit the case because her client wanted a defense instead of taking the easy plea deal. It seems likely that there is a long trail of defendants that were poorly served by this lazy attorney.
I Arrested the District Attorney.....EXPLAINED
I’ve seen the raw footage from 1996 of this case without the commentary, but I’ve never been able to find any follow up. Does anyone have any idea how this ended up? It sounds good, but remember, he’s only serving (and “arresting”) court workers who have no idea what’s happening or how to respond. I’m curious what happened when it got to court. Did he win, or is this like sovereign citizen nonsense that might confuse someone into being scared to act but has no real legal validity?
Anybody?
Mordhaus
(Member Profile)
Watching the opening statements today, it seems there are far more than one example of former officials being tried for impeachment after leaving office, including one tried by the founding fathers themselves with unanimous consent, solidifying the notion that their intent was to allow trying former officials constitutionally even though they could not remove them since they were already out of office, but they could bar them from holding any office in the future.
When the people who wrote the constitution interpret it that way, I think that’s game over. No one knows their intent better than they did, and their actions of trying a senator, one who had already been removed from office, in an impeachment trial is unambiguous, more so when you read what they wrote about it.
We shall see if today’s senate cares more about constitutional obligations or blind loyalty to an individual. It’s a forgone conclusion that they won’t convict out of blind loyalty, but exposing the criminality they’re going to excuse still serves a purpose.
Edit: one purpose it serves is setting precedent....if this president can attempt to stop the peaceful (or not peaceful) transfer of power to the president elect by instructing a rabid armed violence prone crowd to “stop the steal” “you can’t let them certify Biden or your country is lost” “fight hard” “I’ll be there with you” without a single repercussion, so can the next one....and now the perpetrators know many of the weak points thanks to this disorganized coup attempt. Republicans should be terrified of that, enough to send a message by convicting. If they don’t, they invite every president that loses an election to attempt a January coup, precedent will protect them, so they would be obligated to try.
There we absolutely agree.
Precedent usually decides how law is interpreted, but not always. One similar case is not exactly overwhelming.
And no, even with a few Republicans they don't have the votes. I think that's a travesty for America and Republicans but that's just, like, my opinion, man. There's always the slim hope that some are so sick of him they break party lines, but I'm not holding my breath.
I wish they could just use a simple majority vote to bar him from politics including fund raising and move along, along with many of his family members that were just as culpable if not more, but that's not the reality I live in.
University in Norway responds to Will Ferrell
It's a sad thing that many Americans' first introduction to Europe is Charles de Gaulle airport, which serves the same purpose in European transportation as Hell does in Christian theology. CDG is how France punishes Americans for telling World War 2 jokes.
When you're landing at CDG, the pilot says "We are now arriving at Charles de Gaulle Airport. Please prepare to weep tears of blood and rage." That's when you realize the scenes below of people running in circles and screaming in panic is just the line for passport control. It gets worse from there and differs from Dante's Inferno only in that Dante' got out within a single human lifetime.
(Story: I got lost in that place once -- and by 'once', I mean 'every single fucking time' -- and couldn't figure out how to get to the taxi stand. Since no one will give you help at CDG like no one will give you ice water in Hell, I approached this French military guy toting what looked a lot like a MP-5.
"Bonjour, Monsieur," I began, "je ne parle pas français; parlez-vous Anglais?" and I'm trying to scrape together enough of the infantile French I know into some semblance of "how the fuck do I get out of this failure of architectural design and vacancy of God's mercy to get a taxi?", which came out as "Taxi, S'il vous plaît?", probably much to my advantage.
The dude with the MP-5 gives me the Gallic stink-eye, shakes his head slowly, and then points directly up.
"Taxi -->" said the giant sign directly above his head.
"Ah, merci!" I said brightly while he, my mortified wife and pretty much the entire nation of France rolled their eyes.
I so fucking love France!)
Let's talk about what happened in Rochester, New York
Aim for the head.
It's easier to get out of prison than the morgue.
Police only protect and serve other police....but they never police them. Immunity means these child abusers might at worst get paid vacation, and likely get a raise.
Write your representatives, insist immunity, even qualified immunity be removed. There's no reason police shouldn't be responsible for their actions, it only leads to them thinking macing handcuffed 9 year olds is fine.
Every single police union rep in the country should be skinned alive in front of their families and melted in acid. They are inhuman scum.
Republicans Try to Dismiss Trumps Second Impeachment Trial
I could quote legal scholars who think otherwise, but since it is kind of split down the middle, you would be able to find just as many that argue that it is constitutional. My opinion goes towards the non-constitutional side. He isn't a sitting President any longer and the only reason Democrats are doing this is because, as you mentioned, it is a much higher bar to convince a jury that using the word 'Fight' means a call to insurrection. If they could manage to force it through the easier method, then they can simply call for a majority vote and block him from running again in 2024.
That is the net goal of the Democrats, because they fear he will win once people realize how badly the new ecological policies and debt from a further stimulus is going to hurt our economy. Let's be realistic in that it took Trump fucking up multiple times, the worst pandemic in 100 years, and the entire Democratic voting bloc turning out for Biden to win by a few thousand in the critical states that gave him the electoral mandate. I can't vote for him again, but there are plenty who would. Mostly poor and middle class working people who are going to be realizing just how bad Biden is going to fuck up the economy in the short term over his appeasement of portions of the green new deal.
We've discussed the gun situation to death. I could post quotes from Kamala and Biden, as well as his stated plan for gun control he put up on his site, but it would again serve no purpose. You feel that nothing will happen or it will only be limited to scary 'assault rifles'. I feel otherwise. We can bang our heads against the metaphorical wall over and over, but in the end neither of us is going to change the other's mind on gun control.
Sadly, in my case, that still means that unless Democrats do a 180 on gun control and illegal immigration I will continue to be forced to vote for Republicans. Also, yes, I mean the trial, but can we not split hairs? It's like asking for a Kleenex and getting nagged that you really meant Puffs.
Impeachment already happened for a second time. You mean the trial.
It is pretty definitely constitutional because he was impeached while still the sitting president.
One reason for it is, in a criminal trial, they have to prove he intended to start a violent insurrection, a very difficult bar to clear especially considering his contradictory instructions in his speech and his mental state....in an impeachment trial they only have to show that his words incited it, not his intent. That’s a no brainer.
The only way it hurts Democrats in 2022 is it would hinder his creating a new party that would split “conservative” votes and guarantee victory for democrats across the board. Thinking conservatives should be itching for conviction and a ban from office to save the Republican party in 2022, if he’s let off conservatives are domed....republicans can’t win without Trumpists, Trump can’t win without Republicans. Conversely, letting him off with no consequences would hurt the democrat vote badly...why elect them if they let Republicans get away with everything including violent and deadly insurrection and attempted assassination.
Your fear of libs coming for your guns makes me sad. You drank the fear flavored koolaid, they just aren’t unless you go violently nuts, stalk someone, or beat your wife up, or if you need to buy them illegally because you’re a felon. Note, the NRA went bankrupt under Trump and McConnel, not Biden.
If Republicans want to fight everything because a murderous and treasonous coup is prosecuted as if it were disturbing the peace with no prison time possible, they should be tossed as traitors to the constitution that they swore to uphold that requires a punishment for inciting insurrection and attempting a government overthrow. Really, they want an excuse for fighting everything, it’s a foregone conclusion that they will no matter what, they have zero interest in compromise or bipartisanship. They insisted Trump had a mandate and should ignore Democrats completely because he won the electoral college, but now that Biden won it and the popular vote and the house and senate they insist he has no mandate and must let the minority call the shots. It’s not consistent because they aren’t honest about anything anymore.
No one that thinks prosecuting directing an attempted coup is wrong would be voting democrat anyway. Prosecuting incitement of murderous insurrection is not vengeance, it’s barely a thin slice of justice, but it’s the best that can be reasonably hoped for in today’s hyper partisan climate.
Tacoma Police Car Plows Through Crowd
This is a "Thuggish morons vs thug" kind of situation though. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that the thug would open fire in multiple directions THEN ram away out of the scene.
That would be the easiest/laziest response though. I was honestly being unfair to the cop with the above statement if I left it at that.
It seems the cop was just honestly looking into a reported illegal racing/gathering situation. Situation quickly got out of hand and got ganged up by those cop-hating (or not cop-fearing at least) kids. Legitimately panicked, the cop wanted to extricate him/herself out of the situation. What to do? Ram out a bloody path, putting people's body or even life in danger be damned, of course.
You've got to understand that the cop simply WOULD NOT be thinking any of those people are "innocents" and act discriminately, feeling they "deserve protection."
Cops feel so empowered these days they can do anything and feel justified to do anything without risk of consequences for themselves. The whole Law Enforcement and Justice Department "brotherhood" is behind every cops. With that mentality, why would this particular cop NOT do what he/she did? Why would this cop care what happened to the people that got rammed through? I can imagine they would do all these things.
Besides, the cop have to assume some of them came packing guns. It WAS a legitimately dicey situation he/she got into...
The lawsuits.... anyone want to bet what portion of the blame the cop will get? I bet the verdict when the gavel drops is a big fat ZERO.
Want to blame the cop? Why not blame the System first? Since it's all too easy under America's law enforcement system to train even an honest-to-goodness, idealistic person to go from "I want to Protect & Serve" to "I can kill/main anyone for looking at me funny and call it police work."
This is just not "Shocking!" anymore. In fact, I don't expect any less these days of police encounters. Cynical? Of course, But how can I NOT be?
Tacoma Police Car Plows Through Crowd
When your mom told you that it was to protect you from the ones doing burnouts, not the ones who "protect and serve".
Pretty sure vehicular assault isn't in the police handbook. The rear window doesn't seem to have been smashed during that event like the police are claiming either.
Guess mom didn't teach these kids not to play in the street.