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. 🤦‍♂️

Your video, Is Warner Brothers Betting $900 Mill That Ghosts Are Real?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Probably a stupid question, but if Brittle signed a contract with the Warrens, then why is he suing Warner Brothers instead of the Warrens? It sounds like the Warrens are the ones who should be on the hook for this.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'conan, late night, talk show, warner, brothers, animation' to 'conan, late night, talk show, warner, brothers, animation, pierre bernard, dc' - edited by xxovercastxx

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Conan-visits-the-Warner-Brothers-animation-building-Part-2

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by rasch187. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I could swear this was already here but I'm not finding it.


Here's the old one, but it's broken.
http://videosift.com/video/Conan-visits-the-Warner-Brothers-animation-building-Part-2

Yeah, I actually figured that but Speedy's an easy target for people with no sense of humour- I'm sure this Mayor fits that category.

In reply to this comment by ulysses1904:
Not sure if you misunderstood me, as I wasn't knocking or "censoring" Speedy Gonzalez. FWIW, the Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1940s and 1950s are the quality standard that I compare all over animations to. And no doubt some of them have blatantly racist or ethnically insulting scenes and characters, which were viewed as acceptable back then.

My comment was that it would fit right in with the mayor's taco remark, to act like being a fan of Speedy Gonzalez would help build bridges to the modern day Latino community in East Haven.

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^ulysses1904:
Wow....just....wow. I live near New Haven and have read about this quote but this is the first I'm seeing the footage. At least he didn't say "I might have tacos and then watch a Speedy Gonzalez retrospective".

Don't you knock Speedy Gonzales! That dude rocks! He's won at least one more Academy Award than any of us ever will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Gonzales
The world of America was bigoted and rife with ethnic stereotypes at the time. Those views were just as wrong then as they are now, but to censor the mouse is the same as pretending that those views never existed. Disney pretends that "Song of the South" was never made, but that's a mistake as well.

Not sure if you misunderstood me, as I wasn't knocking or "censoring" Speedy Gonzalez. FWIW, the Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1940s and 1950s are the quality standard that I compare all over animations to. And no doubt some of them have blatantly racist or ethnically insulting scenes and characters, which were viewed as acceptable back then.

My comment was that it would fit right in with the mayor's taco remark, to act like being a fan of Speedy Gonzalez would help build bridges to the modern day Latino community in East Haven.

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^ulysses1904:
Wow....just....wow. I live near New Haven and have read about this quote but this is the first I'm seeing the footage. At least he didn't say "I might have tacos and then watch a Speedy Gonzalez retrospective".

Don't you knock Speedy Gonzales! That dude rocks! He's won at least one more Academy Award than any of us ever will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Gonzales
The world of America was bigoted and rife with ethnic stereotypes at the time. Those views were just as wrong then as they are now, but to censor the mouse is the same as pretending that those views never existed. Disney pretends that "Song of the South" was never made, but that's a mistake as well.

I live in Austin TX and the drafhouse is the _only_ theater I will go to. This woman had it coming, shes blatantly lying her ass off when she stated that she didn't know she couldn't text/talk on the phone/talk at all during the film. Before EVERY film they show you get a warning that states:

“DON’T TALK DURING THE MOVIE

& TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONE

OR WE’LL TAKE YOUR ASS OUT.”

&

“FROM THIS MOMENT ON

THIS THEATER IS A

QUIET ZONE

IF YOU TALK DURING THIS PRESENTATION

YOU WILL RECEIVE ONE WARNING.

IF YOU CONTINUE TO TALK, YOU WILL BE

EJECTED WITHOUT A REFUND”

Usually during/following some very funny video, one of their previous PSA's for not talking during a film included an elderly lady that used very colorful language for expressing how she feels about people talking during the film. During movies from warner brothers they often use "cut you up with a linoleum knife" intro to the aqua teen hunger force movie (seen most recently when I went to see the hangover part 2).

Bottom line. Don't fucking talk, text, or use your phone during the film. Or they will take your ass out.

Another reason why I think he has schizophrenia rather than bi-polar: he has his kids with the porn stars and him. Even when they party! (Although, I must admit it could be bi-polar as mania can get REALLY bad accompanied by psychotic/hallucinatory type situations and grandeur; and this happened after a binge...)

The porn stars have even said publicly that the children don't belong there. Charlie sounds like he's having some disconnects with reality. Most likely due to drugs (which is why bi-polar is popular, because of it's typical "self-medicating" issues, but this isn't self-medication as that entails that there is a lacking in mood, and Charlie never seems depressed. Plus during the interview he said he was clean for quite sometime; he didn't sound like it.

This all sounds like schizophrenia (if it is bi-polar, I'm guessing it's more drug related than anything else, due to his own words): ranging from psychotic, to normal, to semi-delusional or completely delusional; the drugs would increase the effect and also create more issues if the use is heavy. I personally think he's created this psychotic, semi-delusional state most likely from the "hardcore" drugs (his seven rocks, and self created non-terrestrial based logic). That stuff is like a Vulcan mind meld with a potato if you use it non-stop; it'll force your mind to neurologically connect itself in all sorts of ways it shouldn't. That's assuming there isn't some damage in there (like plaques, causing shifts in personality; that's a determination only the closest to him, or himself, can make).

I like how he sues Warner Brothers for firing him. The other actors on the show should counter-sue him.

You make good points. However if you made heroes (female and male) plain looking they would no longer seem special. Superheroes are basically modern gods and goddesses. And just like the Greeks and Romans, we make our gods hypermasculine (heavily muscled) and our goddesses hyperfeminine (beautiful, with hourglass figures).

However, American superheroes aren't the only ones portrayed this way. Britain's Judge Dredd is pretty big. So is MarvelMan, aka MiracleMan. Doctor Manhattan is also pretty big. (Insert big blue penis joke here.) And let's not forget Japan's Goku and Gohan, among others.

I'll concede that American superheroes are probably the most pronounced in this regard, and sometimes it's downright awful. But if the artist is good then extremes are generally avoided, and combined with good writing you get a comic book that stands shoulder to shoulder with others in the medium, at least in my opinion.



>> ^rebuilder:

What I mean is the female characters are ludicrously over-sexed and often portrayed in poses and clothing whose sole purpose is to maximize the amount of tits and ass shown. It just seems like a cheap way to market to a target audience of young boys. Of course there's also a stereotypical male figure, which has been getting more and more outlandish as well. My main issue with that is that it seems there's a certain standard way to draw comics in the US, designed more for saleability and a kind of industrial production method than for artistic purposes.
Most of the time you can tell the crap from the interesting stuff just by looking at the drawing style, but sometimes you find a very good story illustrated by a technically accomplished artist who has, to my eye, been corrupted by lifelong exposure to what they probably think is "the way" to draw comics. That I find sad.
I just find it hard to take any character seriously when their body language come straight out of a Playboy shoot.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."

I'll grant you that early Wonder Woman comics often played up bondage themes, but I haven't seen that exploitation post-Crisis.

I can't speak for all DC superheroes, but I think several good writers have really given Wonder Woman a well-rounded personality. Conversely, some have made her flat as paper. Still, I admire the character. If she had consistently good writing and a few top-notch villains (Cheetah's good, but the others are somewhat lacking) she'd be a top seller every month.

For a while Joss Whedon was attached to a Wonder Woman live-action film, but he's not now. If they could get him back I'm sure it would be a great film, and Wonder Woman's popularity would skyrocket like Batman's did after the Nolan films. Unfortunately the WW film is still in development hell, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.>> ^xxovercastxx:

I was pretty much a Marvel-only type of kid; the two-dimensional DC characters could never hold my attention.
That said, early Wonder Woman stories were (in)famous for being riddled with bondage & domination themes. WW lost her powers when she was tied up, so she was constantly being chained, cuffed and restrained. It was no accident; her creator was very open about his intent and (confusingly) somehow felt that women being tied up was empowering them.
Power Girl was a parody of the over-sexualization of women in comics right from the get-go, but became very popular in spite of it.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.
I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."
I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now.

What I mean is the female characters are ludicrously over-sexed and often portrayed in poses and clothing whose sole purpose is to maximize the amount of tits and ass shown. It just seems like a cheap way to market to a target audience of young boys. Of course there's also a stereotypical male figure, which has been getting more and more outlandish as well. My main issue with that is that it seems there's a certain standard way to draw comics in the US, designed more for saleability and a kind of industrial production method than for artistic purposes.

Most of the time you can tell the crap from the interesting stuff just by looking at the drawing style, but sometimes you find a very good story illustrated by a technically accomplished artist who has, to my eye, been corrupted by lifelong exposure to what they probably think is "the way" to draw comics. That I find sad.

I just find it hard to take any character seriously when their body language come straight out of a Playboy shoot.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."