search results matching tag: donation

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (356)     Sift Talk (42)     Blogs (41)     Comments (1000)   

Chaos erupts at LA City Hall as council votes to ban homeles

newtboy says...

I don’t live in LA….

We do have a homeless guy living in the neighborhood, down by the river (but no van) for years now….he cleans the streets of trash, keeps the gutters clean, and watches for late night crime, so no, I have no problem having homeless on my street, just like I had no problem hosting a homeless friend in my home for 6 months before letting him park and live in his airstream in my back yard for almost 7 years until he adopted an aggressive dog. I also donate fresh produce to food banks for the homeless constantly. I’ve done way more than my fair share, friendo. How about you?

There’s a big difference between accepting those here anyway and making the best of the situation and actively inviting more. Even well below normal intelligence people understand that, but you seem to not.

Rich…on $35k a year for two….in California. Well, that’s as based in reality as everything you say, so congrats on consistency….consistent insanity.

California on the other hand has a near $100 billion surplus, so we could build MORE facilities for addicts, mentally challenged/ill, and those who just had bad luck or no opportunities….if not for nimby asshats like this city council.

Funny, you thought them totally insane for suggesting housing homeless in hotels (without the option to opt out), which was the carrot part of this plan, but you relish the criminalization of being homeless, the stick. Pretty chicken shit and cowardly to pick on those who can’t defend themselves.

There was a proposed low income housing project 1 block away from me I didn’t oppose, but it fell through because there are absolutely no services and not even public transport here.

bobknight33 said:

Great so you have no problem having this near your local school or even on your street or front lawn?

You a better person that most.

Go post a sign Homeless -- my yard is available.

Why can't California build space for these people or facilities for those with drug addition/ mental illness . Just add another gas tax or such. California people are rich, like you. Do you fair share

Conservatives VS KKK : Spot The Difference

BSR says...

Thanks newt. I just couldn't ask @eric3579 to fix-my-flub again. I appreciate your donation.

newtboy said:

I would just like them farther apart. On my tablet it’s way too easy to hit the wrong one, or both at the same time.
@lucky760, can that go on the list for the next iteration (assuming there is one)? Just a bit more separation of the up/down buttons.

I erased your mistaken vote with mine @BSR

EXTERMINATION DISMEMBERMENT - AGONY INCARNATE

BSR says...

Nice that he donated his organs.

Thanks for doing the legwork and providing definitions and lyrics.

Not sure about the zip tie. I'm sure they had to cut it few times during the filming. Looked pretty snug.

Rent: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

newtboy says...

1) what part of that is a joke?
2) not all Cons are racists, but almost all racists are Cons.
3) All cons may not be blatant racists, but they all are willing to stand with blatant lifelong racists and support them and are willing and eager to support blatantly racist policies if the racists will support their candidates. You know a man by the company he keeps.
4) I rented 1/3 of an acre with utilities in California for $250 for 7+ years, when estimated rent would be up to $1500+Utilities, in order to give a needy person a home. After 7 years I raised rent to $300, 1/5 market value. Keep in mind my wife and I have lived on $30k a year +- for decades so she can work at a non profit blood bank helping the community. We could have used the money. Kindness isn’t monopolized by any one side/group, but it’s more rare from cons., as this video demonstrates.
5) if your siblings can’t afford to be that generous, you certainly shouldn’t force them to sell at that discount, and you should not take a dime. You control the estate, but you have a responsibility to distribute it evenly and fully, not give it away, not donate it to an elderly couple. You will ruin your family and your father’s legacy and they will be right to be mad at you for stealing their inheritance. Maybe offer it for $75k and take nothing yourself if you want to make a gift of it, absolutely don’t sell it at a discount without everyone’s agreement in advance. Trust me, I’ve been there.
6) are elderly people who need discounted rent really going to have $55k to buy even a discounted house? No bank would loan them money, they can’t pay it back. Is that a real offer?

bobknight33 said:

@newtboy

With my dad passing last month he left me to deal with his rental house.

Dad, being a racist white Trump supporter screwed his tenant, which are black . That's how Trump supporters roll, right?

Dad taught me well and will deal with them according.

Zillow estimates rent to be 1500$/mo. Lucky he raised his rent before his passing.


Dads wishes is that this couple in their mid 80's can stay as long as they want with the same rent agreement as signed back in 97.

Dads rent went up 20$ to 695/month. Way below market value.
The other 3 kids want me to sell it. I offered this house to them at 50% market value. House is worth around 110K$

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.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

So we now have publicly available testimony under oath with corroborating evidence as proof that the “stop the steal” fraud was nothing but a plan to bilk poor donors into donating more to Trump, donations spent on himself, his family, and at his properties at exorbitant rates. He asked for donations to support the “election defense fund”, which did and does not exist.

He raised around $250 million, none of which was spent in court. Most was spent on Trump organizations and businesses, and paid to his family at $20000 per minute speaking rates at events where they asked for more donations.

For instance, Guilfoyle was paid $60K for one under 3 minute introduction of her boyfriend, Don jr.

I’m 100% certain that’s not the only outrageous appearance fee they paid themselves….ex presidents usually get over $200000 for a speaking fee, what do you bet Trump pays himself at least that for every rally, speech, or appearance at Maralago out of those funds that were supposed to be paying to fight in court. The problem being that Trump knew full well he had zero chance in court because he had zero evidence of his claims, every sober advisor in the White House and his children told him so.

Will any crime, lie, or theft ever be enough for you to see Trump as the steaming pile of shit that he is? He’s been caught committing school frauds, housing frauds, business frauds, bank frauds, tax frauds, charity frauds, and political frauds….mostly against people just like you who trust him.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

So, mr “wrong is wrong”… does that extend to Boebert, who was just notified by the FEC that she’s violated (more) campaign finance laws over 20 times this year by accepting personal donations over $2900? Just 15 years ago that would not only end a political career, but might end up sending the representative to prison…today it gets a stern letter and barely a mention by the media, but is no less illegal.
Let’s remember that she was with her husband when he exposed himself to two 14-15 year old girls, and tried to help him cover it up.
Let’s also remember she admitted she abused her travel funds massively, paying herself well over $20000 pretending (in writing) that she drove herself almost 40000 miles in 6 months for government business while serving in Washington, then changing her story and claiming a bunch of that reimbursement was for hotel stays she hadn’t reported (but any hotel over $200 is required to be listed, not doing so is also a crime).

So, the question is, should Boebert be barred from holding office for accepting these 20+ “bribes” and embezzlement? Let’s see if you can answer without deflection or projection..$5 says no.

Let's talk about Republican reaction to the SCOTUS leak....

newtboy says...

The leak itself is newsworthy, but not 10% as newsworthy as what they leaked, which is proof that every single Republican Supreme Court judge lied outright under oath in their confirmation hearings when they all said “roe v wade is settled law and established precedent and will not be overturned by me”. The first chance they got, they took off that paper thin mask and revealed their agenda to legislate from the bench based on personal opinion not science, fact, or established law. They should ALL be impeached tomorrow for perjury during their sworn hearings.

Time to add 5 more liberal judges to the bench by June 1 and rehear the cases. It’s legal, and the only way to negate the liars, rapists, and religious zealots that Trump improperly installed by stealing two seats with McConnells help and filling a third with a drunk rapist. Turnabout is fair play.

MAY!? This IS the decision, they may rewrite the explanation slightly, but without a few assassinations, “accidents”, or criminal charges, this is how the vote will be reported next month, they already voted in Feb as I understand it, it’s just not official until it’s published but rarely are votes changed, and soon abortion will likely be 100% illegal in any state led by Republicans. Anybody know Barrett’s address? What about Kevanaugh? They, and any state representative voting against personal autonomy, should be doxed at every abortion clinic entrance so the now choice less women, many rape or incest victims, can make themselves martyrs and not just suicide statistics. There will be no exceptions now that they can write the laws that way.

We know this is a real draft because they instantly started looking for the “leaker”. You can’t “leak” a fake decision.

I hope women will start a sex strike in every red state. No nookie until they can control their own womb and it’s contents. It’s the ONLY logical move unless they want to be incubators with no autonomy.

Pretty certain that, if you disagreed with their decision, “wait and see” would not only be a terrible idea to you, it would also be an insult to your intelligence.

I’m petitioning Newsom to boycott any state enacting new laws restricting abortion, “new” meaning in the last decade. California does a shitload of business, we shouldn’t be doing it with states that are removing rights from women.

I just can’t fathom, with overpopulation being the root of all major problems humanity and the planet face, why so many idiots still think they should “be fruitful and multiply”, and should force that on their neighbors too. It’s the height of stupidity, and their children will pay the price for the lack of thought their parents put into the decision. We need to abort 9/10 embryos (or get 10 times better at stopping fertilization in the first place), not increase birth rates by double.

(Before you try the “but it’s murder” nonsense, legally and scientifically those things inside wombs aren’t people, and even if they WERE, one person cannot enslave another even in life or death situations. If they could, we would force live organ donations, transfusions, etc with the donor having no right to refuse.)

dogboy49 said:

Yes, they are talking about the leak. If you don't see how such a rare event (an entire draft SCOTUS opinion leaked to the press prior to actual release has NEVER happened before) is newsworthy, I don't know what to say.

I do imagine that it MAY also end up being a "potential massive victory", but it isn't right now. I see little point in speculating about what may happen, when there will be plenty of time to discuss the actual decision, once it has actually been released and becomes part of Federal jurisprudence.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Oh no! We Build The Wall founders plead guilty to stealing the donations you idiots gave them and Bannon to build Trump’s failed fence…a project they had no intention or capability of working on.
They admitted it was a charity scam from the start, and knew full well they were stealing, committing a crime, when they did it.

Remember Bannon was pardoned by Trump for this theft of nearly 25 million altogether.

Bernie Convinces Republicans He’s Right

newtboy says...

You can’t be that dumb.

1) these rich people pay our “leaders” to write unfair tax code so they can not pay taxes. Legalized by Republican pushes to allow unlimited corporate donations and bribes. In many cases, they DO in fact write the code, then hand it to those “leaders”.
2) these “leaders” writing tax loopholes for the super rich, all Republicans, are also rich people, legislating for personal gain.

If the top 1% made 80% of all income, they underpayed by more than half if flat tax were the law or in any way fair. In the 50’s, the time period conservatives want to return to, the top 1% paid 91% tax rates, and America was booming. Today it’s actually <24% and you whine.
How much did they pay AFTER their last massive tax cut, much less than 40%….not that I’m taking your word for those statistics, you are hardly a trustworthy source, the actual number in 2018 is 37% of personal income taxes, which ignores a lions share of non income taxes we all pay.

If you count ALL federal taxes, they payed <24% of taxes collected.
Their highest income tax rate for the rich was +-25% (before deductions, exemptions, loopholes, tax heavens, etc), 66% less than in the 50’s. Under Clinton they paid almost 40% income tax (not 24%), and the economy was again much stronger and growing much faster.

Edit: it was possibly the highest share of that portion of federal taxes paid by the top 1% since 1982, although your track record indicates that’s also a huge exaggeration, but if it’s even remotely true that would be because they took (not really earned) that much more income, not because they paid a higher percentage of earnings. In the 90’s they paid 40%, not today’s 25%…yet today they pay more….can you understand what that means? It means they take almost twice as much “income” as they did in the 90’s when the economy was strong.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/fact-check-richest-1-dont-pay-40-of-the-taxes.html

Republicans are ALL stupid people who do not think, proven every time they are forced to think and realize they have everything backwards. You idiots think Covid is a fraud, the election was stolen, and CRT in grade school is a thing.

Such a nonsensical blatant red herring. They often do “just write a check to the irs” btw. I’m not rich, but I don’t take deductions I legally could because I want to pay my share, not weasel out of it. That’s called being patriotic, not attacking congress and shirking any and all civic duties.
Pushing for a fair tax code, unlike Republicans who plan to raise taxes on anyone making under $250k AND end social security, Medicaid, Medicare, and any other social safety nets they can think of, is not just the ethical and moral thing, it’s the only sane economic move based on ALL economic history ever.

Right, stop wasting, like billions wasted on useless monuments to failure (Trump’s failing fence), trillions more on stupid failed trade wars, billions on political stunts like blockading the border (Texas), trillions to try to fix the disastrous Covid (lack of) response thanks to insane mismanagement and the removal of safeguards, billions to fight the non existent CRT in grade school nonsense…etc. you are ecstatic to waste billions-trillions on idiotic Republican nonsense with absolutely zero return for the money, not complaining once while Trump tried to double the debt in 4 years (nearly succeeding), but not on programs that keep the poor from turning to crime because they have literally nothing to lose, or start to fix our crumbling infrastructure, you call that pork. 🤦‍♂️

So fucking stupid, bob. Delusional, dumb, prejudiced, and always wrong. You must be playing the character of ignorant moronic trumptard, no real human being is this deluded or dumb. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, you are like a clock specifically designed to NEVER show the correct time….you actively avoid being truthful.

bobknight33 said:

Rich people do pay their fair share. Its called tax code. They did not write the code our Leaders did.
So don't bitch at rich people, bitch at our leaders

According to the latest IRS data for 2018— the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $616 billion in income taxes. That amounts to 40 percent of all income taxes paid, the highest share since 1980..

Just proves republicans also have stupid people who do not think .

Worse yet is that there are leaders who believe this false narrative also. They are themselves rich.. If they are so moved into paying their fair share why don't they just write a check to the IRS.

Better yet is to quit spending money on shit we don't need with money we don't have.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Mr engineer, when there are two parties, sentence structure demands you use plurals….both sides have THEIR share of undesirables. An engineer should see grammar as a clearly defined structure that follows simple rules and just get it. Spelling is different, but grammar should be a no brainer….why is it so hard for you? Have you never seen it that way, or was engineering incredibly difficult for you too?

The difference being one side is all undesirables, and the level of undesirability. One side openly calls for an end to American democracy, death for their political rivals, death for anyone who disagrees with today’s talking point. One side has no party platform, no stated goals, and exists solely to stop any legislation the other side puts forth, even when it was something they want or that would benefit them. They are the same side.

We found another point of agreement.

Term limits are a must, and will never happen because our system does put the regulatory onus on those who need regulating….absolute insanity. It also lets them set their own salaries, ethics, and benefits.

Divestment is another must. Perhaps a bigger must. Total divestment across the board. Not just blind trusts that aren’t really blind, and absolutely not what we have now…the “honor” system run by the honorless. Allowing legislatures to write horrific laws because they can personally financially benefit is a recipe for disaster. That should (but never will) change.

Campaign finance is a third must. Corporations should have the same donation limits individuals have, which should be more like $100 each so every person can afford to have a voice, and we should return to an equal time on broadcast tv for free situation and deny the media as a political platform to give candidates a boost….no more Fox News interviews indistinguishable from campaign commercials, no more media smear campaigns, with severe penalties for violations, like $10 mil the first time, $25 mil the second, loss of fcc license the third. Another non starter….but needed badly.

PACs should be outlawed, or regulated into obscurity.

Some reasons often brought up in opposition to term limits can be traced back to Maddison who wrote "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"

I think we have proven at this point the cons of self serving representatives legislating for personal gains outweigh the benefits of professional legislators, especially seeing as we have the internet and huge staffs to ostensibly level the playing field of knowledge.

One fix would be the creation of an ethics branch, completely non partisan, not self regulatory, with rules against former candidates (winners and losers) and lobbyists too from serving and strict rules about how they operate, and bans from running for office or being a lobbyist afterwards so it doesn’t become a campaign platform or tool for industry. Maybe even ban close family members from the same. Won’t happen, only the best people intentionally limit their powers, and they are few and far between in Congress….all but absent on your side.

bobknight33 said:

Cheney is 1 of the "others"

Both sides have its share of undesirables.

Term limits should be a must, but we have "the fox watching the hen house" so this will never happen.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Just gonna leave this here for you…..


Prior to his recent appearance in new Orleans Trump had sent out requests to his small donors saying, Hey, I'm gonna be in new Orleans and I want you to come with me and I'm gonna pay for your flight pay for the accommodations. And you one lucky donor is going to have dinner with me, Donald Trump himself, but you gotta donate to get into the, you know, contest, I guess you would call it. But after they got donations, Trump went to new Orleans, he talked to his donors and then he left. There was no winner. Nobody was selected. He solicited donations based on a contest that apparently they didn't even run.

Lemme guess, you don’t care he’s still a thief, stealing from his followers, nothing burger.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Oh no!
Good….Trump (likely) only has $93 million in liquid assets….1% of the 10 billion he’s claimed. None of his properties have shown a profit in at least two years, and they all are essentially owned by the banks that loaned him the money to buy them.
Better….he has $750 million in loan debts due in the next few years.
Best…. he also has between $100-$300 million in back taxes to pay or go to prison.

Sounds like Daddy Trump is going to be sleeping on your couch soon, he already spent all your political donations on defending his own criminal cases, and they’re all still moving forward. His lawyers are making arguments first year law students would laugh at, not actual defenses….and have bled both his and the RNCs coffers dry.
D’oh! Bad year to be a Trumpster.

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

Meaningless fiction.
In the post Trump era, it’s more likely that aliens will land and offer free telepathic abortions on demand than it is Democrats and Republicans will agree on anything enough for a 2/3 majority. When one party’s entire platform is “obstruct the other party”, constitutional evolution is dead.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….that makes abortion a right on all 3 counts, since pregnancy can threaten life, denies liberty, and who could be happy forced to be a life support system for another? Also, the logical extension of that obligation means healthy people forced to donate kidneys, transfuse their blood, repeatedly donate partial livers, etc. …anything that other person needs to live should be the obligation of anyone who can supply it. Same as forced pregnancy. That makes it a constitutional issue, the denial of life, liberty, and property without due process, conviction, or even a crime is addressed in the constitution, and applies here.

dogboy49 said:

To me, the current crop of justices seem to be less willing to deviate from the Constitution as written. Should abortion be allowed? IMO, yes. BUT, are laws banning abortion unconstitutional? According to the Constitution as written and amended, probably not. Roe v Wade was written by a court that believed that abortion and the "right to privacy" should carry the weight of constitutional law, even though the Constitution is silent on these "rights".

My suggestion: If abortion should be considered to be a "right", then so amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it will be subject to the vagaries of "interpretation" forever.

Kansas City Police Officer Found Guilty In 2019 Killing



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