I’m guessing we’ll be seeing a wave of Tesla Powerwall advertisements in California in the near future.
Very green of them. With the Lithium pit mines, and recharging those batteries with juice from coal burning power plants.  No coal in California. Natural gas though which is still bad but not nearly as bad as coal. Thought fossil fuels were verboten to those folks |
|
|
|
Just know that project veritas videos are typically plagued with a large amount of cuts and edits to make things look worse then they actually do. Not saying that this is the case in this video, or that it should take away from the effects of what is going on -- because it is pretty wild to think about this.
But remember that everyone has a bias and there is a reason for everyone sharing what they do.
Imagine what Tucker and the rest of the people at fox say about Clinton (and Dems) behind the scenes.
Yes, Veritas likes to play up the "oh my" drama. I tune that out and just listen to the evidence and not their commentary. Obviously FOX was swinging right, but not so much anymore. Seems like they tried to balance it out with Donna Brazil's and Sam Sheppard. And there always that black guy (forget his name) who did a decent job of debating the right-swingers with his opposing left view. But the point of this is not to point fingers...... "CNN does this, but look what FOX does". Thats a child's fight akin to "I know I was wrong, but look what they did." I'm not talking about them, I talking about you. My point in posting this video is because anyone who said CNN was unfairly slanted was immediately lambasted with its leftist defenders rolling their eyes and calling them conspiracy theorists. They're wrong. CNN is biased. |
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/m7XZmugtLv4Above is the link to the video. CNN employee tapes conversations of the bosses who no longer give a crap about honest reporting with integrity. They only want to bash Trump and republicans. This is no surprise to anyone. But offers confirmation about their reporting motives. @PopoJeff when I opened this thread I believed this would be another fake news, but then I saw the entire 19 minute video and I realised this was real. It’s hard to believe but Trump was right all along, he kept screaming that media houses were against him and today it has been proved that he was correct. I’m expecting some fiery tweets from Trump, as he won’t let this news die. Source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/project-veritass-alleged-cnn-whistleblower-says-network-is-pumping-out-propagandaIf you've been watching the news as long as I have, it was quite obvious. I know the leftists defend it and accuse anyone who says otherwise of being a conspiracy theorist, but it was blatantly apparent starting a few years back. They weren't too hard on the Bush's or Reagan. Weren't too over-the-top kissing butt on Bill. I noticed the changes during Obama's terms. He could do no wrong and when he did, they downplayed it. He sent 21mil cash to Iran. Hillary sold uranium to Russia, and in return, received a little extra cash in her personal life. So now Iran can buy Uranium from Russia, and use it against the US. If any of that same stuff was done by someone with "R-" before their name, it would've been reported by CNN as treason. Yet they white-washed it. It is what it is.... and its really no surprise to those of us that can see the blatant bias. And one of the reasons I stopped paying for cable TV a few years ago. |
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/m7XZmugtLv4Above is the link to the video. CNN employee tapes conversations of the bosses who no longer give a crap about honest reporting with integrity. They only want to bash Trump and republicans. This is no surprise to anyone. But offers confirmation about their reporting motives.
|
|
|
|
|
She still feels powerful because no one has ID'd her suicide hit squad
|
|
|
|
I’m guessing we’ll be seeing a wave of Tesla Powerwall advertisements in California in the near future.
Very green of them. With the Lithium pit mines, and recharging those batteries with juice from coal burning power plants. |
|
|
|
Why is the left pushing the idea of socialism/comunism so much even tho it showed that it doesn't work many times in the past?
Because those who do not learn from history's mistakes are bound to repeat them |
|
|
|
Talk about moving the goal post. I never said the NRA and PP were the same. I only brought up the NRA in response to TECSHARE who said: I don't care if it is $1, there is an inherent conflict of interest in an entity recieving federal support spending that money on political campaigns and lobbying. So I pointed out a bunch of examples of entities receiving federal funding, including the NRA and you said: First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing. I cant wait for this one. I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer. Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP. So I gave you proof that the NRA does receive tax payer money and you respond: Apples to oranges buddy. But good try with the google. Any govt money going to the NRA is for firearms courses and trading, of which they are the expert. And its a drop in the bucket. Less than 5% of their income iirc. That money doesnt just "fund the nra". It pays for the rentals of the gun ranges, cost of supplies and targets, and pays the instructors. Range fees and instructor pay is the majority of that money. And the instructors are cops or other LE agents. The NRA facilitates the law enforcement people training themselves, not just free handouts to anyone who shows up. I mean wtf? Wtf? The wtf is you dont get it, and dont ever give it a second thought to try see see the difference. Probably shouldn't even bother wasting the keystrokes. But, I'll try to explain this in easy terms. Lets say you are the boss of a law enforce the agency. You have a budget. You have to spend money on training. The cheapest option for the firearms training is an NRA sponsored class. The instructors are FBI agents certified by the NRA, or other local offers certifies by the NRA. The NRA is the premier expert in the field, and offers the best price for a required activity. The fee you pay "to the NRA", the NRA uses to pay range rental, pay the instructors, etc... the NRA doesn't pocket the money... it goes in a circle back to training officers that need training. NRA organizes the circle. The costs to train the LE agencies actually exceeds the fee they charge. They use voluntary donations to make up the difference and fill the gap. But thats probably over your head Can we get back to free cigarettes? I want the taxpayer to cover my voluntary poor decisions. Maybe pay my independent informed decision to attend college too. I never said the NRA and PP are the same. I agree with you. They are different. I only posted those links because you said the NRA doesn't use taxpayer money. They do. Under TECSHAREs idea, this would prevent the NRA from donating to or lobbying politicians. (a long with a lot of other individuals, businesses and associations) I didn't say TECSHAREs idea was a bad one either, I don't think it necessarily is, it's an idea I haven't considered before. I just listed some pros and cons I thought of. Just trying to have a discussion. I appreciated the level headed response. Apologies if I got a little assy earlier I dont have a problem with every organization getting taxpayer money. Heck, most people would be surprised where much of it goes. I handled govt (mostly USN) purchasing contracts after i got out of the Navy in the '90's. Govt money goes everywhere. And I doubt we all give two shits about the political preferences or donations of a company that embroiders the flight suit patches for a fighter squadron. I dont have a problem using tax dollars educating the public on health matters (PP family services). But a large portion of tax payers feel quite used when handouts are given to folks who ignore that education, and voluntarily engage in risky activity. The taxpayers feel absolutely used and taken advantage of by the portion of the population who abuse the services and enjoy being a burden on the system. (Reference an earlier post of mine about "Intervention" and "My 600lb Life" |
|
|
|
Talk about moving the goal post. I never said the NRA and PP were the same. I only brought up the NRA in response to TECSHARE who said: I don't care if it is $1, there is an inherent conflict of interest in an entity recieving federal support spending that money on political campaigns and lobbying. So I pointed out a bunch of examples of entities receiving federal funding, including the NRA and you said: First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing. I cant wait for this one. I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer. Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP. So I gave you proof that the NRA does receive tax payer money and you respond: Apples to oranges buddy. But good try with the google. Any govt money going to the NRA is for firearms courses and trading, of which they are the expert. And its a drop in the bucket. Less than 5% of their income iirc. That money doesnt just "fund the nra". It pays for the rentals of the gun ranges, cost of supplies and targets, and pays the instructors. Range fees and instructor pay is the majority of that money. And the instructors are cops or other LE agents. The NRA facilitates the law enforcement people training themselves, not just free handouts to anyone who shows up. I mean wtf? Wtf? The wtf is you dont get it, and dont ever give it a second thought to try see see the difference. Probably shouldn't even bother wasting the keystrokes. But, I'll try to explain this in easy terms. Lets say you are the boss of a law enforce the agency. You have a budget. You have to spend money on training. The cheapest option for the firearms training is an NRA sponsored class. The instructors are FBI agents certified by the NRA, or other local offers certifies by the NRA. The NRA is the premier expert in the field, and offers the best price for a required activity. The fee you pay "to the NRA", the NRA uses to pay range rental, pay the instructors, etc... the NRA doesn't pocket the money... it goes in a circle back to training officers that need training. NRA organizes the circle. The costs to train the LE agencies actually exceeds the fee they charge. They use voluntary donations to make up the difference and fill the gap. You have saved taxpayer money by not paying higher costs for less quality training offers by other for-profit companies But thats probably over your head Can we get back to free cigarettes? I want the taxpayer to cover my voluntary poor decisions. Maybe pay my independent informed decision to attend college too. |
|
|
|
First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing. I cant wait for this one. I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer. Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP.
Here's a few. I'm sure there are lots more. https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/23767473https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/9520472https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/9520780Next one that piques my interest every time I hear it...."restricting access to birth control". I beg your pardon kind sir. Access is not restricted at all. Access is still available. The "access' would just not be funded by those who work for a living and actually contribute to society. They can still buy pills, condoms, and learn alternate methods. Of course I was being a raunchy smart ass when I said pull-out, swallow ,etc... but those are free methods, as is abstinence. The local church does not charge a fee to teach abstinence. Poverty has nothing to do with this at all. If we don't allow doctors to write prescriptions for birth control to people on Medicaid, their access to birth control will be restricted. They're on medicaid because they make less than $17k a year and don't have health insurance. You really think they will pay a couple hundred bucks a month (or every 3 months) to visit a doctor without insurance and then go pay full price at the pharmacy? This is all besides the fact that birth control is prescribed for lots of reasons other than preventing pregnancy. Apples to oranges buddy. But good try with the google. Any govt money going to the NRA is for firearms courses and trading, of which they are the expert. And its a drop in the bucket. Less than 5% of their income iirc. That money doesnt just "fund the nra". It pays for the rentals of the gun ranges, cost of supplies and targets, and pays the instructors. Range fees and instructor pay is the majority of that money. And the instructors are cops or other LE agents. The NRA facilitates the law enforcement people training themselves, not just free handouts to anyone who shows up. And your birth control argument fails to note that its not just Medicaid covered prescription.... other "programs" within offer "free" or discounted, and I'm sure they know how to work the system. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-control-pill/how-do-i-get-birth-control-pillsWould you feel the same if Medicaid or "other govt programs" offered free or discounted cigarettes to low income folks? How is that any different? It's a conduct that one could voluntarily just not engage in. |
|
|
|
|
Rewarding bad behavior only encourages further bad behavior.
|
|
|
|
Now back to reality, Planned Parenthood also receives $50 to $60 million dollars a year under Title X grants, which is far different than Medicaid reimbursements. Speaking of Medicaid reimbursements, The Hyde Amendment only restricts federal funds for being directly used for abortions. States are still using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions under Medicaid. Furthermore, the federal funds, tho restricted from being used directly for abortions also frees up money that is indirectly used for abortions or to advocate for abortion for example in the form of payroll, facilities, lobbying, and campaign contributions.
Yeah. I basically already said all this. Although I think they get closer to $100 mil for title X. Actually, I think barring anyone receiving federal funds from contributing to campaigns or lobbying would be great for this country.
That's a fair argument. This would result in a lot less money going towards campaign donations and reduce taxes overall. But it would also increase government spending and lower the quality/value of things they spend their money on since their market would be reduced. For example, the NRA would probably just turn down offers to train law enforcement so they could continue to spend money on campaigns and lobbying. So the government would have to find someone else that, I assume, wouldn't provide the same quality and/or price. It would also be very complicated and difficult to enforce. If a small business owner wants to make a campaign donation, whose responsibility would it be to make sure that no government employee claims any of their sales on an expense report? Regarding PopoJeff, why is this a ridiculous argument? A refutation without substantiation is a very low form of debate. People object to taxpayer funds being used to subsidize people's bad life choices, and rightfully so. How is this argument flawed?
I get that their "Federal Funding" is mostly Medicaid. But it's still taxpayer money used to correct an issue that so bribe created themselves.
Oh, you can't afford birth control pills? Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt.
Gee, how'd you get that STD?
Not my problem. Taking away access to birth control for women on medicaid would result in more unwanted pregnancies. Even if you teach them "Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt." This has been proven over history. Unwanted pregnancies make it exponentially harder to get out of poverty and a child born into poverty is much more likely to live their life in poverty, contribute less to society, pay less taxes, commit more crimes, etc. It's a vicious cycle. I really did not want to continue going down this road, and wanted to get back in track with the original topic..... but some things in your post I just cant ignore. First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing. I cant wait for this one. I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer. Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP. Next one that piques my interest every time I hear it...."restricting access to birth control". I beg your pardon kind sir. Access is not restricted at all. Access is still available. The "access' would just not be funded by those who work for a living and actually contribute to society. They can still buy pills, condoms, and learn alternate methods. Of course I was being a raunchy smart ass when I said pull-out, swallow ,etc... but those are free methods, as is abstinence. The local church does not charge a fee to teach abstinence. Poverty has nothing to do with this at all. Most of the left's argument skirt the big picture by using buzz words like you use on specific issues. The Left loves to make everyone a victim.... unless we can tax the ever living hell out of the workers. Those who actually pay taxes and contribute to society are sick and tired of seeing their hard earned dollars go to waste, being abused and squandered by those who manipulate the system, rely on hand-outs, or are just unmotivated to work. These are the people who vote for Trump. Employment is at an all time high, for every racial section of US society. This is the mindset of "teach a man to fish". I have no problem helping someone out. I love to teach people how to correct their issues and their lives. But no one likes being used for their money. |
|
|
|
27% contraception.
There are free ways. Our parent taught us, or school taught us.
lol. And that doesn't even included the bucket of free condoms in the lobby. Yeah. They should be doing more abortions and prescribing less birth control. How the heck do you get that from what I said. No they shouldn't be doing more abortions. I'm amazed that 27% of their expenses are spent on helping people shirk their personal responsibly, and enabling reckless behavior, or a non-necessity. Teach them to swallow, and PP can cut 27% of their bottom line |
|
|
|
I get that their "Federal Funding" is mostly Medicaid. But it's still taxpayer money used to correct an issue that so bribe created themselves. Oh, you can't afford birth control pills? Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt. Gee, how'd you get that STD? Not my problem. This is no different than welfare abuse. My wife likes to watch "My 600 lb life" and "Intervention" on TV. Guess what they have in common. They are all on welfare, and use the welfare to buy more drugs or food. Some PP money info: https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-18-204Rhttps://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-moneyShould we also be supplying cigarettes to those addicted? Rather than the govt deciding where every tax dollar goes, it would be nice if the individual tax payer could allot where it goes. Dedicated percentages assigned to essential services: Military funding, infrastructure, govt employee functions, etc. maybe totaling 75% of your tax obligation. Then 25% elective services: homelessness, hunger, welfare, family planning, etc.. I'm tired of paying for everyone else's bad choices and lack of self control |
|
|
|
|
27% contraception.
There are free ways. Our parent taught us, or school taught us.
|
|
|
|
^^^ Sympathy for Joe isn't the important part. If you have a website, and you have rules for people joining your site, that's fine and good. You have control over your site, welcoming people on who follow the rules, and getting rid of people who don't. But when your site becomes so large, with such a great number of "members" that you can influence presidential elections with it, the situation changes. Nobody is going to tell the truth all the time. Most people will tell intentional lies a little. Some people without even knowing that they just said something that was untrue. But if you manipulate people like Joe on the basis of simply reporting the news, doesn't mean you need to have sympathy for Joe. It means you need to correct freedom of speech in a website that has become a bastion of communication for all people. Dump Joe for his proven lies, not that he reported the news and threw in his personal opinion.  Now, if they could only apply the same process to CNN |
|
|
|
|
Plant trees. They need CO2. And they make O2
|
|
|
|
I’m by no means a trump fan, but I agree with you. I don’t know what happened before the last election but both parties shifted and almost became fringe parties. It became more clear than ever that the 2 party system is ultimately broken. I didn’t know who to vote for because all viable candidates were way too far left or right for me to even bother voting.
I don’t want open borders, and I don’t want higher taxes. But I also think women should have a say in what they do with their uterus and think war should be avoided at all costs. What do I do now?
I get where youre coming from.. but where do you think think anyone is trying to restrict women's uteruses? Some far right folks can certainly be ani-abortion, but the current R administration has no qualms with abortion at the moment. The thing that is getting spun, is they dont want tax dollars being spent on it. Which I agree with. You do you, just dont expect me to pay for it. The govt funds Planned Parenthood, not the NRA. The left screamed that defunding PP would be bad for women somehow. They can correct their own issues by not letting men cum in them. And PP isn't hurting for money, they just announced a $45mil campaign to attack Republicans. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
