|
Post by evileeyore on Mar 5, 2021 4:17:11 GMT
Marked as satire, but it's literally true. Reign your shitty activists in Lefties.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Apr 22, 2021 14:59:46 GMT
Satire, but also literally true. I told y'all BLM was a scam by the Marxist-trained leaders...
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Apr 23, 2021 0:30:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Apr 23, 2021 3:52:00 GMT
Do you enjoy the taste of your shoe leather that much? The satire is, that she's pushing BLM in order to buy a fifth home. The truth is she's using BLM to enrich herself (all three of the founders are). Of the 90 million BLM has taken in, only 25M has been spent to promote the cause or further the "BLM agenda", the other 65M has been swallowed by "administrative costs". And just because USA Today rummaged in their undies and failed to link her to the fourth home is not the smoking gnu of evidence they hope it is. USA Today tries to obfuscate by saying "two purchases were before 2020". So? They came after BLM formed. Since co-founding BLM she's bought a new six figure home roughly every two years, facts enve USA Today prints, but distracts you from thinking about. That's the truth here, that your "Marxist-trained" "socialist" is a greedy money grubber using the lumpenproles to enrich herself from the BLM scam. Which I told was the whole point of BLM six years ago, scam the Left and enrich the founders, that's all self proclaimed Marxists ever do.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Apr 23, 2021 10:50:49 GMT
Can you link it to BLM? If you can't then you're just conjecturing. In otherwords, spreading fake news. Since she has other income, she's using that, not BLM funds, which means, she's not using BLM to fund her house purchases. Which is what the article is stating. Call me again when you have real proof. Something you're always whining about in regards to Trump's malfeasance.
Satire is not fact and never was. You pushing it as fact is silly.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Apr 23, 2021 13:32:45 GMT
Can you link it to BLM? If you can't then you're just conjecturing. In otherwords, spreading fake news. Since she has other income, she's using that, not BLM funds, which means, she's not using BLM to fund her house purchases. Which is what the article is stating. Call me again when you have real proof. Something you're always whining about in regards to Trump's malfeasance.
Satire is not fact and never was. You pushing it as fact is silly.
How stupid are you? Her other sources of income? Her book was titled "When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir," and her production deal is for BLM content... So yeah - she is using BLM as the source of her income. I can assure you that he salary as an associate professor at a college in Arizona is nowhere near enough to even obtain a mortgage on the properties access purchased.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Apr 23, 2021 14:45:48 GMT
What you have is nothing but conjecture. Show me the paper trail, detailing money siphoned off the BLM foundation and I'll believe you. Otherwise, you got feelz. Feelz aren't facts.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Apr 23, 2021 14:49:31 GMT
Can you link it to BLM? If you can't then you're just conjecturing. In otherwords, spreading fake news. Since she has other income, she's using that, not BLM funds, which means, she's not using BLM to fund her house purchases. Which is what the article is stating. Call me again when you have real proof. Something you're always whining about in regards to Trump's malfeasance.
Satire is not fact and never was. You pushing it as fact is silly.
When someone doesn't have any property and then suddenly, in the last 4 years is able to spend 3 million dollars on buying homes, it's pretty darned fishy. Even if she is not directly using funds from BLM, which she likely is, in the form of pay for what she does, she is also benefiting from her BLM position as a writer and artist, and according to some articles which I'm sure about the source, nice consulting fees based on her BLM work. She's still using it to enrich herself, even if she's not stealing the money. You don't get to call yourself a "marxist" or "socialist" and own 4 homes worth a combined 3 million dollars.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Apr 23, 2021 14:50:42 GMT
What you have is nothing but conjecture. Show me the paper trail, detailing money siphoned off the BLM foundation and I'll believe you. Otherwise, you got feelz. Feelz aren't facts. Oh, so now feelz aren't good enough? You'll convict Trump over feelz, but not the people on your side?
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Apr 23, 2021 15:00:23 GMT
As you pointed out, feelz aren't good enough. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander dearie.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Apr 23, 2021 15:12:18 GMT
As you pointed out, feelz aren't good enough. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander dearie. Which is exactly why Cullors is being scrutinized. Look at her face and body language when interviewed about it. She knows she was caught in a lie.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Apr 23, 2021 15:41:25 GMT
As you pointed out, feelz aren't good enough. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander dearie. I agree. I'm also not suggesting that she be prosecuted or even investigated. I believe, because if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, that she's using BLM to enrich herself one way or another. Just as I believe that Trump engaged in Quid Pro Quo for corrupt reasons. I am entirely consistent with my position. I have a belief. I have no hard evidence. I'm not arguing for conviction or jail time. You on the other hand are engaging in hypocrisy. All you have are feelz for Trump, yet you think he should be convicted or jailed on those feelz, but now you are arguing that feelz are not good enough for the one on your side.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Apr 23, 2021 16:07:35 GMT
Using it legally to enrich herself is one thing, via name recognition for book deals or whatever is fine. Every public person known does that, regardless of ideology. It's not something one can like nor is it strictly ethical in some cases, but it's perfectly legal. What NB is insinuating is that she's stealing from BLM to fund her life-style, which there is no proof.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Apr 23, 2021 16:24:46 GMT
Using it legally to enrich herself is one thing, via name recognition for book deals or whatever is fine. Every public person known does that, regardless of ideology. It's not something one can like nor is it strictly ethical in some cases, but it's perfectly legal. What NB is insinuating is that she's stealing from BLM to fund her life-style, which there is no proof. No, stupid. He's pointing out that she's defrauding people who are donating money to BLM thinking it's going to help black people when instead it's going to "administrative costs." Anyone with any common sense knows that charities where the overhead costs vastly exceed the amount of funds being disbursed to the people they're supposed to be helping are a scam.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Apr 23, 2021 16:31:19 GMT
Again, where is your proof 3cat? Simply stating it doesn't make it true. Otherwise, we'd all be drinking bleach and burning our insides with UV light in the hopes it cures Covid.
|
|