How in the world did the government spending get so far off the tracks? In less than a month Elon will and his 20 year olds will pry 1 trillion dollars out of the politicians cold dead hands. will

[1032004]

17 hours ago, jross said:

The bigger picture is that local trumps global.  We should address local HIV before global HIV, and address other local needs before HIV at all.  It's not a zero sum game... but we don't have a surplus to spend...

 

What’s your opinion on prioritizing bringing white South Africans to the US?

[jross]

Every company has violations just like every human.

If it’s good to address those, great!

I question the character of those doing the targeting.

 

[jross]

3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

What’s your opinion on prioritizing bringing white South Africans to the US?

If we must prioritize funding refugees, we should prioritize first based on merit.

[fishbane]

3 hours ago, jross said:

I question the character of those doing the targeting.

 

On what basis?

[Caveira]

Nothing to see here 

https://iotwreport.com/biden-environmental-justice-adviser-received-millions-in-taxpayer-funds-after-personally-applying-for-epa-grant/

Mind you …. She was  high school Spanish teacher with a degree in Spanish    I’m sure she isn’t dei related and is totally qualified   

WFB: In the final weeks of the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency awarded a lucrative environmental justice grant to a left-wing nonprofit whose CEO—LaTricea Adams—personally applied for the taxpayer funding while simultaneously serving as a member of a top White House advisory council.

The Biden EPA announced in December that it selected Young, Gifted & Green to receive a $20 million grant under its so-called Environmental and Climate Justice Community Change Program—the largest grant allowed under the program.

Edited Wednesday at 05:30 PM by Caveira

[jross]

4 hours ago, fishbane said:

On what basis?

"Find me the man, I'll find the crime."

It’s not principled.  It’s predatory.

[fishbane]

49 minutes ago, jross said:

"Find me the man, I'll find the crime."

It’s not principled.  It’s predatory.

I am familiar with the concept.  Not sure it applies.  He often gets in trouble for stuff he says openly at public product release events or tweets about.  It wasn't the result of some massive targeted invesitagion that resulted in the SEC looking into him.  He for whatever reason tweeted that he had secured funding to take Tesla private at rather large premium over market price.  Huge swings in the stock price followed and surprisingly Tesla was never went private. 

It's like when he called the British diving expert that rejected his Space X built mini-sub for the cave rescue that "Pedo guy" on twitter."  Musk initially apologized only to tweet months later "You don’t think it’s strange he hasn’t sued me? He was offered free legal services.”  Eventually after that tweet he got sued.  

He's just minding his own business and trouble finds him...

[jross]

Was he having THIS much trouble before butting heads over free speech and supporting Trump?

Trouble?  Yes.  THIS much trouble?  No.

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, fishbane said:

I am familiar with the concept.  Not sure it applies.  He often gets in trouble for stuff he says openly at public product release events or tweets about.  It wasn't the result of some massive targeted invesitagion that resulted in the SEC looking into him.  He for whatever reason tweeted that he had secured funding to take Tesla private at rather large premium over market price.  Huge swings in the stock price followed and surprisingly Tesla was never went private. 

It's like when he called the British diving expert that rejected his Space X built mini-sub for the cave rescue that "Pedo guy" on twitter."  Musk initially apologized only to tweet months later "You don’t think it’s strange he hasn’t sued me? He was offered free legal services.”  Eventually after that tweet he got sued.  

He's just minding his own business and trouble finds him...

trouble found him b/c of who he supports

[jross]

17 hours ago, 1032004 said:

-We’ve already been over that Reuters and “Thompson Reuters” are separate divisions.  

Guess which news agency the British government secretly funded through the BBC, hiding payments as subscription fees? Reuters! It’s a division of Thomson Reuters, not separate, reporting to the same parent company as its other units, pooling funds and resources.

Could the U.S. government pay Amazon Web Services (AWS) and influence Amazon Retail, or fund Retail and sway AWS? Yes! Cash to one division boosts the whole company, like I’ve seen with two-way influence at my own workplace.

Has the U.S. done covert media funding? Yes!  Operation Mockingbird had the CIA planting stories in U.S. newsrooms.

Stuff can hide in plain site for years like Air America... some of this gets leaked years later...

[fishbane]

10 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

trouble found him b/c of who he supports

This is laughable dumb.  Musk has been lying and pushing vaporware for well over a decade all whilst his support swung from one political party to the other.  When the SEC went after Musk in 2018 after he falsely tweeted that he had secured funding to take Tesla private at a premium was that because he supported and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016?  Did the SEC go after him more recently for failing to disclose his purchase of twitter shares in a timely manner because he supported Trump?

If the enforcement actions follow him regardless of who he supports it might just be because he is breaking the law and openly posting about it on the internet.

[Scouts Honor]

isn't that the point... 

[1032004]

15 hours ago, jross said:

Guess which news agency the British government secretly funded through the BBC, hiding payments as subscription fees? Reuters! It’s a division of Thomson Reuters, not separate, reporting to the same parent company as its other units, pooling funds and resources.

Could the U.S. government pay Amazon Web Services (AWS) and influence Amazon Retail, or fund Retail and sway AWS? Yes! Cash to one division boosts the whole company, like I’ve seen with two-way influence at my own workplace.

Has the U.S. done covert media funding? Yes!  Operation Mockingbird had the CIA planting stories in U.S. newsrooms.

Stuff can hide in plain site for years like Air America... some of this gets leaked years later...

lol at this semantics callout being all you could argue from my post 

Edited yesterday at 07:22 PM by 1032004

[jross]

28 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

lol at this semantics callout being all you could argue from my post 

What?

Semantics?

The company in question has admitted to this behavior in the past.

And what is confusing about shared ownership?  

[jross]

I am not saying it absolutely occurred here.

I am saying it has happened to this company before.  And it happens elsewhere.

Is it possible? yes! 

Should it be dismissed out of hand?  no!

[1032004]

29 minutes ago, jross said:

What?

Semantics?

The company in question has admitted to this behavior in the past.

And what is confusing about shared ownership?  

Semantics because I said separate divisions and you said “well one is actually a division of the other”

Even when corrected on the previous story about Thompson Reuters getting a contract for social engineering DEFENSE, you still claimed they could have had a conflict of interest (and after I asked, you never provided clarification on what the conflict would be), so clearly you’re very concerned about conflicts of interest.  Curious, are you concerned about Elon’s conflicts of interest with DOGE?

But anyway, you never addressed the other points in my prior post that would actually make the supposed conflict relevant, primarily:

1. There was nothing saying the contracts that Thompson Reuters received from the government even had anything to do with Musk’s companies, just that “Thompson Reuters received money from various government agencies, and these agencies oversee Musk’s companies, and some of them (but not all, according to the cited graphic) had investigated these companies.”  That is a major leap to then suggest that the money from the government ultimately lead to Reuters the news company writing about negative things at Musk’s companies.

2.  Was there anything false in the reporting that earned the Pulitzer Prize?  You mention here about “planting stories,” that would imply they were fabricated, but I haven’t seen any evidence to indicate that the stories about Musk’s companies were, and winning the Pulitzer Prize would seem to suggest that they were accurate  

[Offthemat]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

and winning the Pulitzer Prize would seem to suggest that they were accurate  

Did the prize shared by the WaPo and NYT for reporting on Russian collusion suggest to you they were accurate?

[jross]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Semantics because I said separate divisions and you said “well one is actually a division of the other”

Even when corrected on the previous story about Thompson Reuters getting a contract for social engineering DEFENSE, you still claimed they could have had a conflict of interest (and after I asked, you never provided clarification on what the conflict would be), so clearly you’re very concerned about conflicts of interest.  Curious, are you concerned about Elon’s conflicts of interest with DOGE?

But anyway, you never addressed the other points in my prior post that would actually make the supposed conflict relevant, primarily:

1. There was nothing saying the contracts that Thompson Reuters received from the government even had anything to do with Musk’s companies, just that “Thompson Reuters received money from various government agencies, and these agencies oversee Musk’s companies, and some of them (but not all, according to the cited graphic) had investigated these companies.”  That is a major leap to then suggest that the money from the government ultimately lead to Reuters the news company writing about negative things at Musk’s companies.

2.  Was there anything false in the reporting that earned the Pulitzer Prize?  You mention here about “planting stories,” that would imply they were fabricated, but I haven’t seen any evidence to indicate that the stories about Musk’s companies were, and winning the Pulitzer Prize would seem to suggest that they were accurate  

Let's clarify the first part.

The Thomson family, through their holding company The Woodbridge Company, has majority control over Thomson Reuters' voting shares.  Thomson Reuters is a company that owns other companies, not limited to:

• Reuters News
• Thomson Reuters Special Services (TRSS)

Money to "News" and "TRSS" flows into the Thomson Reuters company.  The Thomson family gets the largest cut.

What I've witnessed is the left turning on Musk, stating they would target Musk, and execution by the left to target Musk.  Musk has been more or less himself throughout, yet the reaction to him has changed.

Reuters is more neutral than many, yet I've repeatedly shared examples of left propaganda on Reuters news.  

And Reuters News admits to previous examples of what is now implied.

Not likely but not a stretch.
 

[Scouts Honor]

musk just keeps stealing citizens information

 

[Paul158]

13 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

musk just keeps stealing citizens information

 

Somehow he is only getting charged for just one thing. How does that happen.

[1032004]

1 hour ago, jross said:

Let's clarify the first part.

The Thomson family, through their holding company The Woodbridge Company, has majority control over Thomson Reuters' voting shares.  Thomson Reuters is a company that owns other companies, not limited to:

• Reuters News
• Thomson Reuters Special Services (TRSS)

Money to "News" and "TRSS" flows into the Thomson Reuters company.  The Thomson family gets the largest cut.

What I've witnessed is the left turning on Musk, stating they would target Musk, and execution by the left to target Musk.  Musk has been more or less himself throughout, yet the reaction to him has changed.

Reuters is more neutral than many, yet I've repeatedly shared examples of left propaganda on Reuters news.  

And Reuters News admits to previous examples of what is now implied.

Not likely but not a stretch.
 

1.  If “the left” has begun targeting Musk, doesn’t that mean they don’t need government funding to be motivated to do so?  Not everything is a conspiracy

2.  I’d disagree that Musk “has been himself.”  He certainly became more right-leaning after he purchased Twitter.  Maybe that was justified with what he discovered about old twitter’s biases, but that doesn’t change the fact that he did in fact change.   Most notably IMO by going from saying “Twitter must be politically neutral,” to using his power as the owner of the site to confiscate the “America” handle in order to directly support Trump’s campaign (so no, I’m not just talking about him sharing his personal opinions).

[Scouts Honor]

is it time to defund the FBI?

 

[1032004]

4 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

is it time to defund the FBI?

 

If a random private investigator from Erie PA says it, it must be true

[Paul158]

7 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

is it time to defund the FBI?

 

Of course he had an accomplice. We will we ever be told the truth? Probably not. I will guarantee that there is money sitting in an account somewhere that would prove it. But he was killed so we may never know.

Edited 20 hours ago by Paul158
missed a word

[Paul158]

Just now, 1032004 said:

If a random private investigator from Erie PA says it, it must be true

If common sense and logic kick in it is probably true.