Silicon Valley Bank gave the movement $73.45 million.
BLM should give it back.
Apparently, they have more than enough.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/report-the-black-lives-matter-movement-has-recieved-a-stunning-82-billion-from-corporations/
I'm going to go with....reparations are paid off. See BLM for your share.
ScottW
Silicon Valley Bank gave the movement $73.45 million.
BLM should give it back.
Apparently, they have more than enough.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/report-the-black-lives-matter-movement-has-recieved-a-stunning-82-billion-from-corporations/
I'm going to go with....reparations are paid off. See BLM for your share.
On 3/15/23 11:05 AM, ScottW wrote:
Silicon Valley Bank gave the movement $73.45 million.Not quite.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-quick-look-at-the-lying-trumpist-liars-behind-that-database-on-corprate-giving-to-blm
On 3/15/23 11:05 AM, ScottW wrote:
Silicon Valley Bank gave the movement $73.45 million.Not quite.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-quick-look-at-the-lying-trumpist-liars-behind-that-database-on-corprate-giving-to-blm
The claims come from a database posted earlier this week by the Center
for the American Way of Life, a project of the Claremont Institute. As Claremont put it in a Newsweek article introducing the database, “Americans deserve to know who funded the BLM riots.”
... is it really possible that the bank contributed almost $74 million
to the “BLM Movement & Related Causes?”
Well, no.
The database allows you to look up various corporations and see what they’ve donated to “BLM.” It lists Silicon Valley Bank pledging $73,450,000 and says they followed through on the commitment. The
database provides links to nine SVB documents as sources for this claim. They’re a mix of corporate responsibility type publications and
corporate filings. There are various discussions of support for
inclusivity and DEI efforts, which the database authors likely believe
are synonymous with “BLM.” But I scanned through each one of them and found no reference to anything remotely backing up the claim.
End quote.
BLM should give it back."[T]he big picture is this: behind the claims about corporate donations
that “funded the BLM riots” are contributions that went mostly to organizations like the United Negro College Fund, the NAACP Legal
Defense Fund, The National Urban League, various community and housing funding organizations and organizations funding STEM learning for Black children and young adults."
Apparently, they have more than enough.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/report-the-black-lives-matter-movement-has-recieved-a-stunning-82-billion-from-corporations/"[T]he general message is that anything in any way connected to Black
people in pretty much any way is “BLM” and explicitly supporting mayhem and violence."
Honestly....I don't really care who they f'ing gave money too.Which is why you brought this up despite the high probability it would
It's not their money and even if the bank technically had excess reserves as required by
law to cover their depositors.....we all have just seen how quickly that can change.
Banks shouldn't be donors of anything to anyone.
On 3/16/23 9:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
Honestly....I don't really care who they f'ing gave money too.Which is why you brought this up despite the high probability it would
be debunked.
It's not their money and even if the bank technically had excess reserves as required by
law to cover their depositors.....we all have just seen how quickly that can change.
Banks shouldn't be donors of anything to anyone.Interesting take.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:58:41 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/16/23 9:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
Honestly....I don't really care who they f'ing gave money too.Which is why you brought this up despite the high probability it would
be debunked.
It's not their money and even if the bank technically had excess reserves as required byInteresting take.
law to cover their depositors.....we all have just seen how quickly that can change.
Banks shouldn't be donors of anything to anyone.
The returns on investments minus expenses should be held as reserves for the
misfortunes that inevitably diminish returns and threaten reserves.
These idiots were giving away money and 3 years later the Fed (backed by our tax dollars) is forced to bail them out. That's BS.
It's like Newsom giving away $$ to buy his reelection last year using federal covid stimulus $$ when he knew damn well just like I knew that the stock marketThat's also an interesting take. You'd think those with the most money
wasn't going to keep going up and with that poof goes Ca. surplus and now he's facing
a massive deficit. School boards and Teacher's Unions are already gearing up for battle
over the shrinking state budget. They usually win....cuz you know...they donate the most.
On 3/17/23 6:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:58:41 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/16/23 9:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
Honestly....I don't really care who they f'ing gave money too.Which is why you brought this up despite the high probability it would
be debunked.
It's not their money and even if the bank technically had excess reserves as required byInteresting take.
law to cover their depositors.....we all have just seen how quickly that can change.
Banks shouldn't be donors of anything to anyone.
The returns on investments minus expenses should be held as reserves for theShould there be regulations forbidding charitable giving by corporations?
misfortunes that inevitably diminish returns and threaten reserves.
These idiots were giving away money and 3 years later the Fed (backed by our
tax dollars) is forced to bail them out. That's BS.
Should there be regulations forbidding charitable giving by corporations?I specifically said banks. Is that too many letters for you?
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 5:32:29 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/17/23 6:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:58:41 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Should there be regulations forbidding charitable giving by corporations?
On 3/16/23 9:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
Honestly....I don't really care who they f'ing gave money too.Which is why you brought this up despite the high probability it would >>>> be debunked.
It's not their money and even if the bank technically had excess reserves as required byInteresting take.
law to cover their depositors.....we all have just seen how quickly that can change.
Banks shouldn't be donors of anything to anyone.
The returns on investments minus expenses should be held as reserves for the
misfortunes that inevitably diminish returns and threaten reserves.
These idiots were giving away money and 3 years later the Fed (backed by our
tax dollars) is forced to bail them out. That's BS.
I specifically said banks. Is that too many letters for you?
But let's really throw you a loop. Add utilities to that list.
And state employee unions to the banned political donors list.
On 3/19/23 1:08 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 5:32:29 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/17/23 6:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:58:41 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Should there be regulations forbidding charitable giving by corporations?
On 3/16/23 9:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
Honestly....I don't really care who they f'ing gave money too.Which is why you brought this up despite the high probability it would >>>> be debunked.
It's not their money and even if the bank technically had excess reserves as required byInteresting take.
law to cover their depositors.....we all have just seen how quickly that can change.
Banks shouldn't be donors of anything to anyone.
The returns on investments minus expenses should be held as reserves for the
misfortunes that inevitably diminish returns and threaten reserves.
These idiots were giving away money and 3 years later the Fed (backed by our
tax dollars) is forced to bail them out. That's BS.
I specifically said banks. Is that too many letters for you?Banks are generally incorporated.
But let's really throw you a loop. Add utilities to that list.
And state employee unions to the banned political donors list.So no charitable giving for banks, utilities and state employee unions? Because you fell for misinformation that equated legitimate charitable giving with support for BLM? And supported by a post hoc argument that
they gave money in the past and now are being bailed out? Does that
count for those last-minute stock sales and bonuses?
How about no giving to non-profits that give an illegal share to
political operations?
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:49:53 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/19/23 1:08 AM, ScottW wrote:
How about no giving to non-profits that give an illegal share to
political operations?
Now you're talking. Let's make that any share.
Knee-cap George Soros.....I like it.
On 3/19/23 8:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 10:49:53 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/19/23 1:08 AM, ScottW wrote:
How about no giving to non-profits that give an illegal share to
political operations?
Now you're talking. Let's make that any share.
Knee-cap George Soros.....I like it.
That's a step past the current 50% line. The IRS will have to enforce it
but so long as the rules count for everyone, go for it.
Lots o' reports that Soros is the word of the day on Fox, replacing woke
over the weekend.
mINE109 wrote:
Are they blaming Soros for the bank failures?
Lots o' reports that Soros is the word of the day on Fox, replacing woke
over the weekend.
No, for the Manhattan DA. Soros started a super PAC that funded anotherAre they blaming Soros for the bank failures?
Lots o' reports that Soros is the word of the day on Fox, replacing woke >> over the weekend.
PAC that supported reform DA candidates, therefore Soros = Bragg.
On 3/20/23 3:38 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
mINE109 wrote:No, for the Manhattan DA. Soros started a super PAC that funded another
Are they blaming Soros for the bank failures?
Lots o' reports that Soros is the word of the day on Fox, replacing woke >> over the weekend.
PAC that supported reform DA candidates, therefore Soros = Bragg.
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 10:29:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/20/23 3:38 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
mINE109 wrote:No, for the Manhattan DA. Soros started a super PAC that funded another
Are they blaming Soros for the bank failures?
Lots o' reports that Soros is the word of the day on Fox, replacing woke >>>> over the weekend.
PAC that supported reform DA candidates, therefore Soros = Bragg.
Soros financing of far left candidates at state and local levels is not a secret.
You acting like this is a new conspiracy from the right is just denial of reality on your part.
Who said it was new? Y'all love to make stuff up and all I did was
connect the dots.
On 3/21/23 4:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 10:29:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/20/23 3:38 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
mINE109 wrote:No, for the Manhattan DA. Soros started a super PAC that funded another >> PAC that supported reform DA candidates, therefore Soros = Bragg.
Are they blaming Soros for the bank failures?
Lots o' reports that Soros is the word of the day on Fox, replacing woke
over the weekend.
Soros financing of far left candidates at state and local levels is not a secret.Not only far left, but moderate left and moderate as well.
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:08:53 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/21/23 4:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 10:29:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Not only far left, but moderate left and moderate as well.
On 3/20/23 3:38 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
mINE109 wrote:No, for the Manhattan DA. Soros started a super PAC that funded another >>>> PAC that supported reform DA candidates, therefore Soros = Bragg.
Are they blaming Soros for the bank failures?
Lots o' reports that Soros is the word of the day on Fox, replacing woke >>>>>> over the weekend.
Soros financing of far left candidates at state and local levels is not a secret.
You're revealing your own extreme point of view.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:57:15 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,285 |
