Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O2aRmq09qFA
(This is one very steep street I must say. Reminds me of the steep streets you see on videos of Rio going up the favelas, except this LA street is much wider. Not a very attractive looking area though.)
Eldred Street | ep. 2 | Tom Explores Los Angeles
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FstQbepmocs
(What an ugly, stupid, looking art piece in the center of a major city. And that underground mall area looks ghetto. The city looks like a trash can. Like a diseased fat woman vomited it all up into one sprawling mess. I thought there were mentally challenged people in Milwaukee but LA takes the cake.)
You don't see anything like this in Milwaukee. I thought LA was home to the enlightened Hollywood liberal celebrities hell bent on blaming Trump and the Vatican in Rome for all the poverty in LA.
Why don't those a$& clown hypocrites sell their 3 mansions they each have and move into a 3 bedroom home about 2,500 square feet, and give all the money to the LA homeless?
Or they could begin by personally paying for LA to have a real river since they (Hollywood celebrities) are always yapping non-stop about global warming and environmentalism. All the whole time living in massive mansions and buying up planet earth in jewelry, cars, clothing and jet setting earth while burning fossil fuels.
But I digress.
LA with all their dirty streets and disheveled homeless people ought be called the "urban appalachians." Or the "urban hillbillies."
You don't see anything like this in Milwaukee. I thought LA was home to the enlightened Hollywood liberal celebrities hell bent on blaming Trump and the Vatican in Rome for all the poverty in LA.
Why don't those a$& clown hypocrites sell their 3 mansions they each have and move into a 3 bedroom home about 2,500 square feet, and give all the money to the LA homeless?
At least most of them pay lots of money in taxes, and many of them do contribute money to causes to combat poverty, etc.
Quote:
Or they could begin by personally paying for LA to have a real river since they (Hollywood celebrities) are always yapping non-stop about global warming and environmentalism. All the whole time living in massive mansions and buying up planet earth in jewelry, cars, clothing and jet setting earth while burning fossil fuels.
The number of Hollywood celebrities, executives, etc. with money is relatively quite small. Will liquidating their assets and redistributing them to The People really solve a lot?
Most Hollywood workers are kind of ordinary. It's a huge, hierarchical industry with a few people at the top and most people at the bottom.
I'm not much of a TV or movie watcher myself, and I'm rather indifferent to celebrities, but most do work very hard at their trade--they put in extremely long hours, and performing (even in rehearsals) is exhausting. Why shouldn't they enjoy the fruits of their labor? Just because they're liberal? That's kind of messed up.
May as well be a little balanced about it: Why don't rich, religious conservatives who "care about the poor" sell their assets and live among The People? Why doesn't the Vatican sell its global empire consisting of many ornate buildings, vast properties, etc. in order to alleviate hunger and suffering?
Most of these people and institutions probably believe that they can do more for people while generating massive amounts of revenue over a long period of time, rather than liquidating it all in a moment.
Another problem is that if rich people (like celebrities) "sell their mansions," there has to be someone else (presumably a non-celebrity) to buy them. Should only rich people who are indifferent to (or who dislike) the poor live in exclusive settings?
Yes, many "celebrities" may seem annoying or hypocritical for the reasons you say, but at least they're doing something. And it isn't like they're the only ones of that sort. So what?
At least most of them pay lots of money in taxes, and many of them do contribute money to causes to combat poverty, etc.
Tax dollars to what? Starting wars?
Trump and the Vatican do better (aside from the fact the Vatican donates lots of money to charity, and most Popes collect no salary) they employ people paying them wages and salaries. Any job I could get in the Vatican as a lay employ would be a 1,000 times better than any of the piece of sh-- paying jobs I could get in Milwaukee. And because of the lay union in the Vatican it is astronomically hard to fired.
Hollywood stars do little to "combat poverty" relative to their financial portfolio and their own influence. I see none of these a$$ clowns out militantly calling for the end of the War on Drugs. That would be a major dent in the structures of poverty (by one reducing the number of felony convictions, such convictions that bar people from things like law school, nursing license, becoming a doctor, being approved for Federal student loans etc.)
Quote:
The number of Hollywood celebrities, executives, etc. with money is relatively quite small.
I know... as one book on the billionaires of Brazil I'm reading... the American author of the book notes one of these Brazilian billionaires worth several billions could pay off the entire debt of some small developing countries. I think Bolivia was one example he gave.
The Vatican operates on an annual budget of about US $300 million. Compare to UW-Milwaukee which has an annual operational budget of $600 million. But some of these billionaires in the USA, Asia, Latin America are virtual national economies onto themselves.
Quote:
Will liquidating their assets and redistributing them to The People really solve a lot?
No, it won't. Which is my point. In the long run the Vatican provides more consistent money to poverty programs by not liquidating the Vatican but rather ministering over its possessions and keeping the revenue from tourism coming in.
Quote:
Most Hollywood workers are kind of ordinary. It's a huge, hierarchical industry with a few people at the top and most people at the bottom.
I'm not much of a TV or movie watcher myself, and I'm rather indifferent to celebrities, but most do work very hard at their trade--they put in extremely long hours, and performing (even in rehearsals) is exhausting. Why shouldn't they enjoy the fruits of their labor? Just because they're liberal? That's kind of messed up.
The Kardashian work real hard.
Yeah, I'm aware there are very hard working celebrities in Hollywood. The actress that played in Million Dollar Baby being a perfect example. She went above and beyond by still showing up to set and performing even after getting a bad infection in her foot.
I have no problem with rich people. Not sure were you got that. I voted for Obama and have voted for lots of Democrats. I expect Democrats and Hollywood liberals to be like me: not worrying about otter rich people. I don't worry about Trump's money or the Vatican and I'm poor. So, if they (rich liberals) don't want me worrying about their money then they ought live by the Golden Rule.
Quote:
May as well be a little balanced about it: Why don't rich, religious conservatives who "care about the poor" sell their assets and live among The People?
Ah... some of them do. One of the big rich hiers (brewery I think) here in Milwaukee who was a serious Catholic gave away just about all of his fortune, turned most of it over to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and moved into a small modest house around Pius High School.
Quote:
Why doesn't the Vatican sell its global empire consisting of many ornate buildings, vast properties, etc. in order to alleviate hunger and suffering?
The Vatican does not own a "global empire." As stated before it brings in about $300 million a year and most of that is from tourism. It does not have car manufacturing shops or build military missiles to sell across the world like Lockheed Martin. The Vatican is more poor than the City of Milwaukee. Now, is the City of Milwaukee the richest city on the face of the earth? No. Vatican City is a tiny place that can fit inside of Central Park in New York City.
This is the 21st Century. The rich powerhouses are individual billionaires and multi-national corporations like Samsung and Apple. The Vatican is a speck in the dust. This is not the year 1400.
Quote:
Most of these people and institutions probably believe that they can do more for people while generating massive amounts of revenue over a long period of time, rather than liquidating it all in a moment.
Another problem is that if rich people (like celebrities) "sell their mansions," there has to be someone else (presumably a non-celebrity) to buy them. Should only rich people who are indifferent to (or who dislike) the poor live in exclusive settings?
Yes, many "celebrities" may seem annoying or hypocritical for the reasons you say, but at least they're doing something. And it isn't like they're the only ones of that sort. So what?
No, they are hypocritical, and they do little to nothing. When they go in the red helping someone ad I have--and I have little money--then those pompous a$$es can preach to me like they are the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
First of all, they could start by fixing their own damned city. They could start there.
First of all, they could start by fixing their own damned city. They could start there.
Lots of words, lots of words, yet nothing of substance. Again. I have an idea: either A. go to L.A. & try to fix it yourself if you're so concerned about a city on the west coast that you don't live in or B. don't but sit & pound on your keyboard in anger about a city you don't live in. It's your choice, but choose wisely.
I'm not aware of any Hollywood celebrities who have started wars, but I imagine most of them pay rather hefty property taxes, state tax, etc.
Quote:
Trump and the Vatican do better (aside from the fact the Vatican donates lots of money to charity, and most Popes collect no salary) they employ people paying them wages and salaries. Any job I could get in the Vatican as a lay employ would be a 1,000 times better than any of the piece of sh-- paying jobs I could get in Milwaukee. And because of the lay union in the Vatican it is astronomically hard to fired.
Hollywood stars do little to "combat poverty" relative to their financial portfolio and their own influence. I see none of these a$$ clowns out militantly calling for the end of the War on Drugs. That would be a major dent in the structures of poverty (by one reducing the number of felony convictions, such convictions that bar people from things like law school, nursing license, becoming a doctor, being approved for Federal student loans etc.)
I'm not sure why Hollywood stars should be singled out to donate higher rates of their income or wealth, just because many in that group are vocal about "liberal" causes. This suggests that if they simply shut up and didn't vocally advocate for stuff so much, they would be more justified in being stingy.
Quote:
The Vatican operates on an annual budget of about US $300 million. Compare to UW-Milwaukee which has an annual operational budget of $600 million. But some of these billionaires in the USA, Asia, Latin America are virtual national economies onto themselves.
Maybe you're right about the Vatican's operating budget, but the Vatican's actual wealth is much more vast--in the billions of dollars (and by "Vatican" I'm referring to the entire Holy See, not just Vatican City):
And yes, the Vatican does have a global empire. Its holdings are not restricted to the confines of Vatican City.
Quote:
No, it won't. Which is my point. In the long run the Vatican provides more consistent money to poverty programs by not liquidating the Vatican but rather ministering over its possessions and keeping the revenue from tourism coming in.
And it still holds onto billions of dollars of buildings, properties, artworks, and other assets.
Quote:
The Kardashian work real hard.
Yeah, I'm aware there are very hard working celebrities in Hollywood. The actress that played in Million Dollar Baby being a perfect example. She went above and beyond by still showing up to set and performing even after getting a bad infection in her foot.
Sure, in our age of "reality shows" and such, there's a whole raft of "celebrities" who basically play themselves and get big bucks for it. But still, there still exists real talent, and it is a demanding industry.
Quote:
I have no problem with rich people. Not sure were you got that. I voted for Obama and have voted for lots of Democrats. I expect Democrats and Hollywood liberals to be like me: not worrying about otter rich people. I don't worry about Trump's money or the Vatican and I'm poor. So, if they (rich liberals) don't want me worrying about their money then they ought live by the Golden Rule.
There are probably quite a few rich liberals who don't care if you worry about their money. Hasn't Warren Buffett, for example, come out in favor of the Federal government taxing more people like himself? I imagine quite a few Hollywooders don't mind the scrutiny, either.
I'm not aware of any Hollywood celebrities who have started wars, but I imagine most of them pay rather hefty property taxes, state tax, etc.
No, most of them would support spending trillions starting a war with Russia.
Hollywood celebrities and Democrats run LA and they have done so under the benefit of having President Obama a black Democrat in office for 8 entire years. They also have enjoyed operating an economy the size of the rich country of the Netherlands, few nations on earth could dream of having the vast astronomical wealth of metro LA, an economic wealth that dwarfs the City of Amsterdam the largest city of the Netherlands.
Here is Amsterdam. The way black people both in LA and Milwaukee could be living but will never be living, as neither Democrats or Republicans will ever allow that to happen.
And this is LA in comparison to the far smaller economy of Amsterdam. And it does not go without notice to me that most the faces on Skid Row are black and most the faces on Milwaukee's nice Riverwalk are white (only 1 or 2 black faces).
Milwaukee is more like LA, Chicago, New York City than it is like a Minneapolis. And liberals in Milwaukee, LA, Chicago, and New York City think more like Republicans like Scott Walker than they do like liberals in London, Amsterdam, or Moscow. There only connection to liberals of London, and Amsterdam are their promotion of sexual immorality. Not tolerance. Promotion. Moscow is more morally conservative but more fiscally liberal.
Quote:
I'm not sure why Hollywood stars should be singled out to donate higher rates of their income or wealth, just because many in that group are vocal about "liberal" causes. This suggests that if they simply shut up and didn't vocally advocate for stuff so much, they would be more justified in being stingy.
First of all, I'm not a Republican. Actually, I like to say I'm not American even though my only nationality and citizenship is that of the United States. I don't think like an American. And increasingly I hold Americans in disdain the way liberal Europeans do when they look at absolute BS like Skid Row in the USA. In their eyes the United States has more than enough money to resolve that damn issue in LA. A stretch of 15 to 20 blocks in downtown LA full of tents and the crushing despair of souls, like it's a "third world" country.
So, if the LA government were ruled by Republicans and Trump was in office the liberals of LA and her mentally challenged cousin called Milwaukee, would be claiming that Skid Row would vanish and LA would be built new "only if LA could be run by Democrats and in DC we could get a black liberal President into the White House."
Hollywood stars do not need to pay a dime for a thing. Not really my point. I'm not American. I don't think or hold the same "values" as Americans. According to my "values" you repair your own backyard first before setting off to wage a several trillion dollar war against Russia to "fix it" or pontificating to the far more progressive minds of Minneapolis about how they should live environmentally because of global warming.
The only thing American about me is that I was born and raised in the United States and it's the only citizenship I hold. But I much more favor Minneapolis from what I hear of it than LA. And I favor Charlotte, North Carolina over New York City. And utterly unAmerican view point.
Although Milwaukee (average city) is no Minneapolis (an above average city) and never will be it is notches above the City of LA (a below average city). I can reason that being f---in unAmerican.
The downside of Minneapolis is it has to be located in a climate too often cold. I hate cold weather. That is the one upside LA has. It's location is blessed in an region with a great warm climate and natural beauty (except the city had to destroy that last part).
Quote:
Maybe you're right about the Vatican's operating budget, but the Vatican's actual wealth is much more vast--in the billions of dollars (and by "Vatican" I'm referring to the entire Holy See, not just Vatican City):
And yes, the Vatican does have a global empire. Its holdings are not restricted to the confines of Vatican City.
And it still holds onto billions of dollars of buildings, properties, artworks, and other assets.
Wikileaks supposedly reveal the Vatican and current Pope were working with Hillary Clinton to get her elected President of the USA. The Pope seems to share her globalist views. He's possibly a Mason. Which I believe by canon law would disqualify him from the Papacy and even excommunicate him from the Church. I could be wrong on that but I think that's roughly canon law.
The Holy See is located--currently--in Vatican City. But again, it owns no factories, and operates to industries of scale. It does own a lot of property as you point out but so what. I don't care about the art work. The Milwaukee Art Muesum owns lots of art. We could sell off the art collections the Milwaukee Art Museum houses and give it to the Nigerians.
Or... Milwaukee and LA could follow some of the economic moral principals the Vatican sets down, which you see Russia following more closely to than the Democrats of LA or Milwaukee. Like the government giving poor married mothers a basic income (Russia is considering this under Putin). Viewing housing as closer to a right than a privilege. LA seems to think it's only a privilege.
I'm not Catholic myself. My sympathies are with the Coptic faith. But that's tough faith of discipline to follow. They fast most days out of the year. And I don't trust Catholics and I suspect the Vatican has been and is involved in a lot of corrupt things like money laundering. Would not surprise me if it comes out one day they were laundering money for Hillary Clinton and her campaign team.
Quote:
Sure, in our age of "reality shows" and such, there's a whole raft of "celebrities" who basically play themselves and get big bucks for it. But still, there still exists real talent, and it is a demanding industry.
There are probably quite a few rich liberals who don't care if you worry about their money. Hasn't Warren Buffett, for example, come out in favor of the Federal government taxing more people like himself? I imagine quite a few Hollywooders don't mind the scrutiny, either.
Oh, there are some talented actors and actresses. And the craft itself of acting is not easy. At least not easy in terms of employing the skills expertly on stage or on camera.
And there are some Hollywood celebrities--like Angelina Jolie (spelling?) and Brad Pitt--who have done above and beyond in extending themselves for a greater good outside of themselves. I was sorry to hear they had some family problems and broke up. I think both have tried to be good people. Whatever their family difficulties, we all go through struggles, and I wish them their children the best.
Hollywood celebrities and Democrats run LA and they have done so under the benefit of having President Obama a black Democrat in office for 8 entire years. They also have enjoyed operating an economy the size of the rich country of the Netherlands, few nations on earth could dream of having the vast astronomical wealth of metro LA, an economic wealth that dwarfs the City of Amsterdam the largest city of the Netherlands.
Here is Amsterdam. The way black people both in LA and Milwaukee could be living but will never be living, as neither Democrats or Republicans will ever allow that to happen.
I rather like Amsterdam; it's kind of like the Seattle of Europe. But don't forget that a lot of what is good and progressive about Amsterdam comes from the imperialist and colonial past of the Netherlands. It is a prosperous city in large part due to the unsavory dealings of the Dutch Empire in the Americas, Africa, and Asia before the modern era. The canals and other infrastructure that people enjoy today were created during the Dutch Golden Age, when the Netherlands used outposts in Indonesia, India, Suriname, and other places to exploit locals and enhance the home base.
When the U.S. rose to dominance in the 1900s, in effect becoming the main military and global police force for many countries in its sphere of influence, the Netherlands (like many other European countries) was able to stabilize and become the egalitarian and progressive place that it is today. Perhaps, in a way, Milwaukee is so average because Amsterdam is so great?
But Amsterdam is not paradise. Many native-born Hollanders feel besieged by immigrants from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and other places. Crime rates have been rising-- not like what you see in parts of L.A., but noticeable nonetheless. The current wave of anti-immigration politics in Europe has reached the Netherlands. So yeah, you may see lots of diversity walking along Amsterdam's canals, but it is a much-contested diversity taking place among relics of the country's colonial and exploitative past. I'm not sure that's sustainable.
I recently moved from Milwaukee, live in Hollywood, and work mostly in Downtown Los Angeles. The videos show only small and isolated parts of the incredibly large Los Angeles County...hardly representative of the city. If we're dicussing the homeless problem, know that residents recently passed proposition HHH.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
