Aid

🔥 | Latest

Dude, Fafsa, and Lawyer: Can you marry me 5:01 PM I just got back from my school and they said they cannot give me any aid except for unsubsidised loans unless l have a child, get married, or turn 24, so I have to get married Yeah ok I'll marry you I need a better fafsa application too Wait seriously Would you really do it Im doing actual research on it Are we doing this It would have to happen like lightning fast cause my next semester happens pretty damn soon I don't know how fast this happens lemme check Ughhhh okay so we'd need to get a marriage license which can be up to $30 depending on where we get it, and THEN we need to file for a marriage certificate I'm an ordained minister but idk if I could file my own marriage certificate get ordained and do it Can we go to Indiana? Let me check Dude Im so excited Its possible that I can get FAFSA to pay for an entire apartment for me to go to school in Milwaukee DUDE WHAT Okay so there's no minister registration required in lllinois so Yeah I'm looking that up right now Ive heard that if one partner commits adultery, thats grounds for a quicker divorce Yeah this sample form I'm looking at says "irretrievable breakdown" of marriage Worse comes to worse we can stage a fight but I think we can just say yeah it's not working out Does it include adultery divorce ranging from $15,000 to $30,000. Most of this money is spent on legal fees. So Fuck lawyers We don't need a lawyer We don't have kids we don't have property to divide up Oh thats only for a lawyer We don't have alimony to negotiate We're just two guys being dudes. Gettin a divorce portraitofemmy: possiblestoner: marzipanandminutiae: A. imagine your otp B. dear gods this country has massive issues I’ve been looking for this post for ages listen, I’ve read enough fanfic to know that they’re not getting divorced, but it’ll take about 35k of pining to figure that out.
Dude, Fafsa, and Lawyer: Can you marry me
 5:01 PM
 I just got back from my school
 and they said they cannot give
 me any aid except for
 unsubsidised loans unless l
 have a child, get married, or
 turn 24, so I have to get married
 Yeah ok I'll marry you I need a
 better fafsa application too
 Wait seriously
 Would you really do it
 Im doing actual research on it

 Are we doing this
 It would have to happen like
 lightning fast cause my next
 semester happens pretty
 damn soon
 I don't know how fast this
 happens lemme check
 Ughhhh okay so we'd need to get
 a marriage license which can be
 up to $30 depending on where we
 get it, and THEN we need to file
 for a marriage certificate
 I'm an ordained minister but idk if
 I could file my own marriage
 certificate

 get ordained and do it
 Can we go to Indiana?
 Let me check
 Dude Im so excited
 Its possible that I can get
 FAFSA to pay for an entire
 apartment for me to go to
 school in Milwaukee
 DUDE WHAT
 Okay so there's no minister
 registration required in lllinois so

 Yeah I'm looking that up right
 now
 Ive heard that if one partner
 commits adultery, thats
 grounds for a quicker divorce
 Yeah this sample form I'm
 looking at says "irretrievable
 breakdown" of marriage
 Worse comes to worse we can
 stage a fight but I think we can
 just say yeah it's not working out
 Does it include adultery

 divorce ranging from $15,000
 to $30,000. Most of this money
 is spent on legal fees.
 So Fuck lawyers
 We don't need a lawyer
 We don't have kids we don't have
 property to divide up
 Oh thats only for a lawyer
 We don't have alimony to
 negotiate
 We're just two guys being dudes.
 Gettin a divorce
portraitofemmy:

possiblestoner:

marzipanandminutiae:

A. imagine your otp
B. dear gods this country has massive issues

I’ve been looking for this post for ages

listen, I’ve read enough fanfic to know that they’re not getting divorced, but it’ll take about 35k of pining to figure that out.

portraitofemmy: possiblestoner: marzipanandminutiae: A. imagine your otp B. dear gods this country has massive issues I’ve been looking ...

Family, Iphone, and Tumblr: FOX FOX 5 DC 5 @fox5dc THIS IS AWESOME! Two-year-old Logan Moore needs a walker to get around but his family didn't know if insurance would cover for one, so his local Home Depot found parts to make it themselves. MORE: bit.ly/2YTichw 10:33 AM May 28, 2019 from Washington, DC Twitter Web Client 15.6K Likes 2.6K Retweets Abbi Brown @AbbiSigns To be clear: a disabled child having to use a makeshift walker built out of cheap DIY materials instead of an appropriate walking aid designed and fitted by qualified medical professionals is not awesome. It's a travesty FOX @fox5dc May 28 5 FOX 5 DС THIS IS AWESOME! Two-year-old Logan Moore needs a walker to get around but his family didn't know if insurance would cover for one, so his local Home Depot found parts to make it themselves. MORE: bit.ly/2YTichw 8:49 AM May 29, 2019 Twitter for iPhone 28.5K Likes 8.5K Retweets godloveyell: thatpettyblackgirl: Any government or system that wouldn’t give this poor kid a walker for free should be overthrown And assuming that this DIY one is perfectly capable, if an acceptable one can be slapped together with parts found at the local Home Depot, maybe we need to ask why insurance corporations are charging so much for one in the first place. Once we no longer have to support a handful of parasitic billionaires, medical costs would drop greatly.
Family, Iphone, and Tumblr: FOX
 FOX 5 DC
 5
 @fox5dc
 THIS IS AWESOME! Two-year-old
 Logan Moore needs a walker to get
 around but his family didn't know if
 insurance would cover for one, so his
 local Home Depot found parts to
 make it themselves.
 MORE:
 bit.ly/2YTichw
 10:33 AM May 28, 2019 from Washington, DC Twitter
 Web Client
 15.6K Likes
 2.6K Retweets

 Abbi Brown
 @AbbiSigns
 To be clear: a disabled child having to
 use a makeshift walker built out of
 cheap DIY materials instead of an
 appropriate walking aid designed and
 fitted by qualified medical
 professionals is not awesome. It's a
 travesty
 FOX
 @fox5dc May 28
 5 FOX 5 DС
 THIS IS AWESOME! Two-year-old Logan Moore needs
 a walker to get around but his family didn't know if
 insurance would cover for one, so his local Home
 Depot found parts to make it themselves.
 MORE: bit.ly/2YTichw
 8:49 AM May 29, 2019 Twitter for iPhone
 28.5K Likes
 8.5K Retweets
godloveyell:

thatpettyblackgirl:

Any government or system that wouldn’t give this poor kid a walker for free should be overthrown


And assuming that this DIY one is perfectly capable, if an acceptable one can be slapped together with parts found at the local Home Depot, maybe we need to ask why insurance corporations are charging so much for one in the first place. 
Once we no longer have to support a handful of parasitic billionaires, medical costs would drop greatly.

godloveyell: thatpettyblackgirl: Any government or system that wouldn’t give this poor kid a walker for free should be overthrown And as...

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...