🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano @Alyssa_Milano Follow Ns NEWS MARIJU 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018 MAKEMAT 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes 主与玉丰丰 -- libertarirynn: vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt. At least I have a good argument. And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker. We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit. A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. Your counterargument is…insults. You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.  If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug. Another person who just insults and doesnt read. The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. “I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. “maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now? Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution. What she said ^ Also forcing people into legal slavery by arresting and imprisoning them for victimless crimes sure as shit sounds like persecution to me.
Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano
 @Alyssa_Milano
 Follow
 Ns
 NEWS
 MARIJU
 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018
 MAKEMAT
 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes
 主与玉丰丰
 --
libertarirynn:

vaporwavevocap:

cheshireinthemiddle:
napoleonbonerfarte:


cheshireinthemiddle:

pseudopupil:


cheshireinthemiddle:

hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:


hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:
But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. 
You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt.


At least I have a good argument. 
And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. 


A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker.
We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit.


A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. 
Your counterargument is…insults. 
You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. 
If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). 
And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. 

You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.
 If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug.


Another person who just insults and doesnt read. 
The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. 
If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. 
You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. 
The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. 
“I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. 

“maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now?


Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. 
There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. 
If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. 

It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution.

What she said ^

Also forcing people into legal slavery by arresting and imprisoning them for victimless crimes sure as shit sounds like persecution to me.

libertarirynn: vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardb...

Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano @Alyssa_Milano Follow Ns NEWS MARIJU 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018 MAKEMAT 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes 主与玉丰丰 -- vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt. At least I have a good argument. And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker. We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit. A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. Your counterargument is…insults. You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.  If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug. Another person who just insults and doesnt read. The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. “I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. “maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now? Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution. What she said ^
Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano
 @Alyssa_Milano
 Follow
 Ns
 NEWS
 MARIJU
 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018
 MAKEMAT
 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes
 主与玉丰丰
 --
vaporwavevocap:

cheshireinthemiddle:
napoleonbonerfarte:


cheshireinthemiddle:

pseudopupil:


cheshireinthemiddle:

hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:


hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:
But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. 
You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt.


At least I have a good argument. 
And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. 


A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker.
We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit.


A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. 
Your counterargument is…insults. 
You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. 
If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). 
And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. 

You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.
 If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug.


Another person who just insults and doesnt read. 
The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. 
If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. 
You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. 
The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. 
“I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. 

“maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now?


Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. 
There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. 
If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. 

It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution.

What she said ^

vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: c...

Ass, Dude, and Empire: sleepydumpling: welkinalauda: tikkunolamorgtfo: xmasterassassinx: winterpunk: xekstrin: crackrockdebby: d–i–y—-orgasms: be-blackstar: tikkunolamorgtfo: WATCH THIS: MAN SHUTS DOWN ANTISEMITIC WHITE POWER PREACHER One of my friends in the Boston area took this video and gave me permission to post it. She writes: “ I stood there for twenty minutes, easily. Hitler Youth kept trying to preach about “the evils of the Jews” and the big guy barely let him get a word in edgewise. At one point, the big guy yelled, “I will be here ALL DAY” and the crowd cheered.” I promise this will be the best thing you see today. Where’s a goddamn bullhorn when you need it? wow that preacher is probably shitting his pants low key with some big ass biker that close to his face  Caption for those who need it– the guy in the suit is saying shit like “all races must serve us as put here by God” and a lot of racist/anti Semitic drivel. Every time he opens his mouth to speak though, the biker yells “AHHHHHHH!!!” Until the man in the suit shuts up again. When the man in the suit takes a breath and opens his mouth, the biker doesn’t even let him get started and just screams “AHHHHH”…. This happens a few times. The guy in the suit plows ahead but the biker screams and says “No no no no!!!” I love biker dude Make racists afraid again. Um, sorry, but the guy in the suit deserves to speak his opinions. How’d you like to get screamed at everything time you spoke about what you are passionate about? I’m not saying I agree with his opinion, but that doesn’t make shutting him down like this right. Freedom of Speech. Just agree to disagree and walk away. 1) Freedom of Speech means you have the right to speak your mind without being punished or censored by the government. It does not mean other people have to listen to you, and it does not mean they can’t yell over you if you’re saying something disgusting and inflammatory. The Biker Dude has just as much right to do what he’s doing as the Neo-Nazi. Nobody’s right is being infringed upon here. 2) The guy is “passionate about” hating and inciting violence against Jews. I’m passionate about information literacy, candle-making, and giving snuggles to my pet rabbit. There’s a fucking difference, there.  3) “Agree to disagree” is something you say when two people can’t come to a consensus over whether or not The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. It’s not something you say when one person is Jewish and the other person believes Jews are a evil satanic cabal trying to enslave the white race who must be stopped at all costs. That’s not an “agree to disagree” topic. We don’t “agree to disagree” over the issue of whether or not Jews are people. We don’t “agree to disagree” over whether or not black people, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ folks, etc. are deserving of basic human rights. These things are not up for debate, and there is no middle-ground to be had with people who think otherwise.  “I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.”– Randall Munroe Always reblog the anti-hate bikie.
Ass, Dude, and Empire: sleepydumpling:

welkinalauda:

tikkunolamorgtfo:

xmasterassassinx:

winterpunk:

xekstrin:

crackrockdebby:


d–i–y—-orgasms:


be-blackstar:


tikkunolamorgtfo:


WATCH THIS: MAN SHUTS DOWN ANTISEMITIC WHITE POWER PREACHER
One of my friends in the Boston area took this video and gave me permission to post it. She writes: “ I stood there for twenty minutes, easily. Hitler Youth kept trying to preach about “the evils of the Jews” and the big guy barely let him get a word in edgewise. At one point, the big guy yelled, “I will be here ALL DAY” and the crowd cheered.”
I promise this will be the best thing you see today.


Where’s a goddamn bullhorn when you need it?


wow that preacher is probably shitting his pants low key with some big ass biker that close to his face 



Caption for those who need it– the guy in the suit is saying shit like “all races must serve us as put here by God” and a lot of racist/anti Semitic drivel.
Every time he opens his mouth to speak though, the biker yells “AHHHHHHH!!!” Until the man in the suit shuts up again. When the man in the suit takes a breath and opens his mouth, the biker doesn’t even let him get started and just screams “AHHHHH”…. This happens a few times.
The guy in the suit plows ahead but the biker screams and says “No no no no!!!”
I love biker dude

Make racists afraid again.

Um, sorry, but the guy in the suit deserves to speak his opinions. How’d you like to get screamed at everything time you spoke about what you are passionate about? I’m not saying I agree with his opinion, but that doesn’t make shutting him down like this right. Freedom of Speech. Just agree to disagree and walk away.

1) Freedom of Speech means you have the right to speak your mind without being punished or censored by the government. It does not mean other people have to listen to you, and it does not mean they can’t yell over you if you’re saying something disgusting and inflammatory. The Biker Dude has just as much right to do what he’s doing as the Neo-Nazi. Nobody’s right is being infringed upon here.
2) The guy is “passionate about” hating and inciting violence against Jews. I’m passionate about information literacy, candle-making, and giving snuggles to my pet rabbit. There’s a fucking difference, there. 
3) “Agree to disagree” is something you say when two people can’t come to a consensus over whether or not The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. It’s not something you say when one person is Jewish and the other person believes Jews are a evil satanic cabal trying to enslave the white race who must be stopped at all costs. That’s not an “agree to disagree” topic. We don’t “agree to disagree” over the issue of whether or not Jews are people. We don’t “agree to disagree” over whether or not black people, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ folks, etc. are deserving of basic human rights. These things are not up for debate, and there is no middle-ground to be had with people who think otherwise. 



“I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.”– Randall Munroe

Always reblog the anti-hate bikie.

sleepydumpling: welkinalauda: tikkunolamorgtfo: xmasterassassinx: winterpunk: xekstrin: crackrockdebby: d–i–y—-orgasms: be-blackst...

Apparently, Brains, and Confidence: bidoof change.org Trending petition Matt-There's a new petition taking off on Change.org, and we think you might be interested in signing it. Change.org - Petition To Hire 1,000,000 People To Put Their Fingers In The Shoot Hole Of Peoples' Guns So They Can't Shoot Them thetwinkerbell It's still gonna shoot... And they're gonna lose a finger ssj14goku No. The finger blocks the bullet. We can do this domozillla This is a gun we're talking about. The projectile is fired using an explosion, not by compressed air of a toy gun or the elastic forces of a sling shot. People would be lucky if they only lost their finger. ssj14goku The finger blocks it dildomuncher3000 The finger won't block it the shaft is only there for keeping the bullet straight, all the propulsion happens behind the bullet. The bullet would rip through the finger, not that many would actually fit without the victim being a child, and beyond. ssj14goku The bullet would go forward a little and then hit the finger and stop it's not that hard to understand lgbltsandwitch People are going to lose their hands. Go watch Mythbusters. They did an episode on this, the hand fucking exploded. hungwy No, the bullet would start to go but stop at the finger. Thats basic physics. Also hands dont explode normally they did something wrong. blipblerp Why the dingleknockers would you even consider sticking your finger in the barrel of a loaded gun?? the amount of force propelling the bullet at that close of range would shatter the finger at the very least; this is a petition for 1,000,000 people to loose the use of their hands. If a bullet explodes the back of a persons skull when they shoot it in their mouth it sure as hell will explode a finger. gorps No the finger would stop it jorycancrochet I'm loving the idiocy of this post. Ppl with brains: ummm finger go boom... Others: no bullet stop. U no kno fisics >:V snakegay no the finger would stop it indianworiorprincess You guy who think the bullet would stop at the finger have never shot a gun and can volunteer to it their fingers in the barrel of my 9 mil and I'Il I'll the trigger and see if it will stop the bullet Dumdasses egay sna the finger would stop it meatswitch raptorific Apparently for dudes who've got a compulsive need to be the smartest person in the room, "someone who's wrong in a really stupid way who has unshakable confidence that they're smarter than you" is their kryptonite. You can play dumb on almost any subject and their ego, their staunch belief that the masses are so far below them, will blind them to the fact that you're just fucking with them, and as long as you don't admit you're fucking with them or acknowledge that there's anything Off about what you're saying, they won't be able to stop themselves trying to get you to Respect Their Authority, and they won't be able to see that will literally never happen. lynati The finger is smooth in all directions. That's why it can stop the bullet.
Apparently, Brains, and Confidence: bidoof
 change.org
 Trending petition
 Matt-There's a new petition taking off on Change.org, and we
 think you might be interested in signing it.
 Change.org - Petition To Hire 1,000,000
 People To Put Their Fingers In The Shoot Hole
 Of Peoples' Guns So They Can't Shoot Them
 thetwinkerbell
 It's still gonna shoot... And they're gonna lose a
 finger
 ssj14goku
 No. The finger blocks the bullet. We can do this
 domozillla
 This is a gun we're talking about. The projectile
 is fired using an explosion, not by compressed
 air of a toy gun or the elastic forces of a sling
 shot. People would be lucky if they only lost
 their finger.
 ssj14goku
 The finger blocks it
 dildomuncher3000
 The finger won't block it the shaft is only there
 for keeping the bullet straight, all the
 propulsion happens behind the bullet. The
 bullet would rip through the finger, not that
 many would actually fit without the victim
 being a child, and beyond.
 ssj14goku
 The bullet would go forward a little and then
 hit the finger and stop it's not that hard to
 understand
 lgbltsandwitch
 People are going to lose
 their hands. Go watch
 Mythbusters. They did
 an episode on this, the
 hand fucking exploded.
 hungwy
 No, the bullet would
 start to go but stop at
 the finger. Thats basic
 physics. Also hands dont
 explode normally they
 did something wrong.
 blipblerp
 Why the dingleknockers would you even
 consider sticking your finger in the barrel of a
 loaded gun?? the amount of force propelling
 the bullet at that close of range would shatter
 the finger at the very least; this is a petition for
 1,000,000 people to loose the use of their
 hands. If a bullet explodes the back of a
 persons skull when they shoot it in their mouth
 it sure as hell will explode a finger.
 gorps
 No the finger would stop it
 jorycancrochet
 I'm loving the idiocy of this post.
 Ppl with brains: ummm finger go boom...
 Others: no bullet stop. U no kno fisics >:V
 snakegay
 no the finger would stop it
 indianworiorprincess
 You guy who think the bullet would stop at the
 finger have never shot a gun and can volunteer
 to it their fingers in the barrel of my 9 mil and I'Il
 I'll the trigger and see if it will stop the bullet
 Dumdasses
 egay
 sna
 the finger would stop it
 meatswitch
 raptorific
 Apparently for dudes who've got a compulsive need
 to be the smartest person in the room, "someone
 who's wrong in a really stupid way who has
 unshakable confidence that they're smarter than
 you" is their kryptonite. You can play dumb on
 almost any subject and their ego, their staunch
 belief that the masses are so far below them, will
 blind them to the fact that you're just fucking with
 them, and as long as you don't admit you're fucking
 with them or acknowledge that there's anything
 Off about what you're saying, they won't be able to
 stop themselves trying to get you to Respect Their
 Authority, and they won't be able to see that will
 literally never happen.
 lynati
 The finger is smooth in all directions. That's
 why it can stop the bullet.

Amazon, Bad, and Be Like: krista (030) y@cherryblushed i used to read 3-4 full sized novels in middle school. now i see anything longer than a paragraph and bounce. i'll miss u brain cells, can't believe u peaked at age 12 15/9/18, 1:04 pm 68 Retweets 238 Likes takingbackmyfirstamendmentrights: dewdrop156: memecage: It do be like that. I was having a surprisingly good conversation with my sister recently and I was talking about how one of the reasons I don’t read as much as I used to is because I don’t have the same resources I did when I was a 4th grader. When I was a kid, I could sit and read all I wanted, all I had to to was exist and go where people took me. I didn’t have to feed myself or pay bills or keep track of things, which of course now I have to deal with all of those things so I can’t read as much and tend to read pretty easy to read books. My sister brought up the really good point that, of course I want to read easy books, I’m a young adult, in a very tumultuous phase of life, constantly being thrown new information, my brain doesnt want a classical novel, my brain wants something readable and immersive. tl;dr don’t feel bad for not reading as much as you used to, it’s okay. Read what you can when you can and don’t stress about the rest But nowadays, there are so many more resources for reading that you can gain access to. Even though you’re busy and stressed out my life, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t continue to strive to read whenever possible. I’ve compiled this basic list of super accessible ways to read in the modern age.1. LibbyLibby is a library app, and it free to use. If you have a library card (which you can either pick up at a branch or online, depending on where you live), you put in your information, and you have access to your library’s ebooks and audiobooks. Generally, you can check ebooks out for two to three weeks, and it gives you the option to renew (if someone isn’t waiting in line for that book) or return early. It’s super user- friendly. If you want to scam the system a little bit, a lot of libraries give you 30 to 60 days after making a card online to come in and actually get a physical card and show your ID. If you are looking for a specific book that your library may not have, make library cards at other locations with fake addresses and check out their supply. I personally have about eight library cards, so I always can find what I’m looking for unless it’s super rare. 2. KindleWhile you can buy the actual Amazon e-reader, you can also just use the free app. There are a bunch of ebooks you can read for free, or for a low price. If you have Kindle Unlimited ($10/month), you can borrow up to ten KU books at a time for as long as you want. A lot of authors have KU books, so it’s a good way to go. 3. NookBarnes and Noble’s Nook is similar to the Kindle—comes in a physical e-reader, but is also usable as a free app. I will say I find that their selection generally costs more than Amazon’s selection, but it’s an option if you prefer to stay away from Amazon products. One thing they do sometime around the end of the year is send you out a refund check for all the books that you purchased through them that were at a higher market price then they would’ve been elsewhere. I’ve gotten like three of these, so I figure it’s a regular thing. 4. AudibleFor people who are sight-impaired or have difficulty sitting down and reading a book, audiobooks are SO the way to go. When you sign up, you can receive up to two free audiobooks, and whatever plan you decide to go with gives you two free audiobooks a month (from a specific selection) in addition to your credits! If you have Kindle ebooks, there is sometimes an option to purchase the accompanying Audible audiobook for a super discounted rate. If you don’t like an audiobook, you can call in to return it at any time. I have something like forty or fifty audiobooks from them, and I’ve exchanged another twenty. These options are all in addition to physical books from your local library, and discount bookstores. The nice thing about ebooks is that generally they have the option to highlight and bookmark pages, change the font size and type, and even change the color of the page if you prefer.I always thought audiobooks were for old people until a few years ago when I was commuting about three hours a day for work. I wasn’t reading nearly as much, and as an avid reader, that distressed me greatly.Finally, I looked into audiobooks and it was a huge life changer. Instead of wasting three hours a day in traffic, I was reading for three hours a day that I would’ve otherwise not been able to. Not only does it make a trip go faster, but it makes it much more enjoyable.And even if you don’t want it for the commute or for the gym, audiobooks are a really good option for people who have vision problems. I have migraines when I stare at screens too much, so I pop on an audiobook and just crochet or do the dishes. I have a friend who has very bad eyesight, and he has not been able to read in something close to a year. I set him up with a library card and a Libby account, and all of a sudden, he was able to catch up on all the books he had been wanting to read!I’m just saying, I promote reading because no matter what you read, you’re learning something. Even though life is stressful and crazy and distracting, there are still ways you can find to sit down and curl up with a good book. “My brother has his sword, I have my books. And a mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone.” -Tyrion Lannister
Amazon, Bad, and Be Like: krista (030)
 y@cherryblushed
 i used to read 3-4 full sized
 novels in middle school. now i see
 anything longer than a paragraph
 and bounce. i'll miss u brain cells,
 can't believe u peaked at age 12
 15/9/18, 1:04 pm
 68 Retweets 238 Likes
takingbackmyfirstamendmentrights:

dewdrop156:
memecage:
It do be like that.

I was having a surprisingly good conversation with my sister recently and I was talking about how one of the reasons I don’t read as much as I used to is because I don’t have the same resources I did when I was a 4th grader. When I was a kid, I could sit and read all I wanted, all I had to to was exist and go where people took me. I didn’t have to feed myself or pay bills or keep track of things, which of course now I have to deal with all of those things so I can’t read as much and tend to read pretty easy to read books. My sister brought up the really good point that, of course I want to read easy books, I’m a young adult, in a very tumultuous phase of life, constantly being thrown new information, my brain doesnt want a classical novel, my brain wants something readable and immersive. 
tl;dr don’t feel bad for not reading as much as you used to, it’s okay. Read what you can when you can and don’t stress about the rest


But nowadays, there are so many more resources for reading that you can gain access to. Even though you’re busy and stressed out my life, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t continue to strive to read whenever possible. I’ve compiled this basic list of super accessible ways to read in the modern age.1. LibbyLibby is a library app, and it free to use. If you have a library card (which you can either pick up at a branch or online, depending on where you live), you put in your information, and you have access to your library’s ebooks and audiobooks. Generally, you can check ebooks out for two to three weeks, and it gives you the option to renew (if someone isn’t waiting in line for that book) or return early. It’s super user- friendly. If you want to scam the system a little bit, a lot of libraries give you 30 to 60 days after making a card online to come in and actually get a physical card and show your ID. If you are looking for a specific book that your library may not have, make library cards at other locations with fake addresses and check out their supply. I personally have about eight library cards, so I always can find what I’m looking for unless it’s super rare. 2. KindleWhile you can buy the actual Amazon e-reader, you can also just use the free app. There are a bunch of ebooks you can read for free, or for a low price. If you have Kindle Unlimited ($10/month), you can borrow up to ten KU books at a time for as long as you want. A lot of authors have KU books, so it’s a good way to go. 3. NookBarnes and Noble’s Nook is similar to the Kindle—comes in a physical e-reader, but is also usable as a free app. I will say I find that their selection generally costs more than Amazon’s selection, but it’s an option if you prefer to stay away from Amazon products. One thing they do sometime around the end of the year is send you out a refund check for all the books that you purchased through them that were at a higher market price then they would’ve been elsewhere. I’ve gotten like three of these, so I figure it’s a regular thing. 4. AudibleFor people who are sight-impaired or have difficulty sitting down and reading a book, audiobooks are SO the way to go. When you sign up, you can receive up to two free audiobooks, and whatever plan you decide to go with gives you two free audiobooks a month (from a specific selection) in addition to your credits! If you have Kindle ebooks, there is sometimes an option to purchase the accompanying Audible audiobook for a super discounted rate. If you don’t like an audiobook, you can call in to return it at any time. I have something like forty or fifty audiobooks from them, and I’ve exchanged another twenty. These options are all in addition to physical books from your local library, and discount bookstores. The nice thing about ebooks is that generally they have the option to highlight and bookmark pages, change the font size and type, and even change the color of the page if you prefer.I always thought audiobooks were for old people until a few years ago when I was commuting about three hours a day for work. I wasn’t reading nearly as much, and as an avid reader, that distressed me greatly.Finally, I looked into audiobooks and it was a huge life changer. Instead of wasting three hours a day in traffic, I was reading for three hours a day that I would’ve otherwise not been able to. Not only does it make a trip go faster, but it makes it much more enjoyable.And even if you don’t want it for the commute or for the gym, audiobooks are a really good option for people who have vision problems. I have migraines when I stare at screens too much, so I pop on an audiobook and just crochet or do the dishes. I have a friend who has very bad eyesight, and he has not been able to read in something close to a year. I set him up with a library card and a Libby account, and all of a sudden, he was able to catch up on all the books he had been wanting to read!I’m just saying, I promote reading because no matter what you read, you’re learning something. Even though life is stressful and crazy and distracting, there are still ways you can find to sit down and curl up with a good book.

“My brother has his sword, I have my books. And a mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone.” -Tyrion Lannister

takingbackmyfirstamendmentrights: dewdrop156: memecage: It do be like that. I was having a surprisingly good conversation with my sister r...

Brains, Fucking, and Guns: change.org Trending petition Matt There's a new petition taking off on Change.org, and we think you might be interested in signing it. meatswitch: snakegay: indianworiorprincess: snakegay: jorycancrochet: gorps: blipblerp: hungwy: lgbltsandwitch: ssj14goku: dildomuncher3000: ssj14goku: domozillla: ssj14goku: thetwinkerbell: ssj14goku: Change.org - Petition To Hire 1,000,000 People To Put Their Fingers In The Shoot Hole Of Peoples’ Guns So They Can’t Shoot Them It’s still gonna shoot… And they’re gonna lose a finger No. The finger blocks the bullet. We can do this This is a gun we’re talking about. The projectile is fired using an explosion, not by compressed air of a toy gun or the elastic forces of a sling shot. People would be lucky if they only lost their finger. The finger blocks it The finger won’t block it - the shaft is only there for keeping the bullet straight, all the propulsion happens behind the bullet. The bullet would rip through the finger, not that many would actually fit without the victim being a child, and beyond. The bullet would go forward a little and then hit the finger and stop it’s not that hard to understand People are going to lose their hands. Go watch Mythbusters. They did an episode on this, the hand fucking exploded. No, the bullet would start to go but stop at the finger. Thats basic physics. Also hands dont explode normally they did something wrong. Why the dingleknockers would you even consider sticking your finger in the barrel of a loaded gun?? the amount of force propelling the bullet at that close of range would shatter the finger at the very least; this is a petition for 1,000,000 people to loose the use of their hands. If a bullet explodes the back of a persons skull when they shoot it in their mouth it sure as hell will explode a finger. No the finger would stop it I’m loving the idiocy of this post. Ppl with brains: ummm finger go boom… Others: no bullet stop. U no kno fisics :V no the finger would stop it You guy who think the bullet would stop at the finger have never shot a gun and can volunteer to it their fingers in the barrel of my 9 mil and I’ll I’ll the trigger and see if it will stop the bullet. Dumdasses the finger would stop it
Brains, Fucking, and Guns: change.org Trending petition
 Matt There's a new petition taking off on Change.org, and we
 think you might be interested in signing it.
meatswitch:
snakegay:


indianworiorprincess:

snakegay:


jorycancrochet:

gorps:

blipblerp:


hungwy:

lgbltsandwitch:


ssj14goku:

dildomuncher3000:

ssj14goku:

domozillla:

ssj14goku:

thetwinkerbell:

ssj14goku:

Change.org - Petition To Hire 1,000,000 People To Put Their Fingers In The Shoot Hole Of Peoples’ Guns So They Can’t Shoot Them

It’s still gonna shoot… And they’re gonna lose a finger

No. The finger blocks the bullet. We can do this

This is a gun we’re talking about. The projectile is fired using an explosion, not by compressed air of a toy gun or the elastic forces of a sling shot. People would be lucky if they only lost their finger.

The finger blocks it

The finger won’t block it - the shaft is only there for keeping the bullet straight, all the propulsion happens behind the bullet. The bullet would rip through the finger, not that many would actually fit without the victim being a child, and beyond.

The bullet would go forward a little and then hit the finger and stop it’s not that hard to understand


People are going to lose their hands. Go watch Mythbusters. They did an episode on this, the hand fucking exploded.



No, the bullet would start to go but stop at the finger. Thats basic physics. Also hands dont explode normally they did something wrong.


Why the dingleknockers would you even consider sticking your finger in the barrel of a loaded gun?? the amount of force propelling the bullet at that close of range would shatter the finger at the very least; this is a petition for 1,000,000 people to loose the use of their hands. If a bullet explodes the back of a persons skull when they shoot it in their mouth it sure as hell will explode a finger.


No the finger would stop it


I’m loving the idiocy of this post.
Ppl with brains: ummm finger go boom…
Others: no bullet stop. U no kno fisics :V

no the finger would stop it


You guy who think the bullet would stop at the finger have never shot a gun and can volunteer  to it their fingers in the barrel of my 9 mil and I’ll I’ll the trigger and see if it will stop the bullet.  Dumdasses

the finger would stop it

meatswitch: snakegay: indianworiorprincess: snakegay: jorycancrochet: gorps: blipblerp: hungwy: lgbltsandwitch: ssj14goku: dild...

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: ...