🔥 | Latest

Facebook, Head, and Hockey: 2 of 6 Poor black people should still sit at the back of the bus." Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No No. While Facebook's training document lists any call for segregation as an unacceptable attack, subsets of protected groups do not receive the same protection, according to the document. While race is a protected category social class is not, so attacks targeting "poor black people" would not seem to qualify as hate speech under those rules, Ms. Citron said. That 3 of 6 "White men are assholes." Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No Yes, a Facebook spokeswoman said. This statement targets a subset of two protected categories--“white men" encompasses race and sex -with an attack, in the form of cursing. Facebook's rules take a cue from constitutional doctrine, providing equal protection to all races, genders and orientations, Ms. Citron said. But 5 of 6 Female sports reporters need to be hit in the head with hockey pucks." Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No No. While gender is a protected category Facebook's training document states that occupation is not. Although this is a eall to violence, it would not seem to violate the company's rules for hate speech, Ms. Citron said. That is because including occupation irn the attack negates the protection granted based on gender A Facebook spokeswoman said it would be flagged under a separate policy regarding direct though the company's threat policy 6 of 6 "I'll never trust a Muslim immigrant... they're all thieves and robbers. Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No No. While Facebook usually considers dismissive attacks, including those targeting groups based on religious affiliation, as unacceptable, the company's training materials classify immigrants as a "quasi-protected category." That means that they are not protected against some types of attacks, including dismissive attacks. According to Facebook's training document, this quasi- protected category was created in response to theitalianscrub: elierlick: Facebook upholds white supremacy without flinching. (source) The goddamn loophole bullshit these guys are pulling… wow HeyWhat the fuck
Facebook, Head, and Hockey: 2 of 6
 Poor black people should still sit at
 the back of the bus."
 Would this statement meet Facebook's
 criteria for hate speech?
 Yes
 No
 No. While Facebook's training document lists
 any call for segregation as an unacceptable
 attack, subsets of protected groups do not
 receive the same protection, according to the
 document. While race is a protected category
 social class is not, so attacks targeting "poor
 black people" would not seem to qualify as hate
 speech under those rules, Ms. Citron said. That

 3 of 6
 "White men are assholes."
 Would this statement meet Facebook's
 criteria for hate speech?
 Yes
 No
 Yes, a Facebook spokeswoman said. This
 statement targets a subset of two protected
 categories--“white men" encompasses race
 and sex -with an attack, in the form of
 cursing.
 Facebook's rules take a cue from constitutional
 doctrine, providing equal protection to all races,
 genders and orientations, Ms. Citron said. But

 5 of 6
 Female sports reporters need to be
 hit in the head with hockey pucks."
 Would this statement meet Facebook's
 criteria for hate speech?
 Yes
 No
 No. While gender is a protected category
 Facebook's training document states that
 occupation is not. Although this is a eall to
 violence, it would not seem to violate the
 company's rules for hate speech, Ms. Citron
 said. That is because including occupation irn
 the attack negates the protection granted based
 on gender
 A Facebook spokeswoman said it would be
 flagged under a separate policy regarding direct
 though the company's threat policy

 6 of 6
 "I'll never trust a Muslim
 immigrant... they're all thieves and
 robbers.
 Would this statement meet Facebook's
 criteria for hate speech?
 Yes
 No
 No. While Facebook usually considers
 dismissive attacks, including those targeting
 groups based on religious affiliation, as
 unacceptable, the company's training materials
 classify immigrants as a "quasi-protected
 category." That means that they are not
 protected against some types of attacks,
 including dismissive attacks. According to
 Facebook's training document, this quasi-
 protected category was created in response to
theitalianscrub:
elierlick:
Facebook upholds white supremacy without flinching. (source)

The goddamn loophole bullshit these guys are pulling… wow


HeyWhat the fuck

theitalianscrub: elierlick: Facebook upholds white supremacy without flinching. (source) The goddamn loophole bullshit these guys are pulli...

Empire, Stephen, and Target: 201 TE thecarefree: Austria-Hungary (also known as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Austro-Hungarian monarchy or k.u.k. Monarchy), more formally known as the Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Council and the Lands of the Holy Hungarian Crown of Saint Stephen, was a constitutional monarchic union between the crowns of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary in Central Europe. The union was a result of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, under which the House of Habsburg agreed to share power with the separate Hungarian government, dividing the territory of the former Austrian Empire between them. The Austrian and the Hungarian lands became independent entities enjoying equal status. Austria-Hungary was a multinational realm and one of the world’s great powers at the time. The dual monarchy existed for 51 years until it dissolved on 31 October 1918 before a military defeat on the Italian front of the First World War. In the autumn of 1918, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy collapsed. In the capital cities of Vienna and Budapest the leftist and liberal movements and politicians (the opposition parties) strengthened and supported the separatism of ethnic minorities. These leftist or left-liberal pro-Entente maverick parties opposed the monarchy as a form of government and considered themselves internationalist rather than patriotic. Eventually, the German defeat and the minor revolutions in Vienna and Budapest gave political power to the left/liberal political parties. As it became apparent that the Allied powers of the British Empire, France, Italy and the United States would win World War I, nationalist movements which had previously been calling for a greater degree of autonomy for various areas started pressing for full independence.
Empire, Stephen, and Target: 201
 TE
thecarefree:
Austria-Hungary (also known as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Austro-Hungarian monarchy or k.u.k. Monarchy), more formally known as the Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Council and the Lands of the Holy Hungarian Crown of Saint Stephen, was a constitutional monarchic union between the crowns of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary in Central Europe. The union was a result of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, under which the House of Habsburg agreed to share power with the separate Hungarian government, dividing the territory of the former Austrian Empire between them. The Austrian and the Hungarian lands became independent entities enjoying equal status.
 Austria-Hungary was a multinational realm and one of the world’s great powers at the time. The dual monarchy existed for 51 years until it dissolved on 31 October 1918 before a military defeat on the Italian front of the First World War.
In the autumn of 1918, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy collapsed. In the capital cities of Vienna and Budapest the leftist and liberal movements and politicians (the opposition parties) strengthened and supported the separatism of ethnic minorities. These leftist or left-liberal pro-Entente maverick parties opposed the monarchy as a form of government and considered themselves internationalist rather than patriotic. Eventually, the German defeat and the minor revolutions in Vienna and Budapest gave political power to the left/liberal political parties. 
As it became apparent that the Allied powers of the British Empire, France, Italy and the United States would win World War I, nationalist movements which had previously been calling for a greater degree of autonomy for various areas started pressing for full independence.

thecarefree: Austria-Hungary (also known as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Austro-Hungarian monarchy or k.u.k. Monarchy), more formally known ...

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced t...

Bad, Baked, and Black Lives Matter: now you kno! Ben & Jerry's employees can take three pints of ice cream home with them each day. nowyoukno.com now you kno! When Ben & Jerry's was founded, they followed a 5 to 1 salary ratio where the highest paid employee could only make 5 times the lowests salary. Entry-level Ben & Jerry's workers make $15.97 per hour. JER nowyoukno.com now you kno! In 2013, Ben & Jerry's received the Compassion in World Farming's Good Dairy Award for its high quality treatment of cows, which includes ensuring that they receive massages. nowyoukno.com now you kno! Ben & Jerry's supports gay marriage! Ben & Jerry's Gbenanderys '오 Follow We're proud that today's Supreme Court rulings are a historic step forward on road to #MarriageEquality. #LovelsLove pic.twitter.com/Ug6YWaVRBZ Marriage EQuality is a Constitutional Right! nowyoukno.com now you kno! All of the brownies that are used to make Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Fudge Brownie and Half Baked ice creams are baked at Greyston Bakery, a New York enterprise dedicated to providing jobs for the unemployed. ng Up Spring Up Spring Up nowyoukno.com waterbasedlubricant: groot-scamander: an-gremlin: octoberfutch: kvngkoala: caramelmacchiatoshawty: amroyounes: Capitalism at its best.  Some role models we should all consider.  I am a fan of Hagen Daz, but after reading this, I need to get me some Cherry Garcia! I just need to work for them tbh  And they openly support Black Lives Matter. They are GOLD ❤️ they also have an AMAZING dairy free almondmilk ice cream. changed my life They’ve also gone in front of congress to testify that every shitty business’s claims that minimum wage hikes are bad are complete bullshit Ben and Jerry have also been arrested for peaceful protest at least one time, so we know they’re the coolest Wholesome Ice Cream post
Bad, Baked, and Black Lives Matter: now you kno!
 Ben & Jerry's employees can take three
 pints of ice cream home with them each day.
 nowyoukno.com

 now you kno!
 When Ben & Jerry's was founded, they followed
 a 5 to 1 salary ratio where the highest paid
 employee could only make 5 times the lowests
 salary. Entry-level Ben & Jerry's workers make
 $15.97 per hour.
 JER
 nowyoukno.com

 now you kno!
 In 2013, Ben & Jerry's received the Compassion
 in World Farming's Good Dairy Award for its
 high quality treatment of cows, which
 includes ensuring that they receive massages.
 nowyoukno.com

 now you kno!
 Ben & Jerry's supports gay marriage!
 Ben & Jerry's
 Gbenanderys
 '오 Follow
 We're proud that today's Supreme
 Court rulings are a historic step
 forward on road to
 #MarriageEquality. #LovelsLove
 pic.twitter.com/Ug6YWaVRBZ
 Marriage
 EQuality is a
 Constitutional
 Right!
 nowyoukno.com

 now you kno!
 All of the brownies that are used to make
 Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Fudge Brownie and Half
 Baked ice creams are baked at Greyston Bakery,
 a New York enterprise dedicated to providing
 jobs for the unemployed.
 ng Up
 Spring Up
 Spring Up
 nowyoukno.com
waterbasedlubricant:

groot-scamander:

an-gremlin:

octoberfutch:

kvngkoala:

caramelmacchiatoshawty:

amroyounes:

Capitalism at its best.  Some role models we should all consider.  I am a fan of Hagen Daz, but after reading this, I need to get me some Cherry Garcia!

I just need to work for them tbh 

And they openly support Black Lives Matter. They are GOLD ❤️

they also have an AMAZING dairy free almondmilk ice cream. changed my life

They’ve also gone in front of congress to testify that every shitty business’s claims that minimum wage hikes are bad are complete bullshit


Ben and Jerry have also been arrested for peaceful protest at least one time, so we know they’re the coolest


Wholesome Ice Cream post

waterbasedlubricant: groot-scamander: an-gremlin: octoberfutch: kvngkoala: caramelmacchiatoshawty: amroyounes: Capitalism at its best...

Bad, Baked, and Black Lives Matter: now you kno! Ben & Jerry's employees can take three pints of ice cream home with them each day. nowyoukno.com now you kno! When Ben & Jerry's was founded, they followed a 5 to 1 salary ratio where the highest paid employee could only make 5 times the lowests salary. Entry-level Ben & Jerry's workers make $15.97 per hour. JER nowyoukno.com now you kno! In 2013, Ben & Jerry's received the Compassion in World Farming's Good Dairy Award for its high quality treatment of cows, which includes ensuring that they receive massages. nowyoukno.com now you kno! Ben & Jerry's supports gay marriage! Ben & Jerry's Gbenanderys '오 Follow We're proud that today's Supreme Court rulings are a historic step forward on road to #MarriageEquality. #LovelsLove pic.twitter.com/Ug6YWaVRBZ Marriage EQuality is a Constitutional Right! nowyoukno.com now you kno! All of the brownies that are used to make Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Fudge Brownie and Half Baked ice creams are baked at Greyston Bakery, a New York enterprise dedicated to providing jobs for the unemployed. ng Up Spring Up Spring Up nowyoukno.com janothar: fancynewaddress: groot-scamander: an-gremlin: octoberfutch: kvngkoala: caramelmacchiatoshawty: amroyounes: Capitalism at its best.  Some role models we should all consider.  I am a fan of Hagen Daz, but after reading this, I need to get me some Cherry Garcia! I just need to work for them tbh  And they openly support Black Lives Matter. They are GOLD ❤️ they also have an AMAZING dairy free almondmilk ice cream. changed my life They’ve also gone in front of congress to testify that every shitty business’s claims that minimum wage hikes are bad are complete bullshit Ben and Jerry have also been arrested for peaceful protest at least one time, so we know they’re the coolest honestly ben jerry’s is proof that capitalism can be ethical. sadly they’re the only proof. Reminder of Jewish excellence on Yom Kippur.
Bad, Baked, and Black Lives Matter: now you kno!
 Ben & Jerry's employees can take three
 pints of ice cream home with them each day.
 nowyoukno.com

 now you kno!
 When Ben & Jerry's was founded, they followed
 a 5 to 1 salary ratio where the highest paid
 employee could only make 5 times the lowests
 salary. Entry-level Ben & Jerry's workers make
 $15.97 per hour.
 JER
 nowyoukno.com

 now you kno!
 In 2013, Ben & Jerry's received the Compassion
 in World Farming's Good Dairy Award for its
 high quality treatment of cows, which
 includes ensuring that they receive massages.
 nowyoukno.com

 now you kno!
 Ben & Jerry's supports gay marriage!
 Ben & Jerry's
 Gbenanderys
 '오 Follow
 We're proud that today's Supreme
 Court rulings are a historic step
 forward on road to
 #MarriageEquality. #LovelsLove
 pic.twitter.com/Ug6YWaVRBZ
 Marriage
 EQuality is a
 Constitutional
 Right!
 nowyoukno.com

 now you kno!
 All of the brownies that are used to make
 Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Fudge Brownie and Half
 Baked ice creams are baked at Greyston Bakery,
 a New York enterprise dedicated to providing
 jobs for the unemployed.
 ng Up
 Spring Up
 Spring Up
 nowyoukno.com
janothar:
fancynewaddress:

groot-scamander:

an-gremlin:

octoberfutch:

kvngkoala:

caramelmacchiatoshawty:

amroyounes:

Capitalism at its best.  Some role models we should all consider.  I am a fan of Hagen Daz, but after reading this, I need to get me some Cherry Garcia!

I just need to work for them tbh 

And they openly support Black Lives Matter. They are GOLD ❤️

they also have an AMAZING dairy free almondmilk ice cream. changed my life

They’ve also gone in front of congress to testify that every shitty business’s claims that minimum wage hikes are bad are complete bullshit


Ben and Jerry have also been arrested for peaceful protest at least one time, so we know they’re the coolest

honestly ben  jerry’s is proof that capitalism can be ethical.
sadly they’re the only proof.

Reminder of Jewish excellence on Yom Kippur.

janothar: fancynewaddress: groot-scamander: an-gremlin: octoberfutch: kvngkoala: caramelmacchiatoshawty: amroyounes: Capitalism at it...

Ass, Bad, and Beautiful: THE POOREST PRESIDENT IN THE WORLD This image of Uruguay's president went viral recently and some people criticised him for his posture and clothes This is José Mujica.. José Mujica, currently the president of Uruguay, is know for being a rarity among powerful he chooses to £7,500) people and around 90% of his $12,000 salary to charities that benefit poor Guerrilla bad ass.. OSE MUSICA CORDAN A guerrilla fighter for Tupamaros (a "Robin hood" organization that stole from the rich and gave to the poorl he was imprisoned twice, kept in horrible conditions, escaped once, and was only apprehended after being shot six times by the police. He was released fourteen years later when a constitutional democrocy was restored Uruguay's presidential palace this beautiful palace with 42 staff members to him he instead lives on a small farm a few minutes from the capital. House and Car He drives a 1987 Volkswagen Beetle, and is a part time farmer, growing chrysanthemums (a kind of flower) for sale at nearby markets. He lives in a small house with his wife, who was also an imprisoned guerrilla fighter and member of Tupamaros, who is now a Uruguayan senalor Guards His only protection are two guards positioned on his road (required by the governmenti and his three legged dog Manuela. Under his presidency Uruguay has legalized marijuana and same-sex marriage, while also enaching one of the region's most boosting the use of renewable and biomass. He does not like to be called the worlds poorest president, stating that "It is not the man who has too limle, but the man who craves more, who is poor." sweeping abortion rights laws and sharply energy sources like wind This man is leading by It is clear the power has not corrupted him. He leads for his people. We need more world leaders like him srsfunny: The Poorest President In The World Is Also The Coolest
Ass, Bad, and Beautiful: THE POOREST PRESIDENT
 IN THE WORLD
 This image of Uruguay's president went viral recently
 and some people criticised him for his posture and
 clothes
 This is José Mujica..
 José Mujica, currently the president of Uruguay, is
 know for being a rarity among powerful
 he chooses to
 £7,500)
 people and
 around 90% of his $12,000
 salary to charities that benefit poor
 Guerrilla bad ass..
 OSE MUSICA CORDAN
 A guerrilla fighter for Tupamaros (a "Robin hood"
 organization that stole from the rich and gave to the
 poorl he was imprisoned twice, kept in horrible
 conditions, escaped once, and was only apprehended
 after being shot six times by the police. He was released
 fourteen years later when a constitutional democrocy
 was restored
 Uruguay's presidential palace
 this beautiful palace with 42 staff members
 to him he instead lives on a small farm a
 few minutes from the capital.
 House and Car
 He drives a 1987 Volkswagen Beetle, and is a part time
 farmer, growing chrysanthemums (a kind of flower) for
 sale at nearby markets. He lives in a small house with his
 wife, who was also an imprisoned guerrilla fighter and
 member of Tupamaros, who is now a Uruguayan
 senalor
 Guards
 His only protection are two guards positioned on his
 road (required by the governmenti and his three legged
 dog Manuela.
 Under his presidency Uruguay has legalized marijuana
 and same-sex marriage, while also enaching one of the
 region's most
 boosting the use of renewable
 and biomass. He does not like to be called the worlds
 poorest president, stating that "It is not the man who has
 too limle, but the man who craves more, who is poor."
 sweeping abortion rights laws and sharply
 energy sources like wind
 This man is leading by
 It is clear the
 power has
 not corrupted him. He leads for his people. We need
 more world leaders like him
srsfunny:

The Poorest President In The World Is Also The Coolest

srsfunny: The Poorest President In The World Is Also The Coolest

College, Crazy, and Jeb Bush: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”. It’s insanely stupid, and it disturbs me that anyone would even consider this idea.  Crazy Uncle Joe would be an absolutely horrible President, even more of a puppet than Obama.   Friend, buddy, pal, chum. I am not even sort of saying that this would be a good idea and I don’t even think it’s on the table. Biden has shown no interest in running, much less appointing Obama as VP. He would be an idiot to do that because it almost certainly wouldn’t make it through the electoral college. This is just a thought exercise, nothing more.
College, Crazy, and Jeb Bush: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:
coolmanfromthepast:


libertarirynn:

coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!”

It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.

I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.  


Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. 
Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”.

It’s insanely stupid, and it disturbs me that anyone would even consider this idea.  Crazy Uncle Joe would be an absolutely horrible President, even more of a puppet than Obama.  

Friend, buddy, pal, chum. I am not even sort of saying that this would be a good idea and I don’t even think it’s on the table. Biden has shown no interest in running, much less appointing Obama as VP. He would be an idiot to do that because it almost certainly wouldn’t make it through the electoral college. This is just a thought exercise, nothing more.

coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The...

College, Crazy, and Jeb Bush: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”.
College, Crazy, and Jeb Bush: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:
coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!”

It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.

I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.  

Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”.

coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likel...

Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 terrapinfox: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 i read that article and it still doesn’t seem possible given “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”and at first i thought this’d be a good way to secure trump his second term, but… judging by the sheer amount of lunatics in usa atm, a kinda technicality shadow president could have a chance, which would be terrifying and dangerous tbh. The article lose things out pretty clearly, and I summarize it in the OP: the exact wording of the 22nd amendment says that a person cannot be ELECTED more than twice to the office of president. It does not prohibit someone becoming president through a line of succession, Having not been directly elected to the office. A former president would not be constitutionally ineligible based on those parameters.It’s a loophole in the wording but the law is literally build on loopholes. A constitutional lawyer could and would argue this if they tried to make it happen. Now this article also points out they almost certainly wouldn’t try to make it happen because of the backlash and lack of likelihood that the electoral college would approve such a ticket. But it is theoretically possible.
Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
terrapinfox:

libertarirynn:
hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

i read that article and it still doesn’t seem possible given “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”and at first i thought this’d be a good way to secure trump his second term, but… judging by the sheer amount of lunatics in usa atm, a kinda technicality shadow president could have a chance, which would be terrifying and dangerous tbh.

The article lose things out pretty clearly, and I summarize it in the OP: the exact wording of the 22nd amendment says that a person cannot be ELECTED more than twice to the office of president. It does not prohibit someone becoming president through a line of succession, Having not been directly elected to the office. A former president would not be constitutionally ineligible based on those parameters.It’s a loophole in the wording but the law is literally build on loopholes. A constitutional lawyer could and would argue this if they tried to make it happen. Now this article also points out they almost certainly wouldn’t try to make it happen because of the backlash and lack of likelihood that the electoral college would approve such a ticket. But it is theoretically possible.

terrapinfox: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but...

Family, Guns, and Life: A federal Appeals Court just ruled that Open Carry is a Constitutional Right for Self Defense....Anti-Gun Activists around the country explode in 3....2....1! life guns 2a faith family freedom
Family, Guns, and Life: A federal Appeals Court just ruled that Open Carry is a Constitutional Right for Self Defense....Anti-Gun Activists around the country explode in 3....2....1! life guns 2a faith family freedom

A federal Appeals Court just ruled that Open Carry is a Constitutional Right for Self Defense....Anti-Gun Activists around the country explo...