🔥 | Latest

Beijing, Definitely, and Guns: BANG BANG WE CAN END GUN VIOLENCE. xphilosoraptorx: unlimited-shitpost-works: siryouarebeingmocked: 8lastrat8: american–support: kasaron: allriot-political-tshirts: American citizens own 40% of all guns in the world. Out of more than one billion firearms in the world, American citizens hold 393 million, for a population of roughly 326 million. That’s a lot of guns! The last time the US federal government managed to pass laws that limit the spread and use of guns was 25 years ago. It was 1994. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was temporary. It expired in 2004, resulting in a massive increase in mass shootings across the country. Republicans are running out of excuses, blaming the latest incidents in Drayton and El Paso on video games. We can end gun violence. Let’s start with gun control. What sort of gun control legislation would you like to see be put into place? OP, that claim of shootings increased is false. The violence and shootings didn’t change in that decade from the previous decade, and in fact, violence has been on the decline. WHAT HAS CHANGED is how much media is shoved down your throat. Thats it. The nonstop spam from legacy media of a single event for a month, if not months on end is what changed. It used to be a 5, maybe 10 minute story has now turned into a 4 week “constant coverage” of spewing the same info daily, with nothing added. After the early 90s, we saw a sharp decline and its been declining ever since. Meanwhile, ownership is at an alltime high, increasing, as if a plethora of armed citizens reduces the audacity of a potential killer to attempt knowing they’ll get capped. What has also changed is the increase in the absolutely terrible idea of “gun free zones” seeing as approximately 85-95% of these shootings are occuring in these zones. Seems like that’s your problem. Hmm, this graph seems to showcase that despite the US owning vastly more guns… homicide rate is lower than a hefty chunk of even the non gun owners… I’d just like to know how they propose to take our guns. If I got one logical explanation from one of these half wits that didn’t include magic or ridiculous gestapo tactics we could have a conversation but, every F’ing time it devolves into name calling, insults, and slander. They simply can’t explain how to take the guns away. Not a single one of them has ever responded to me without crass vulgarities and irrational screeching. myamberreason said:  Anyway, guys, why you need THAT many guns? I understand owned a few for protection or legal hunting, but why do you have around 40% of firearms in the world?? I’m sorry, are you implying the Yanks should meet international proportional quotas on guns? We do own a few for self-defense and hunting. It’s just that the rest of the world doesn’t own very many guns. The reason we all have so many guns is very simple: logistics. The point of the second amendment is for us, the citizens of the USA, to be “shit your pants, wake up in a cold sweat” terrifying to the people running this country, so much so that they involuntarily have second, third, even fourth thoughts about ever violating our rights. The 2nd amendment is the most important and most powerful of all the amendments. Every single right and amendment could taken away, and we could regain them all with that one. And I’m not the only one who recognizes the importance of the 2nd.And it definitely terrifies Beijing. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t have to justify an amount of guns to you any more than I have to justify how many video games or coffee cups I have.
Beijing, Definitely, and Guns: BANG
 BANG
 WE CAN END GUN VIOLENCE.
xphilosoraptorx:

unlimited-shitpost-works:
siryouarebeingmocked:


8lastrat8:

american–support:

kasaron:


allriot-political-tshirts:


American citizens own 40% of all guns in the world. 

Out of more than one billion firearms in the world, American citizens hold 393 million, for a population of roughly 326 million. That’s a lot of guns!

The last time the US federal government managed to pass laws that limit the spread and use of guns was 25 years ago. It was 1994. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was temporary. It expired in 2004, resulting in a massive increase in mass shootings across the country. Republicans are running out of excuses, blaming the latest incidents in Drayton and El Paso on video games.

We can end gun violence. Let’s start with gun control.


What sort of gun control legislation would you like to see be put into place?


OP, that claim of shootings increased is false. The violence and shootings didn’t change in that decade from the previous decade, and in fact, violence has been on the decline. 
WHAT HAS CHANGED is how much media is shoved down your throat. Thats it. The nonstop spam from legacy media of a single event for a month, if not months on end is what changed. It used to be a 5, maybe 10 minute story has now turned into a 4 week “constant coverage” of spewing the same info daily, with nothing added. 
After the early 90s, we saw a sharp decline and its been declining ever since. 
Meanwhile, ownership is at an alltime high, increasing, as if a plethora of armed citizens reduces the audacity of a potential killer to attempt knowing they’ll get capped.
What has also changed is the increase in the absolutely terrible idea of “gun free zones” seeing as approximately 85-95% of these shootings are occuring in these zones. Seems like that’s your problem. 
Hmm, this graph seems to showcase that despite the US owning vastly more guns… homicide rate is lower than a hefty chunk of even the non gun owners…


I’d just like to know how they propose to take our guns. If I got one logical explanation from one of these half wits that didn’t include magic or ridiculous gestapo tactics we could have a conversation but, every F’ing time it devolves into name calling, insults, and slander. They simply can’t explain how to take the guns away. Not a single one of them has ever responded to me without crass vulgarities and irrational screeching. 



myamberreason said: 
Anyway, guys, why you need THAT many guns? I understand owned a few for protection or legal hunting, but why do you have around 40% of firearms in the world??


I’m sorry, are you implying the Yanks should meet international proportional quotas on guns?


We do own a few for self-defense and hunting.  It’s just that the rest of the world doesn’t own very many guns.


The reason we all have so many guns is very simple: logistics. The point of the second amendment is for us, the citizens of the USA, to be “shit your pants, wake up in a cold sweat” terrifying to the people running this country, so much so that they involuntarily have second, third, even fourth thoughts about ever violating our rights. The 2nd amendment is the most important and most powerful of all the amendments. Every single right and amendment could taken away, and we could regain them all with that one. And I’m not the only one who recognizes the importance of the 2nd.And it definitely terrifies Beijing.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t have to justify an amount of guns to you any more than I have to justify how many video games or coffee cups I have.

xphilosoraptorx: unlimited-shitpost-works: siryouarebeingmocked: 8lastrat8: american–support: kasaron: allriot-political-tshirts: A...

Alive, Bad, and College: Side Effects Follow ECTS @SideEffectsNews Why aren't millennials giving blood? bit.ly/2fRZG5i 5:14 PM 28 Sep 2017 Belinda Blumenthal @philomenapunk Follow because we all gay ide Effects @SideEffectsNews Why aren't millennials giving blood? bit.ly/2fRZG5i 11:29 AM 3 Oct 2017 3,199 Retweets 11,051 Likes agapantoblu: somecunttookmyurl: creaturethatcries: dr-dendritic-trees: karnythia: voidbat: genderfuckt: optimysticals: the-fury-of-a-time-lord: luidilovins: the-modern-satyr: seedydemigod: captainfunkpunkandroll: the-real-eye-to-see: Didn’t even know people are not allowed to give blood if they are gay That’s been the thing for years. The HIV scare of the ‘80s prohibited us from donating blood. And they still hold that against us despite the fact that that claim has been debunked over and over again. the wording on the paperwork is “Are you a man who has had sexual intercourse with a man after 1980” or “Are you a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man since 1980” (this was a blood drive at my college where majority of the students werent Alive in 1980.) I donated all the time back when I was a virgin, because o- , but now I’m not allowed to. So a better question for this article is “Why won’t baby boomers let queer people donate blood, even though all the blood gets screened for HIV and aids anyway?” though, theres a lot of room for loopholes in the wording of it This fucking matters. Bias in medicine is bias that should not exist. Fucking fix it. This is disgusting hey trans people can’t give blood either. was banned from a plasma place for having the nerve to show up and be trans. “we don’t serve you people”. This is one of the reasons why it was painful for a LOT of Queer people after the Pulse shooting. We kept seeing messages calling for blood donations but so many of us can’t donate. We couldn’t even help our own community.  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as someone who has received money and/or drugs in exchange for sex, i have a lifetime ban on giving blood. FURTHERMORE, my whore blood is so filthy that if you’ve had sex with me in the past year, YOU can’t give blood! and that’s a federal goddamn guideline, folks! If you lived in Europe for 3 months between 1980 and 1996 you can’t donate blood which basically takes out everyone who ever served in the military and was stationed overseas, anyone who studied abroad or anyone who had a job overseas during that period. The Red Cross is always announcing they have a shortage of blood donors but they create the shortage with the byzantine array of restrictions that they refuse to revisit.  Okay, the above stuff is stigma and total crap, we have efficient screens for HIV and things now, the blood will be screened anyway, banning people for their sexual history is completely prejudice and its wasteful, and those rules really need to go. But the last one, the ban on donation for people living in Europe, is actually done for a reason. Its an attempt to limit the spread of vCJD, which we don’t have a way of screening for right now. Last i went you could donate blood if trans, I was openly trans at my blood clinic and they took me. So its probably just that particular clinic, which I say so that other trans people arent discouraged from trying to donate. Also… as long as its the only question you lie on… if theres a blood shortage emergency I really dont see why not lie on that one question. Like its terrible to have to do that and im not trying to make you feel bad if you avoiding donating because of it, but since we know its not scientifically founded it seems perfectly moral to me to lie on that one question if you want to donate. There’s not really a way for them to fact check that. I really never understood why people don’t just LIE “Heartbroken they couldn’t-“ JUST LIE ON THE FORM I’m an openly queer woman in Italy and I’ve never lied on my form, but also, my form doesn’t even ask the gender of my partner. All the questions are phrased “have you had any heterosexual or homosexual intercourse in the past six months?”, “have you changed partner in the past six months?” They are willingly phrased to work for all people because there’s literally no scientific reason as to why straight blood would be safer than gay blood.It’s just a formality. Honestly, you could write you just had an orgy and as long as you claim you’ve practiced safe sex they’ll give you the green card to donate. At most, they mark your sack for a more thorough venereal diseases screening in case you couldn’t affirm for sure that you’re 100% clean.The whole “but after the AIDS scare” discourse is bullcrap. They give AIDS informative flyers to all donors once a year and they screen for HIV all the sacks. Whenever you donate, you get the analysis results back and if you check, straight or gay, there’s always the results for the HIV test. Because medicine knows that straights and gays are all equally likely to be affected, it’s how it is.If you’re gay, you can donate. If you’re trans, the most that can happen is that your doctor allows you two yearly donations, roughly six months apart, if you are having your period; otherwise you’re allowed three yearly donations, roughly four months apart. That’s it.If the forms are like those provided in Italy, you won’t have even have to lie. If you live in some dumbass country that thinks you cannot donate if you’re queer, though, yeah, just fucking lie about it because there is no valid reason that says you cannot give blood.It’s an whole different matter if we’re talking about restrictions based on where you were at X date.These questions are common worldwide because they refer to viruses and infections that cannot be screened. This is not made because the Red Cross is mean and cruel and whatever the fuck; it’s because they cannot be sure your blood is not contaminated and since the blood is going to someone who, it stands to reason, is already compromised on their own, they cannot fight their own battle and add more. That’s why you cannot donate. My uncle died because he was fighting leukemia and was injected a transfusion of infected blood. DO NOT LIE ON THE FORM ABOUT ILLNESSES YOU HAD OR PLACES YOU’VE BEEN TO. YOUR WISH TO DONATE IS WORTH JACK SHIT IF YOU CONTAMINATE SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T HONEST.
Alive, Bad, and College: Side Effects
 Follow
 ECTS @SideEffectsNews
 Why aren't millennials giving blood?
 bit.ly/2fRZG5i
 5:14 PM 28 Sep 2017

 Belinda Blumenthal
 @philomenapunk
 Follow
 because we all gay
 ide Effects @SideEffectsNews
 Why aren't millennials giving blood? bit.ly/2fRZG5i
 11:29 AM 3 Oct 2017
 3,199 Retweets 11,051 Likes
agapantoblu:

somecunttookmyurl:
creaturethatcries:


dr-dendritic-trees:

karnythia:

voidbat:

genderfuckt:


optimysticals:

the-fury-of-a-time-lord:

luidilovins:

the-modern-satyr:

seedydemigod:

captainfunkpunkandroll:

the-real-eye-to-see:
Didn’t even know people are not allowed to give blood if they are gay


That’s been the thing for years. The HIV scare of the ‘80s prohibited us from donating blood. And they still hold that against us despite the fact that that claim has been debunked over and over again.

the wording on the paperwork is “Are you a man who has had sexual intercourse with a man after 1980” or “Are you a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man since 1980” (this was a blood drive at my college  where majority of the students werent Alive in 1980.) I donated all the time back when I was a virgin, because o- , but now I’m not allowed to. So a better question for this article is “Why won’t baby boomers let queer people donate blood, even though all the blood gets screened for HIV and aids anyway?” though, theres a lot of room for loopholes in the wording of it   


This fucking matters. Bias in medicine is bias that should not exist. Fucking fix it.


This is disgusting 

hey trans people can’t give blood either. was banned from a plasma place for having the nerve to show up and be trans. “we don’t serve you people”.

This is one of the reasons why it was painful for a LOT of Queer people after the Pulse shooting. We kept seeing messages calling for blood donations but so many of us can’t donate. We couldn’t even help our own community. 


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


as someone who has received money and/or drugs in exchange for sex, i have a lifetime ban on giving blood. FURTHERMORE, my whore blood is so filthy that if you’ve had sex with me in the past year, YOU can’t give blood!
and that’s a federal goddamn guideline, folks! 

If you lived in Europe for 3 months between 1980 and 1996 you can’t donate blood which basically takes out everyone who ever served in the military and was stationed overseas, anyone who studied abroad or anyone who had a job overseas during that period. The Red Cross is always announcing they have a shortage of blood donors but they create the shortage with the byzantine array of restrictions that they refuse to revisit. 

Okay, the above stuff is stigma and total crap, we have efficient screens for HIV and things now, the blood will be screened anyway, banning people for their sexual history is completely prejudice and its wasteful, and those rules really need to go.
But the last one, the ban on donation for people living in Europe, is actually done for a reason. Its an attempt to limit the spread of vCJD, which we don’t have a way of screening for right now.


Last i went you could donate blood if trans, I was openly trans at my blood clinic and they took me. So its probably just that particular clinic, which I say so that other trans people arent discouraged from trying to donate.
Also… as long as its the only question you lie on… if theres a blood shortage emergency I really dont see why not lie on that one question. Like its terrible to have to do that and im not trying to make you feel bad if you avoiding donating because of it, but since we know its not scientifically founded it seems perfectly moral to me to lie on that one question if you want to donate. There’s not really a way for them to fact check that.


I really never understood why people don’t just LIE
“Heartbroken they couldn’t-“ JUST LIE ON THE FORM

I’m an openly queer woman in Italy and I’ve never lied on my form, but also, my form doesn’t even ask the gender of my partner. All the questions are phrased “have you had any heterosexual or homosexual intercourse in the past six months?”, “have you changed partner in the past six months?” They are willingly phrased to work for all people because there’s literally no scientific reason as to why straight blood would be safer than gay blood.It’s just a formality. Honestly, you could write you just had an orgy and as long as you claim you’ve practiced safe sex they’ll give you the green card to donate. At most, they mark your sack for a more thorough venereal diseases screening in case you couldn’t affirm for sure that you’re 100% clean.The whole “but after the AIDS scare” discourse is bullcrap. They give AIDS informative flyers to all donors once a year and they screen for HIV all the sacks. Whenever you donate, you get the analysis results back and if you check, straight or gay, there’s always the results for the HIV test. Because medicine knows that straights and gays are all equally likely to be affected, it’s how it is.If you’re gay, you can donate. If you’re trans, the most that can happen is that your doctor allows you two yearly donations, roughly six months apart, if you are having your period; otherwise you’re allowed three yearly donations, roughly four months apart. That’s it.If the forms are like those provided in Italy, you won’t have even have to lie. If you live in some dumbass country that thinks you cannot donate if you’re queer, though, yeah, just fucking lie about it because there is no valid reason that says you cannot give blood.It’s an whole different matter if we’re talking about restrictions based on where you were at X date.These questions are common worldwide because they refer to viruses and infections that cannot be screened. This is not made because the Red Cross is mean and cruel and whatever the fuck; it’s because they cannot be sure your blood is not contaminated and since the blood is going to someone who, it stands to reason, is already compromised on their own, they cannot fight their own battle and add more. That’s why you cannot donate. My uncle died because he was fighting leukemia and was injected a transfusion of infected blood. DO NOT LIE ON THE FORM ABOUT ILLNESSES YOU HAD OR PLACES YOU’VE BEEN TO. YOUR WISH TO DONATE IS WORTH JACK SHIT IF YOU CONTAMINATE SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T HONEST.

agapantoblu: somecunttookmyurl: creaturethatcries: dr-dendritic-trees: karnythia: voidbat: genderfuckt: optimysticals: the-fury-of-...

Child Support, Children, and Condom: 宋 Slay Follow @Foreverlighty My homeboy make 16 hundred a week but he only see $116.63 after child support... this is some fucked up stuff Earnings rate hours this tod Regular Overtime 18.5900 8.00 1.487.20 27,8850 4.88 136.08 Holiday Pay Paid Time Off Gross Pa $1,623.28 Deductions Statuto Federal Income Tax -149.03 Social Security Tax Medicare Tax 83.99 -19.65 Other -210.42 49.64 Core Health Dental Support Order Support Order Support Order Support Order 268.19 -231.79 233.30 -252.03 Vision 8.51 Net Pa Checking S116.73 -116.73 mother of kittens gi Follow @redheaded_wreck I'm glad he's seeing consequences for his actions of having irresponsible sex Maybe he should have kept his legs closed if he wasn't ready to take responsibility for his actions://// Slayd @Foreverlighty iMy homeboy make 16 hundred a week but he only see $116.63 after child support this is some fucked up stuff Show this thread 9:28 AM - 18 May 2019 11,656 Retweets 47,401 Likes C s divestedblackwoman: bichaotic: ophelias-revenge: unheavenlycreature: sugarkat: theambassadorposts: Why does it look like 4 support payments? 4 kids?? Or am I just reading shit wrong Four kids he wasn’t supporting until a court order demanded it. Possibly more than one. Honestly? Precisely zero sympathy for the dude. first of all that says he worked 80 hours before hitting ot so this is a biweekly check…anyway i went and found the twitter thread and in it the dude confirms his friend had 4 different kids by 4 different women. so please allow me to play the world’s smallest violin for him for being court mandated to help take care of the children he brought into this world :’( :’( clearly he didn’t decide to start strapping up after the first, second, or even third child so maybe number four will be enough to convince him Men really be out there knocking up women left right and center and telling women “but baby it feels so much better without a condom!” and voting for dudes who are banning abortion and they cry about how they can’t trust women on birth control and they’re abandoning kids all over the country but we’re supposed to cry when the court says pay for your kids in a system where welfare and WIC is fucking peanuts and won’t even cover breakfast daily. Fuck their crocodile tears! Where’s the laws for forced castrations after men are irresponsible and have two kids they don’t want to support? Men who don’t like abortion or don’t wanna pay child support can wear a condom or have a vasectomy!! No sympathy for deadbeats. Pay the fuck up.
Child Support, Children, and Condom: 宋
 Slay
 Follow
 @Foreverlighty
 My homeboy make 16 hundred a week
 but he only see $116.63 after child
 support... this is some fucked up stuff

 Earnings
 rate
 hours
 this tod
 Regular
 Overtime
 18.5900 8.00
 1.487.20
 27,8850
 4.88
 136.08
 Holiday Pay
 Paid Time Off
 Gross Pa
 $1,623.28
 Deductions Statuto
 Federal Income Tax
 -149.03
 Social Security Tax
 Medicare Tax
 83.99
 -19.65
 Other
 -210.42
 49.64
 Core Health
 Dental
 Support Order
 Support Order
 Support Order
 Support Order
 268.19
 -231.79
 233.30
 -252.03
 Vision
 8.51
 Net Pa
 Checking
 S116.73
 -116.73

 mother of kittens
 gi
 Follow
 @redheaded_wreck
 I'm glad he's seeing consequences for
 his actions of having irresponsible sex
 Maybe he should have kept his legs
 closed if he wasn't ready to take
 responsibility for his actions:////
 Slayd @Foreverlighty
 iMy homeboy make 16 hundred a week but he only see
 $116.63 after child support this is some fucked up stuff
 Show this thread
 9:28 AM - 18 May 2019
 11,656 Retweets 47,401 Likes C
 s
divestedblackwoman:
bichaotic:

ophelias-revenge:

unheavenlycreature:


sugarkat:

theambassadorposts:
Why does it look like 4 support payments? 4 kids?? Or am I just reading shit wrong

Four kids he wasn’t supporting until a court order demanded it. Possibly more than one.
Honestly? Precisely zero sympathy for the dude.

first of all that says he worked 80 hours before hitting ot so this is a biweekly check…anyway i went and found the twitter thread and in it the dude confirms his friend had 4 different kids by 4 different women. so please allow me to play the world’s smallest violin for him for being court mandated to help take care of the children he brought into this world :’( :’( clearly he didn’t decide to start strapping up after the first, second, or even third child so maybe number four will be enough to convince him


Men really be out there knocking up women left right and center and telling women “but baby it feels so much better without a condom!” and voting for dudes who are banning abortion and they cry about how they can’t trust women on birth control and they’re abandoning kids all over the country but we’re supposed to cry when the court says pay for your kids in a system where welfare and WIC is fucking peanuts and won’t even cover breakfast daily. 
Fuck their crocodile tears! 
Where’s the laws for forced castrations after men are irresponsible and have two kids they don’t want to support? 


Men who don’t like abortion or don’t wanna pay child support can wear a condom or have a vasectomy!!


No sympathy for deadbeats. Pay the fuck up.

divestedblackwoman: bichaotic: ophelias-revenge: unheavenlycreature: sugarkat: theambassadorposts: Why does it look like 4 support paym...

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: ...

Drugs, Jail, and Monopoly: Business An HIV treatment cost taxpavers millions. The government patented it But a pharma giant is making billions Antiretroviral pills Truvada sit on a tray at Jack's Drug Store on Nov. 23, 2010, in San Anselmo, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) By Christopher Rowland March 26 at 7:26 PM Thomas Folks spent vears in his U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lab developing a treatment to block deadly HI co AIDS V in monkeys. Then San Francis researcher Robert Grant, using $50 million in federal grants, proved the treatment worked in people who engaged in risky sex Their work-almost fully funded by U.S toxic-spill: socialistexan: whyyoustabbedme: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pharma-giant-profits-from-hiv-treatment-funded-by-taxpayers-and-patented-by-the-government 1. Taxpayer-funded research discovers new use for HIV drug; 2. Company w/ monopoly on drug says gov cant patent it; 3. Company makes $3B on drug/year; 4. Taxpayers get no return on investment, ~80% who need treatment dont get it Our capitalist aristocratic elites commit mass murder and treason against the people, and make billions, some black guy gets caught with a joint and goes to jail for years… “American justice” sure is a joke This is incredibly common with pharmaceuticals in the US. Drugs are researched with public funds, patented by the government, but then they are given directly to a private corporation for billions (if not trillions) in profit for that corporation. 210 drugs from 2010 to 2016 benefited from this process. Kill capitalism before it kills humanity.
Drugs, Jail, and Monopoly: Business
 An HIV treatment cost
 taxpavers millions. The
 government patented it
 But a pharma giant is
 making billions
 Antiretroviral pills Truvada sit on a tray at Jack's Drug
 Store on Nov. 23, 2010, in San Anselmo, Calif. (Justin
 Sullivan/Getty Images)
 By Christopher Rowland
 March 26 at 7:26 PM
 Thomas Folks spent vears in his U.S
 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 lab developing a treatment to block deadly
 HI co AIDS
 V in monkeys. Then San Francis
 researcher Robert Grant, using $50 million
 in federal grants, proved the treatment
 worked in people who engaged in risky sex
 Their work-almost fully funded by U.S
toxic-spill:
socialistexan:

whyyoustabbedme:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pharma-giant-profits-from-hiv-treatment-funded-by-taxpayers-and-patented-by-the-government
1. Taxpayer-funded research discovers new use for HIV drug; 
2. Company w/ monopoly on drug says gov cant patent it; 
3. Company makes $3B on drug/year; 
4. Taxpayers get no return on investment, ~80% who need treatment dont get it



Our capitalist aristocratic elites commit mass murder and treason 
against the people, and make billions, some black guy gets caught with a
 joint and goes to jail for years… “American justice” sure is 
a joke 


This is incredibly common with pharmaceuticals in the US. Drugs are researched with public funds, patented by the government, but then they are given directly to a private corporation for billions (if not trillions) in profit for that corporation. 
210 drugs from 2010 to 2016 benefited from this process. 

Kill capitalism before it kills humanity.

toxic-spill: socialistexan: whyyoustabbedme: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pharma-giant-profits-from-hiv-treatment-funde...

School, American, and Banana: MB/DB American school students discover discreet way around the federal banana prohibition (2019)
School, American, and Banana: MB/DB
American school students discover discreet way around the federal banana prohibition (2019)

American school students discover discreet way around the federal banana prohibition (2019)