🔥 | Latest

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: ...

Chill, Dude, and Police: imported post Hey guys im new to the forums, a friend pointed me in this direction. Ok so here is my story. I was out at the local saki eating with the lady, and in walks city pd. I was sitting with my pistol, secured in its holster, on the outside in plain view. He walks right past my table and doesnt say a word. I continue to eat with the lady, and about 20 minutes later we go to leave The officer follows us outside and says hey buddy can i talk to you a minute. I turn around and say "yes sir?" He then reaches and pulls my gun from my holster and says "whats this?" I reply "my firearm, that i legally perchased, i have the reciept in my wallet if you wish to see if." He looks me up and down and asks "why are you carrying it??" i reply for "self protection, and as far as i know NC is an OC state, and there is nothing illegal about it." He proceeded to tell me it is an OC state but there is a law about terrorizing the public. He proceeded to unload my XD and had it back, he told me to get a CCW I was at first highly annoyed at his behavior, but after going down to the police station to get my extra mag back that he forgot to handover,i learned that the teenage brats sitting behind us had called 911 and just told them there was a guy with a gun. So i understand his agression. So what should i do about OC? i really want to OC, and yes i am getting my CCW <p><a href="https://ausefulblogforputtingthingsin.tumblr.com/post/172450204891/libertarirynn-oh-youve-got-to-be-kidding-me" class="tumblr_blog">ausefulblogforputtingthingsin</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172449796139/oh-youve-got-to-be-kidding-me" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Oh you’ve got to be kidding me.</p></blockquote> <p>Can’t you get in trouble for calling 911 for no reason? Because those teenagers should. I guess if they in good faith thought there was an emergency they’d be justified but the dude was just having a meal. Also this person was so chill even though his rights were being violated and he was inconvenienced and basically harassed. </p></blockquote> <p>Seriously. I mean he says he can “understand the aggression” because the officer was called out there but the cop observed him for 20 minutes and saw he was doing nothing but minding his own business. At that point if you want to get upset with someone, how about the kids who wasted your time? Tell them they had no business calling the police and that it’s legal to open carry and the man was doing nothing wrong, don’t harass *him*.</p>
Chill, Dude, and Police: imported post
 Hey guys im new to the forums, a friend pointed
 me in this direction.
 Ok so here is my story. I was out at the local saki
 eating with the lady, and in walks city pd. I was
 sitting with my pistol, secured in its holster, on the
 outside in plain view. He walks right past my table
 and doesnt say a word. I continue to eat with the
 lady, and about 20 minutes later we go to leave
 The officer follows us outside and says hey buddy
 can i talk to you a minute. I turn around and say
 "yes sir?" He then reaches and pulls my gun from
 my holster and says "whats this?" I reply "my
 firearm, that i legally perchased, i have the reciept
 in my wallet if you wish to see if." He looks me up
 and down and asks "why are you carrying it??" i
 reply for "self protection, and as far as i know NC is
 an OC state, and there is nothing illegal about it."
 He proceeded to tell me it is an OC state but there
 is a law about terrorizing the public. He proceeded
 to unload my XD and had it back, he told me to get
 a CCW
 I was at first highly annoyed at his behavior, but
 after going down to the police station to get my
 extra mag back that he forgot to handover,i
 learned that the teenage brats sitting behind us
 had called 911 and just told them there was a guy
 with a gun. So i understand his agression.
 So what should i do about OC? i really want to OC,
 and yes i am getting my CCW
<p><a href="https://ausefulblogforputtingthingsin.tumblr.com/post/172450204891/libertarirynn-oh-youve-got-to-be-kidding-me" class="tumblr_blog">ausefulblogforputtingthingsin</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172449796139/oh-youve-got-to-be-kidding-me" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Oh you’ve got to be kidding me.</p></blockquote>
<p>Can’t you get in trouble for calling 911 for no reason? Because those teenagers should. I guess if they in good faith thought there was an emergency they’d be justified but the dude was just having a meal. Also this person was so chill even though his rights were being violated and he was inconvenienced and basically harassed. </p></blockquote>

<p>Seriously. I mean he says he can “understand the aggression” because the officer was called out there but the cop observed him for 20 minutes and saw he was doing nothing but minding his own business. At that point if you want to get upset with someone, how about the kids who wasted your time? Tell them they had no business calling the police and that it’s legal to open carry and the man was doing nothing wrong, don’t harass *him*.</p>

ausefulblogforputtingthingsin: libertarirynn:Oh you’ve got to be kidding me. Can’t you get in trouble for calling 911 for no reason? Becaus...

Guns, Parents, and Police: Paul Musgrave @profmusgrave Following Which teachers get guns? Where will the guns be stored? Who decides when guns can be brandished? What penalties will apply if teachers mishandle a weapon? Will teachers volunteer for gun duty? Can teachers refuse it? Who will audit their adherence to regulations? 12:06 PM -18 Feb 2018 701t 3.3K 7.7K Tweet your reply Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 Will students know which teachers have weapons? Who will be liable if the teacher with the gun becomes the shooter? What will be the consequences when students are accidentally shot by a teacher? How will armed teachers communicate in a tactical situation? 937 l 396 1.7K Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 Will teachers with a history of mental illness be allowed to use weapons? Will teachers be required to disclose any history of mental illness? Will teachers be issued a weapon? Reimbursed for purchase? For ammunition? Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 How will administrators conduct non-weapon-related discipline against a teacher? Will there be armed assistance available to deter workplace shootings? Who will shepherd the armed teacher's classroom while the teacher is attempting to locate the active shooter? Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 What happens when a teacher misidentifies a student as a threat in good faith? Will teachers who do not carry lethal weapons be offered non lethal alternatives? If an armed teacher is shot, can another teacher employ his or her weapon? Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 How will armed teachers identify themselves to arriving first responders? Will armed teachers be required to learn how to give first-response medicine? Will armed teachers be required to attempt an arrest before using lethal force? Under what circumstances? 20 32 1.3K Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 Will proficiency training on weapons count for teachers' continuing education and professional development? How will insurers adjust health and other rates to account for the presence of armed employees? Will teachers receive additional pay for being armed? 291 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 how often will armed teachers be re-evaluated for licensing purposes? Will armed teachers leading field trips deposit their weapons in a personally owned vehicle or school-owned transport? Will one teacher per wing of a school building receive weapons? Two? Three? 15 269 1.2K Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 Exactly which standards will count for proficiency-greater than a big-city police department, State Police, FBl, hobbyist, marksman? In training scenarios, how will using force against innocents be penalized? Will racial sensitivity courses be required? Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 Do parents have a right to refuse to send their kids to schools with guns? Will students have to sign waivers? Will parents? What if a parent signs a waiver for a minor student who, when that student turns 18, refuses to abide by its provisions? 10 t 267 1.2K Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 Will teachers on probation be allowed to carry weapons? What about teachers with active union grievances? Complaints about sexual harassment? Anger management? Divorce proceedings? Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 Will armed teachers wear holsters? Will they be stationed strategically during pep rallies or other gatherings? Wil armed or unarmed? Il they participate in lockdown drills as if they were 15 249 1.1K Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 Will funding for the policies outlined above be distributed according to local budgets, statewide formulas, or national formulas? Will schools in high-risk neighborhoods receive more or less funding? Suburban schools? 9 10 th 234 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 What is the right ratio of armed:unarmed teachers by grade level? What is the procedure for debriefing and assessing armed teachers' performance during a crisis? Can an armed teacher who flinches be fired? Can an armed teacher who breaks protocol be rewarded? 11 t233 1.1K Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18 Will preschool teachers have guns? Will teachers in "juvie" (high risk) schools have guns? Will the teacher or the school be liable if their gun is stolen? Can administrators carry weapons? Can they do so in disciplinary situations? mamafox18: room-where-it-happens: Paul Musgrave from the University of Massachusetts - Amherst, with a list of some of the questions anyone wanting to “arm teachers” must begin to answer if they wish to offer a serious policy proposal. Every. Single. One. Of these questions and more needs to be asked AND answered if this asinine proposal actually goes anywhere.
Guns, Parents, and Police: Paul Musgrave
 @profmusgrave
 Following
 Which teachers get guns?
 Where will the guns be stored?
 Who decides when guns can be
 brandished?
 What penalties will apply if teachers
 mishandle a weapon?
 Will teachers volunteer for gun duty?
 Can teachers refuse it?
 Who will audit their adherence to
 regulations?
 12:06 PM -18 Feb 2018
 701t 3.3K 7.7K
 Tweet your reply
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 Will students know which teachers have weapons?
 Who will be liable if the teacher with the gun becomes the shooter?
 What will be the consequences when students are accidentally shot by a teacher?
 How will armed teachers communicate in a tactical situation?
 937 l 396 1.7K
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 Will teachers with a history of mental illness be allowed to use weapons?
 Will teachers be required to disclose any history of mental illness?
 Will teachers be issued a weapon? Reimbursed for purchase? For ammunition?

 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 How will administrators conduct non-weapon-related discipline against a teacher?
 Will there be armed assistance available to deter workplace shootings?
 Who will shepherd the armed teacher's classroom while the teacher is attempting
 to locate the active shooter?
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 What happens when a teacher misidentifies a student as a threat in good faith?
 Will teachers who do not carry lethal weapons be offered non lethal alternatives?
 If an armed teacher is shot, can another teacher employ his or her weapon?
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 How will armed teachers identify themselves to arriving first responders?
 Will armed teachers be required to learn how to give first-response medicine?
 Will armed teachers be required to attempt an arrest before using lethal force?
 Under what circumstances?
 20 32 1.3K
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 Will proficiency training on weapons count for teachers' continuing education and
 professional development?
 How will insurers adjust health and other rates to account for the presence of
 armed employees?
 Will teachers receive additional pay for being armed?
 291
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 how often will armed teachers be re-evaluated for licensing purposes?
 Will armed teachers leading field trips deposit their weapons in a personally
 owned vehicle or school-owned transport?
 Will one teacher per wing of a school building receive weapons? Two? Three?
 15 269 1.2K
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 Exactly which standards will count for proficiency-greater than a big-city police
 department, State Police, FBl, hobbyist, marksman?
 In training scenarios, how will using force against innocents be penalized?
 Will racial sensitivity courses be required?

 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 Do parents have a right to refuse to send their kids to schools with guns?
 Will students have to sign waivers? Will parents? What if a parent signs a waiver
 for a minor student who, when that student turns 18, refuses to abide by its
 provisions?
 10 t 267
 1.2K
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 Will teachers on probation be allowed to carry weapons?
 What about teachers with active union grievances? Complaints about sexual
 harassment? Anger management? Divorce proceedings?
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 Will armed teachers wear holsters? Will they be stationed strategically during pep
 rallies or other gatherings? Wil
 armed or unarmed?
 Il they participate in lockdown drills as if they were
 15 249 1.1K
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 Will funding for the policies outlined above be distributed according to local
 budgets, statewide formulas, or national formulas?
 Will schools in high-risk neighborhoods receive more or less funding? Suburban
 schools?
 9 10 th 234
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 What is the right ratio of armed:unarmed teachers by grade level?
 What is the procedure for debriefing and assessing armed teachers' performance
 during a crisis?
 Can an armed teacher who flinches be fired? Can an armed teacher who breaks
 protocol be rewarded?
 11 t233 1.1K
 Paul Musgrave@profmusgrave Feb 18
 Will preschool teachers have guns?
 Will teachers in "juvie" (high risk) schools have guns?
 Will the teacher or the school be liable if their gun is stolen?
 Can administrators carry weapons? Can they do so in disciplinary situations?
mamafox18:
room-where-it-happens:
Paul Musgrave from the University of Massachusetts - Amherst, with a list of some of the questions anyone wanting to “arm teachers” must begin to answer if they wish to offer a serious policy proposal.
Every. Single. One. Of these questions and more needs to be asked AND answered if this asinine proposal actually goes anywhere.

mamafox18: room-where-it-happens: Paul Musgrave from the University of Massachusetts - Amherst, with a list of some of the questions anyone ...

Celtic, Driving, and Heaven: Adrian Bott @Cavalorn Follow l did some research into 'the veil between the worlds' a while back. Not a single example of a pre-Victorian use 5:53 AM -30 Oct 2017 53 Retweets 115 Likes O@ ⑤ 垂線) Iweet your reply Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 12h Replying to @Cavalorn The concept of 'thin places' (where the 'veil between worlds' is thin) was even worse - deemed 'ancient Celtic', actually invented in 1938. 2 26 51 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h Obviously if 'the veil between worlds' is a Victorian invention then the belief that Samhain is when 'the veil is thinnest' is equally bogus 1 8 21 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h Currently trying to track down the earliest reference to Samhain being the time when the veil grows thin'. Suspect it will be in 1970s. 10 2 28 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h The fact that we unwittingly view ancient seasonal celebrations through a lens of 19th century Spiritualist Christianity is a big deal to me 1 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h Marking Samhain as 'the time when the veil grows thin' isn't perpetuating Old Ways, it's misrepresenting them 1 6 25 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h So far as I can tell, 'the veil' as a theological concept began as 'the veil between Earth and Heaven' & was co-opted into Spiritualism.. 4 6 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h in which context it served an almost theatric role as the barrier between the desired-for ectoplasmic manifestations & the attendees 4 13 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h Point I'm driving at is that this belief that mortal & spirit worlds were divided by a 'veil' is COMPLETELY ABSENT from such lore as we have 1 7 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h The insistence that the earthly & mortal is in one place & the spiritual & eternal is in another is being IMPOSED on the old traditions Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h Nowadays we don't think of spirits' or Gods' realms as physical places, but as planes'. But back then, the Gods lived on Mount Olympus. 1 3 15 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h Heaven was believed to be as physical as Earth. Hell could be reached through openings in rocks. The whole cosmology was different. 4 18 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h Human experience of the world was such that the place where the Gods lived was imagined to be a place like this, only not near here. 3 3 9 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h Of course, now that the Earth is mapped, we needed to imagine otherworlds as 'higher planes'. It was the only place for the unknown to be. 3 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h The idea of superimposition, borrowed from photography, was a convenient analogy for how people thought the spirit world interacted w/ ours. 4 17 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h The less magical the world was believed to be, the more it became necessary to posit a division between us and the realms of wonder. 2 9 21 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h Hence the Spiritualist concept of the Veil, born of parlour room seances & now retrospectively cast as a key element of Samhain. 10 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h But here's the thing. The Sidhe, the 'people of the mounds', were believed to live in the mounds. The tumuli. A *physical* reality. 2 4 16 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 2h There was no pious division of things into the mundane & the spiritual; the idea of the mundane hadn't been invented yet. 1 5 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 2h Mundanity is a product of modernity, and the Spirit Realm behind its sodding Veil was only imagined as a necessary contrast (& salve) to it. 8 23 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 2h In summary, Samhain is not a time when the Veil grows thin, because there never was a Veil in the old tales, and magic was *everywhere*. 4 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 2h This isn't meant as snark or cynicism. People learn this stuff and pass it on in good faith. Just please interrogate what you inherit, ok'? 2 3 19 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 1h It's not necessary to buy into the whole 19thC metaphysical hooha of a Veil in order to appreciate the tales of, say, fairie folk riding. 2 8 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 1h And there's certainly no suggestion that the trolls who descend from their fastnesses on that night do so because the pesky Veil is thin. 2 7 <p><a href="https://caledoniaseries.tumblr.com/post/166973938572/unauthorized-magic-this-thread-is-so-good" class="tumblr_blog">caledoniaseries</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://unauthorized-magic.tumblr.com/post/166963134224/this-thread-is-so-good" class="tumblr_blog">unauthorized-magic</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>This thread is so good. </p></blockquote> <p>THIS. ^^ </p> <p>As a folklorist, this kind of thing bothers the hell out of me. <i>So much </i>of what people think of as <i>ancient</i> is Victorian era or newer. Or just wildly inaccurate, really.</p> </blockquote>
Celtic, Driving, and Heaven: Adrian Bott
 @Cavalorn
 Follow
 l did some research into 'the veil between the
 worlds' a while back. Not a single example of
 a pre-Victorian use
 5:53 AM -30 Oct 2017
 53 Retweets 115 Likes O@ ⑤
 垂線)
 Iweet your reply
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 12h
 Replying to @Cavalorn
 The concept of 'thin places' (where the 'veil between worlds' is thin) was even
 worse - deemed 'ancient Celtic', actually invented in 1938.
 2
 26
 51
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h
 Obviously if 'the veil between worlds' is a Victorian invention then the belief that
 Samhain is when 'the veil is thinnest' is equally bogus
 1
 8
 21
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h
 Currently trying to track down the earliest reference to Samhain being the time
 when the veil grows thin'. Suspect it will be in 1970s.
 10
 2 28

 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h
 The fact that we unwittingly view ancient seasonal celebrations through a lens
 of 19th century Spiritualist Christianity is a big deal to me
 1
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h
 Marking Samhain as 'the time when the veil grows thin' isn't perpetuating Old
 Ways, it's misrepresenting them
 1
 6
 25
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h
 So far as I can tell, 'the veil' as a theological concept began as 'the veil between
 Earth and Heaven' & was co-opted into Spiritualism..
 4
 6
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h
 in which context it served an almost theatric role as the barrier between the
 desired-for ectoplasmic manifestations & the attendees
 4
 13
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h
 Point I'm driving at is that this belief that mortal & spirit worlds were divided by a
 'veil' is COMPLETELY ABSENT from such lore as we have
 1
 7
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 10h
 The insistence that the earthly & mortal is in one place & the spiritual & eternal is
 in another is being IMPOSED on the old traditions
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h
 Nowadays we don't think of spirits' or Gods' realms as physical places, but as
 planes'. But back then, the Gods lived on Mount Olympus.
 1
 3
 15

 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h
 Heaven was believed to be as physical as Earth. Hell could be reached through
 openings in rocks. The whole cosmology was different.
 4
 18
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h
 Human experience of the world was such that the place where the Gods lived
 was imagined to be a place like this, only not near here.
 3
 3
 9
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h
 Of course, now that the Earth is mapped, we needed to imagine otherworlds as
 'higher planes'. It was the only place for the unknown to be.
 3
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h
 The idea of superimposition, borrowed from photography, was a convenient
 analogy for how people thought the spirit world interacted w/ ours.
 4
 17
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h
 The less magical the world was believed to be, the more it became necessary to
 posit a division between us and the realms of wonder.
 2
 9
 21
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h
 Hence the Spiritualist concept of the Veil, born of parlour room seances & now
 retrospectively cast as a key element of Samhain.
 10
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 3h
 But here's the thing. The Sidhe, the 'people of the mounds', were believed to
 live in the mounds. The tumuli. A *physical* reality.
 2
 4
 16

 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 2h
 There was no pious division of things into the mundane & the spiritual; the idea
 of the mundane hadn't been invented yet.
 1
 5
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 2h
 Mundanity is a product of modernity, and the Spirit Realm behind its sodding
 Veil was only imagined as a necessary contrast (& salve) to it.
 8
 23
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 2h
 In summary, Samhain is not a time when the Veil grows thin, because there
 never was a Veil in the old tales, and magic was *everywhere*.
 4
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 2h
 This isn't meant as snark or cynicism. People learn this stuff and pass it on in
 good faith. Just please interrogate what you inherit, ok'?
 2
 3
 19
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 1h
 It's not necessary to buy into the whole 19thC metaphysical hooha of a Veil in
 order to appreciate the tales of, say, fairie folk riding.
 2
 8
 Adrian Bott @Cavalorn 1h
 And there's certainly no suggestion that the trolls who descend from their
 fastnesses on that night do so because the pesky Veil is thin.
 2
 7
<p><a href="https://caledoniaseries.tumblr.com/post/166973938572/unauthorized-magic-this-thread-is-so-good" class="tumblr_blog">caledoniaseries</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://unauthorized-magic.tumblr.com/post/166963134224/this-thread-is-so-good" class="tumblr_blog">unauthorized-magic</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>This thread is so good. </p></blockquote>
<p>THIS. ^^ </p>
<p>As a folklorist, this kind of thing bothers the hell out of me. <i>So much </i>of what people think of as <i>ancient</i> is Victorian era or newer. Or just wildly inaccurate, really.</p>
</blockquote>

caledoniaseries: unauthorized-magic: This thread is so good.  THIS. ^^  As a folklorist, this kind of thing bothers the hell out of me. So ...

Asian, Bad, and Clothes: lein-wahliik: appropriately-inappropriate: someoneintheshadow446: rainbownova: otakusapien: shrineart: joyfulldreams: senpaibowie: etirabys: skull-bearer: lolatsjw: ifonlyfor: nouveau-brut: humansofnewyork: “Two other people took my picture before you, so I was already popular.” I know that some people said in the comments that this outfit was culturally appropriative, but just remember that you don’t know that someone isn’t a POC or biracial just by looking at them. Don’t assume other people’s races.  ^ My immediate reaction was to be upset by this photo because, I’m sorry, I’m just so fucking sick of people stealing Asian outfits and making them cool or trendy. But then I thought that maybe she’s a mixed kid. If not, there’s a problem here, though. Hi. I’m actually Japanese. Most of us LIKE when people find beauty in our culture. As long as nobody is disrespecting us or making a mockery of us, then there isn’t a problem, and if you think there is, then it seems that you are in favor of cultural segregation and that is causing more harm than good. When I was in Japan, there were a lot of places where you could get done up in a kimono or the male equivalent and have your picture taken. No one cares. Most Korean people I know are pretty delighted when foreigners wear hanbok, in a “oh, you are appreciating our culture! you look good in that” way. I have never actually heard or heard of people reacting negatively to non-Korean people wearing traditional Korean clothes, unless they were racist to begin with and would have objected to foreigners regardless of what they were wearing. ‘Appropriation’ is, I think, only appropriation when either it is done in a blatantly disrespectful way, or if the group whose clothes (etc) are being adopted is culturally marginalized to the degree where they themselves face discrimination when they wear those things. Korean people, afaik, don’t give a fuck. When foreigners visit and wear our clothes, it’s in good fun by people who are usually appreciative of the aesthetic qualities of what they’re donning, and also because we ourselves have never faced discrimination for our nationality or traditional dress. uhhh, basically, intent matters, context matters, people within the same community often have radically different ideas of what’s okay. But you know, I think the only Koreans I know who’d potentially care are the American-raised ones on liberal, activisty college campuses who are extremely well versed in the liberal, activisty language and rulebook. Thank you!! I also think it makes a difference in that the clothing is, you know, the actual thing and not some vaguely exotic knock-off like most people do with native american clothing. Like this is a legit, actual Kimono. There’s nothing really in the culture OF kimono that has rules about who wears this sort of thing when. Like…kimono literally means “thing you wear”. -shrug- Bolded some of the things that stood out the most to me. # it’s not like wearing inaccurate and sacred native american clothing or wearing a bindi or a burqa wear you’re doing it disrespectfully and the people of that group is marginalized and made fun of for those things and there is meaning behind them that people ignore or take for granted kimonos are jusr robes and there isn’t really a stigma about people who wear them  (gifs from here) When foreign women come to India we give them pottus and sarees and teach them how to wear them.  Please stop speaking for us, SJWs.  There is a huge difference between wearing an item known for its religious or social significance (for example–a Plains headdress), and wearing something that is just a general item of clothing (like kimono). If you’re wearing it to sexualize it (ie: “sexy kimono” in the fetish scene) or to mock its origin (ie: “sexy geisha Halloween costume!”), then that’s inappropriate. But wearing a kimono in good faith–say to a cherry blossom festival–isn’t in any way cultural appropriation, it’s cultural appreciation. Like, I’m Dominican, and when people want to buy Mascaras de Carnaval, or learn to dance merengue or bachata, it’s not a bad thing. person: hey I find this culture interesting and I would like to learn more about it rather than impose my own culture on them.SJWs: how dare you.
Asian, Bad, and Clothes: lein-wahliik:

appropriately-inappropriate:
someoneintheshadow446:

rainbownova:

otakusapien:

shrineart:

joyfulldreams:

senpaibowie:

etirabys:

skull-bearer:

lolatsjw:

ifonlyfor:

nouveau-brut:

humansofnewyork:

“Two other people took my picture before you, so I was already popular.”

I know that some people said in the comments that this outfit was culturally appropriative, but just remember that you don’t know that someone isn’t a POC or biracial just by looking at them. Don’t assume other people’s races. 

^ My immediate reaction was to be upset by this photo because, I’m sorry, I’m just so fucking sick of people stealing Asian outfits and making them cool or trendy. But then I thought that maybe she’s a mixed kid. If not, there’s a problem here, though.

Hi. I’m actually Japanese. Most of us LIKE when people find beauty in our culture. As long as nobody is disrespecting us or making a mockery of us, then there isn’t a problem, and if you think there is, then it seems that you are in favor of cultural segregation and that is causing more harm than good.


When I was in Japan, there were a lot of places where you could get done up in a kimono or the male equivalent and have your picture taken. No one cares.

Most Korean people I know are pretty delighted when foreigners wear hanbok, in a “oh, you are appreciating our culture! you look good in that” way. I have never actually heard or heard of people reacting negatively to non-Korean people wearing traditional Korean clothes, unless they were racist to begin with and would have objected to foreigners regardless of what they were wearing.
‘Appropriation’ is, I think, only appropriation when either it is done in a blatantly disrespectful way, or if the group whose clothes (etc) are being adopted is culturally marginalized to the degree where they themselves face discrimination when they wear those things.
Korean people, afaik, don’t give a fuck. When foreigners visit and wear our clothes, it’s in good fun by people who are usually appreciative of the aesthetic qualities of what they’re donning, and also because we ourselves have never faced discrimination for our nationality or traditional dress.
uhhh, basically, intent matters, context matters, people within the same community often have radically different ideas of what’s okay. But you know, I think the only Koreans I know who’d potentially care are the American-raised ones on liberal, activisty college campuses who are extremely well versed in the liberal, activisty language and rulebook.

Thank you!!

I also think it makes a difference in that the clothing is, you know, the actual thing and not some vaguely exotic knock-off like most people do with native american clothing. Like this is a legit, actual Kimono. There’s nothing really in the culture OF kimono that has rules about who wears this sort of thing when. Like…kimono literally means “thing you wear”. -shrug-

Bolded some of the things that stood out the most to me.

# it’s not like wearing inaccurate and sacred native american clothing or wearing a bindi or a burqa wear you’re doing it disrespectfully and the people of that group is marginalized and made fun of for those things and there is meaning behind them that people ignore or take for granted kimonos are jusr robes and there isn’t really a stigma about people who wear them 




(gifs from here)

When foreign women come to India we give them pottus and sarees and teach them how to wear them. 
Please stop speaking for us, SJWs. 


There is a huge difference between wearing an item known for its religious or social significance (for example–a Plains headdress), and wearing something that is just a general item of clothing (like kimono). 
If you’re wearing it to sexualize it (ie: “sexy kimono” in the fetish scene) or to mock its origin (ie: “sexy geisha Halloween costume!”), then that’s inappropriate. But wearing a kimono in good faith–say to a cherry blossom festival–isn’t in any way cultural appropriation, it’s cultural appreciation. 
Like, I’m Dominican, and when people want to buy Mascaras de Carnaval, or learn to dance merengue or bachata, it’s not a bad thing.

person: hey I find this culture interesting and I would like to learn more about it rather than impose my own culture on them.SJWs: how dare you.

lein-wahliik: appropriately-inappropriate: someoneintheshadow446: rainbownova: otakusapien: shrineart: joyfulldreams: senpaibowie: et...

Advice, Ariel, and Head: ooo AT&T 1:55 PM mobile.twitter.com Open in app Sign up Log in shon faye Ф @shonfaye one of the cutest/saddest things I ever did was write out the legal ways Ariel could have annulled her contract with Ursula The Sea Witch into a contract with Ursula as a minor the contract is voidable at any time- after being unsuccessful in winning the heart of Prince Eric she could have voided the contract and walked (swam) away with her voice 2. Given that Ariel's voice is given as consideration for her legs, Ursula's condition that, if she does not kiss Eric in 3 days she must also give her soul as penalty is, arguably, onerous and unreasonable - like the maritime equivalent of PPl Insurance or overdraft charges. Ariel may be able to sever that clause of the contract or have recourse to the appropriate ombudsman. Even if said duty, express or implied, does not arise and Ariel remains in breach of contract, she and Triton would be liable only in damages-though query any ascertainable head of loss to Ursula anyway. Perhaps merely the funds required to make her potion? Ursula has no right to specific performance of her contract because this is an equitable remedy and the equitable maxim "he who comes to equity shall come with clean hands" applies-Ursula's hands are dirty, she has been manifestly dishonest. No court in the sea would grant her this remedy 3. Depending on the common law of the sea it, it may be that Ursula has a contractual duty to act in good faith- by deliberately obstructing Ariel's ability to perform agents to capsize her boat just as she is about kiss Eric and by becoming Vanessa and enchanting the 4. The sea seems to be an absolute monarchy in which all three constitutional branches reside in the Crown, therefore Triton has absolute power to declare the contract void ab initio on the grounds of public policy or to pass primary legislation retrospectively voiding it. her obligations by means of sending 479 People talking 000 AT&T 1:53 PM mobile.twitter.com 1. Ariel, at 16, is a minor and while she can enter into a contract with Ursula as a minor the contract is voidable at any time- after being unsuccessful in winning the heart of Prince Eric she could have voided the contract and 'walked' (swam) away with her voice. 2. Given that Ariel's voice is given as consideration for her legs, Ursula's condition that, if she does not kiss Eric in 3 days she must also give her soul as penalty is, arguably, onerous and unreasonable like the maritime equivalent of PPI Insurance or overdraft charges. Ariel may be able to sever that clause of the contract or have recourse to the appropriate ombudsman. 3. Depending on the common law of the sea it, it may be that Ursula has a contractual duty to act in good faith - by deliberately obstructing Ariel's ability to perform her obligations by means of sending agents to capsize her boat just as she is about kiss Eric and by becoming Vanessa and enchanting the Prince into a marriage under magical duress, Ursula has breached this duty. 8,576 ·14.9K 479 People talking 1:54 PM mobile.twitter.com & Share Even if said duty, express or implied, does not arise and Ariel remains in breach of contract, she and Triton would be liable only in damages-though query any ascertainable head of loss to Ursula anyway. Perhaps merely the funds required to make her potion? Ursula has no right to specific performance of her contract because this is an equitable remedy and the equitable maxim "he who comes to equity shall come with clean hands" applies -Ursula's hands are dirty, she has been manifestly dishonest. No court in the sea would grant her this remedy 4. The sea seems to be an absolute monarchy in which all three constitutional branches reside in the Crown, therefore Triton has absolute power to declare the contract void ab initio on the grounds of public policy or to pass primary legislation retrospectively voiding it. ALWAYS GET INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE.
Advice, Ariel, and Head: ooo AT&T
 1:55 PM
 mobile.twitter.com
 Open in app
 Sign up
 Log in
 shon faye Ф
 @shonfaye
 one of the cutest/saddest things I ever did
 was write out the legal ways Ariel could
 have annulled her contract with Ursula The
 Sea Witch
 into a contract with Ursula as a minor the contract is
 voidable at any time- after being unsuccessful in
 winning the heart of Prince Eric she could have
 voided the contract and walked (swam) away with
 her voice
 2. Given that Ariel's voice is given as consideration
 for her legs, Ursula's condition that, if she does not
 kiss Eric in 3 days she must also give her soul as
 penalty is, arguably, onerous and unreasonable -
 like the maritime equivalent of PPl Insurance or
 overdraft charges. Ariel may be able to sever that
 clause of the contract or have recourse to the
 appropriate ombudsman.
 Even if said duty, express or implied, does not arise
 and Ariel remains in breach of contract, she and
 Triton would be liable only in damages-though
 query any ascertainable head of loss to Ursula
 anyway. Perhaps merely the funds required to make
 her potion? Ursula has no right to specific
 performance of her contract because this is an
 equitable remedy and the equitable maxim "he who
 comes to equity shall come with clean hands"
 applies-Ursula's hands are dirty, she has been
 manifestly dishonest. No court in the sea would
 grant her this remedy
 3. Depending on the common law of the sea it, it
 may be that Ursula has a contractual duty to act in
 good faith- by deliberately obstructing Ariel's ability
 to perform
 agents to capsize her boat just as she is about kiss
 Eric and by becoming Vanessa and enchanting the
 4. The sea seems to be an absolute monarchy in
 which all three constitutional branches reside in the
 Crown, therefore Triton has absolute power to
 declare the contract void ab initio on the grounds of
 public policy or to pass primary legislation
 retrospectively voiding it.
 her obligations by means of sending
 479
 People talking

 000 AT&T
 1:53 PM
 mobile.twitter.com
 1. Ariel, at 16, is a minor and while she can enter
 into a contract with Ursula as a minor the contract is
 voidable at any time- after being unsuccessful in
 winning the heart of Prince Eric she could have
 voided the contract and 'walked' (swam) away with
 her voice.
 2. Given that Ariel's voice is given as consideration
 for her legs, Ursula's condition that, if she does not
 kiss Eric in 3 days she must also give her soul as
 penalty is, arguably, onerous and unreasonable
 like the maritime equivalent of PPI Insurance or
 overdraft charges. Ariel may be able to sever that
 clause of the contract or have recourse to the
 appropriate ombudsman.
 3. Depending on the common law of the sea it, it
 may be that Ursula has a contractual duty to act in
 good faith - by deliberately obstructing Ariel's ability
 to perform her obligations by means of sending
 agents to capsize her boat just as she is about kiss
 Eric and by becoming Vanessa and enchanting the
 Prince into a marriage under magical duress, Ursula
 has breached this duty.
 8,576 ·14.9K
 479
 People talking

 1:54 PM
 mobile.twitter.com
 & Share
 Even if said duty, express or implied, does not arise
 and Ariel remains in breach of contract, she and
 Triton would be liable only in damages-though
 query any ascertainable head of loss to Ursula
 anyway. Perhaps merely the funds required to make
 her potion? Ursula has no right to specific
 performance of her contract because this is an
 equitable remedy and the equitable maxim "he who
 comes to equity shall come with clean hands"
 applies -Ursula's hands are dirty, she has been
 manifestly dishonest. No court in the sea would
 grant her this remedy
 4. The sea seems to be an absolute monarchy in
 which all three constitutional branches reside in the
 Crown, therefore Triton has absolute power to
 declare the contract void ab initio on the grounds of
 public policy or to pass primary legislation
 retrospectively voiding it.
 ALWAYS GET INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE.
Life, Love, and Prince: Magical CPR <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://alantlm.tumblr.com/post/104146368484">alantlm</a>:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p><strong><span>A DEFENSE OF PRINCE PHILLIP’S KISS TO PRINCESS AURORA</span></strong></p> </blockquote> <p><em>CPR analogy is for sake of argument. Not to be taken literally. I’m only relating</em><em> &quot;true love’</em><em><span>s kiss&quot; to “mouth-to-mouth”; omitting “chest </span>compressions” because then his hands would be near her breasts and, well, that would probably be another “can of worms”.</em></p> <p>-</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>1) Since Aurora is unconscious, her consent is implied.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://alantlm.tumblr.com/post/96253336744/this-is-defense-for-aurora-is-split-up-into-three">Aurora is a victim</a> of a magic sleeping curse, she couldn’t possibly give her permission to receive care from anyone. However, her three aunt fairies were there; particularly the one who had originally said, “from this slumber you shall wake when true love’s kiss the spell shall break.” Thus, they would have given consent on her behalf.</p> <p>-</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>2) Phillip was reasonably careful.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>As Maleficent says to Phillip, “to wake his love with love’s first kiss.” Even if he had forgotten, the fairies would have told him. And thus he walks slowly up to Aurora and gives her a faint kiss on her lips.</p> <p>He was respectful over her body.</p> <p>-</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>3) Phillip was acting in good faith.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Disregarding the fact that Aurora and Phillip actually met, were in love, and became separated, Phillip was trying to SAVE Aurora’s LIFE from the sleeping death, <em>and, in turn, all sleeping subjects of both kingdoms.</em></p> <p>Regarding saving Aurora’s life, actually saving her life by kissing her is more important than waiting in vain for consent for a kiss to save her life.</p> <p>-</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>4) Phillip stopped once he did what was necessary.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Phillip only did what he was supposed to do and, once he did, he stopped and waited by her side till… she woke up! :D</p> <p>He didn’t do anything more than what was expected of him.</p> <p>-</p> <p>Alan</p> <p>- p.s. related post on <a href="http://alantlm.tumblr.com/post/102941423079/snow-white-and-love-im-wishing-staying-with">Snow White’s kiss</a></p> </blockquote> <p>I&rsquo;m glad you pointed out that they had met before and fallen in love, because people always seem to forget that.</p>
Life, Love, and Prince: Magical CPR
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://alantlm.tumblr.com/post/104146368484">alantlm</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong><span>A DEFENSE OF PRINCE PHILLIP’S KISS TO PRINCESS AURORA</span></strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>CPR analogy is for sake of argument. Not to be taken literally. I’m only relating</em><em> &quot;true love’</em><em><span>s kiss&quot; to “mouth-to-mouth”; omitting “chest </span>compressions” because then his hands would be near her breasts and, well, that would probably be another “can of worms”.</em></p>
<p>-</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>1) Since Aurora is unconscious, her consent is implied.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://alantlm.tumblr.com/post/96253336744/this-is-defense-for-aurora-is-split-up-into-three">Aurora is a victim</a> of a magic sleeping curse, she couldn’t possibly give her permission to receive care from anyone. However, her three aunt fairies were there; particularly the one who had originally said, “from this slumber you shall wake when true love’s kiss the spell shall break.” Thus, they would have given consent on her behalf.</p>
<p>-</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>2) Phillip was reasonably careful.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As Maleficent says to Phillip, “to wake his love with love’s first kiss.” Even if he had forgotten, the fairies would have told him. And thus he walks slowly up to Aurora and gives her a faint kiss on her lips.</p>
<p>He was respectful over her body.</p>
<p>-</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>3) Phillip was acting in good faith.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Disregarding the fact that Aurora and Phillip actually met, were in love, and became separated, Phillip was trying to SAVE Aurora’s LIFE from the sleeping death, <em>and, in turn, all sleeping subjects of both kingdoms.</em></p>
<p>Regarding saving Aurora’s life, actually saving her life by kissing her is more important than waiting in vain for consent for a kiss to save her life.</p>
<p>-</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>4) Phillip stopped once he did what was necessary.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Phillip only did what he was supposed to do and, once he did, he stopped and waited by her side till… she woke up! :D</p>
<p>He didn’t do anything more than what was expected of him.</p>
<p>-</p>
<p>Alan</p>
<p>- p.s. related post on <a href="http://alantlm.tumblr.com/post/102941423079/snow-white-and-love-im-wishing-staying-with">Snow White’s kiss</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I&rsquo;m glad you pointed out that they had met before and fallen in love, because people always seem to forget that.</p>

alantlm: A DEFENSE OF PRINCE PHILLIP’S KISS TO PRINCESS AURORA CPR analogy is for sake of argument. Not to be taken literally. I’m only r...

Family, Family Guy, and God: l know you don't believe in modern medicine, but you do believe in the power of prayer. And through the years.when there was disease or infection, people of good faith would pray to God for a cure. NEWS Then isn't it possible that penicillin, vaccines and antibiotics are all actually answered prayers? And isn't it possible that the amazing men and women of medicine who brought about these miracles couldlbe the nstruments of God sanswers to our prayers? <p><a href="http://equestrianrepublican.tumblr.com/post/103255437291/andishallemerge-equestrianrepublican" class="tumblr_blog">equestrianrepublican</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://andishallemerge.tumblr.com/post/103255386308/equestrianrepublican-marauders4evr-you-know">andishallemerge</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://equestrianrepublican.tumblr.com/post/103250463456/marauders4evr-you-know-what-we-always">equestrianrepublican</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://marauders4evr.tumblr.com/post/103095365017/you-know-what-we-always-complain-about-the-newer">marauders4evr</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>You know what?</strong></p> <p><strong>We always complain about the newer Family Guy episodes.</strong></p> <p><strong>And don’t get me wrong, they have a ton of problems.</strong></p> <p><strong>But when they get it right, they really get it right!</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Family Guy acts like that’s an unpopular opinion in Christian circles.</p> </blockquote> <p>In context, I think the people Lois was lecturing were Jehovah’s Witnesses.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well in that case it’s okay.</p></blockquote>
Family, Family Guy, and God: l know you don't believe in modern medicine,
 but you do believe in the power of prayer.

 And through the years.when there was disease or
 infection, people of good faith would pray to God for a cure.

 NEWS
 Then isn't it possible that penicillin, vaccines
 and antibiotics are all actually answered prayers?

 And isn't it possible that the amazing men and women
 of medicine who brought about these miracles couldlbe the
 nstruments of God sanswers to our prayers?
<p><a href="http://equestrianrepublican.tumblr.com/post/103255437291/andishallemerge-equestrianrepublican" class="tumblr_blog">equestrianrepublican</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://andishallemerge.tumblr.com/post/103255386308/equestrianrepublican-marauders4evr-you-know">andishallemerge</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://equestrianrepublican.tumblr.com/post/103250463456/marauders4evr-you-know-what-we-always">equestrianrepublican</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://marauders4evr.tumblr.com/post/103095365017/you-know-what-we-always-complain-about-the-newer">marauders4evr</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>You know what?</strong></p>
<p><strong>We always complain about the newer Family Guy episodes.</strong></p>
<p><strong>And don’t get me wrong, they have a ton of problems.</strong></p>
<p><strong>But when they get it right, they really get it right!</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Family Guy acts like that’s an unpopular opinion in Christian circles.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In context, I think the people Lois was lecturing were Jehovah’s Witnesses.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well in that case it’s okay.</p></blockquote>

equestrianrepublican: andishallemerge: equestrianrepublican: marauders4evr: You know what? We always complain about the newer Family Guy...