Sooed
Sooed

Sooed

humiliating
 humiliating

humiliating

humiliate
 humiliate

humiliate

iiii
iiii

iiii

harbor
harbor

harbor

autum
autum

autum

logical
logical

logical

soo
soo

soo

ifs
ifs

ifs

assault
assault

assault

🔥 | Latest

Bad, Confused, and Family: bloodytales Teach boys about periods My mother also talked about periods to my brothers. When I first got mine I had terrible cramps. Crippling cramps. I once was camping with my family and a few of my big brother's friends when my period came. My cramps were so bad that my mom gave me a full pain killer (1 was 13 and before that she only gave me pills cut in half) T iterally laid down on my parents' air mattress and cried in pain for an hour before the pill kicked in. My brothers friend came in to the big tent and I was just curled up and sobbing. Now, I was quite the tomboy and was known to rough house with my brothers and their friends and made sure I wasnt seen as just "a little girl." So my brother's friend was confused to see me openly weeping in the fetal position (seriously, these were the worst cramps I have had in my life. My vision went white). He asked what was wrong with me. My big brother stood up immediately and suggested a nice long hike. During this hike I am sure he had a pretty awkward conversation with his friend explaining menstrual cramps, because when they got back the pain pill had (mostly) kicked in and I was sitting up at a table when my brother's friend sheepishly asked me if I was feeling better. I said I was better, and he said good. When we made s'mores that night my brother and his friend kept me well supplied with chocolate. Making sure sons know as much about periods and menstruation as daughters makes them better brothers, better sons better fathers, and better men. A man that understands a period will not lightly accuse a woman of "being on her period" if the woman is in an argument. Raise better sons Teach them about normal bodily functions Teach boys about periods via /r/wholesomememes https://ift.tt/2Z0YocM
Bad, Confused, and Family: bloodytales
 Teach boys about periods
 My mother also talked about periods to my brothers.
 When I first got mine I had terrible cramps. Crippling cramps. I once
 was camping with my family and a few of my big brother's friends
 when my period came. My cramps were so bad that my mom gave
 me a full pain killer (1 was 13 and before that she only gave me pills
 cut in half)
 T iterally laid down on my parents' air mattress and cried in pain for
 an hour before the pill kicked in.
 My brothers friend came in to the big tent and I was just curled up
 and sobbing. Now, I was quite the tomboy and was known to rough
 house with my brothers and their friends and made sure I wasnt seen
 as just "a little girl." So my brother's friend was confused to see me
 openly weeping in the fetal position (seriously, these were the worst
 cramps I have had in my life. My vision went white). He asked what
 was wrong with me.
 My big brother stood up immediately and suggested a nice long hike.
 During this hike I am sure he had a pretty awkward conversation with
 his friend explaining menstrual cramps, because when they got back
 the pain pill had (mostly) kicked in and I was sitting up at a table
 when my brother's friend sheepishly asked me if I was feeling better. I
 said I was better, and he said good.
 When we made s'mores that night my brother and his friend kept me
 well supplied with chocolate.
 Making sure sons know as much about periods and menstruation as
 daughters makes them better brothers, better sons better fathers,
 and better men. A man that understands a period will not lightly
 accuse a woman of "being on her period" if the woman is in an
 argument.
 Raise better sons Teach them about normal
 bodily functions
Teach boys about periods via /r/wholesomememes https://ift.tt/2Z0YocM

Teach boys about periods via /r/wholesomememes https://ift.tt/2Z0YocM

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: ...

Ass, Bad, and Bitch: kitfisto sandy cheeks would've voted trump that evil southern rat ass bitch thecouchwitch Sandy Cheeks is a pro-science feminist who lives in a foreign land that she respects the customs of and she would be offended you would even accuse her of this. varkarrus mr krabs would've voted trump lishadra Mr Krabs absolutely would've voted trump Mr. Krabs would not have voted for Trump because Mr. Krabs earned most of his money through hard work (and being a cheapskate and get rich quick schemes but those still require some effort on his part) whereas Trump inherited most of his wealth and thinks a million dollars is a small loan, Mr. Krabs would consider him an insult to richness for which he could not stand Plankton would've voted Trump You think he needs competition taking over the world? Face it folks. No one on Spongebob would vote for Trump. None of them. Face it. arcon Bubble Bass Shit. Dammit. Goddammit. Shit. God. Dammit. Fuck the-collecting-turnip Squilliam Fancyson would vote for Trump fgsshinyhoard okay im just gonna put down my things here Plankton would not want competition, he would not vote for him Krabs would never respect a guy who bankrupted himself four times, he would not vote for him Sandy Cheeks is an independent scientist receiving grants from academies to further her research in foreign lands, so she would never vote for him. Also, she would never respect a man who made such sexist comments since Spongebob did that once (to motivate his pet snail like a traditional sports coach) and she kicked HIS ass over a fucking field Patrick can't spell so he couldn't vote for anyone Spongebob is too nice and would never vote for anyone who used such inappropriate "bad words" during their campaign. Squidward is too lazy and defeatist to even vote because he thinks there would be no point. Pearl is a teenager and therefore too young to vote Larry Lobster is a trained medic and custodian and would not vote for anyone that crippled such services Bubble Bass WOULD vote for him because Bass is an arrogant self-entitled prick who enjoys deceiving others just for the sake of humiliating them, and would approve of such a person. Squilliam Fancyson would also vote for him because he's a wealthy narcissist. Mrs. Puff has a criminal record and is therefore not eligible to vote ohdebt Squidward is a full time minimum wage retail worker who is pro-union and anti-capitalist, and also a firm supporter and member of the fine arts community. He would actively vote against Trump, defeatist or not, and you can't convince me otherwise Things are heating up in the spongebob fandom (no political discourse allowed in the comments)
Ass, Bad, and Bitch: kitfisto
 sandy cheeks would've voted trump that evil
 southern rat ass bitch
 thecouchwitch
 Sandy Cheeks is a pro-science feminist who
 lives in a foreign land that she respects the
 customs of and she would be offended you
 would even accuse her of this.
 varkarrus
 mr krabs would've voted trump
 lishadra
 Mr Krabs absolutely would've voted trump
 Mr. Krabs would not have voted for Trump
 because Mr. Krabs earned most of his money
 through hard work (and being a cheapskate and
 get rich quick schemes but those still require
 some effort on his part) whereas Trump
 inherited most of his wealth and thinks a million
 dollars is a small loan, Mr. Krabs would
 consider him an insult to richness for which he
 could not stand
 Plankton would've voted Trump
 You think he needs competition taking over the
 world? Face it folks. No one on Spongebob
 would vote for Trump. None of them. Face it.
 arcon
 Bubble Bass
 Shit. Dammit. Goddammit. Shit. God. Dammit.
 Fuck
 the-collecting-turnip
 Squilliam Fancyson would vote for Trump
 fgsshinyhoard
 okay im just gonna put down my things here
 Plankton would not want competition, he
 would not vote for him
 Krabs would never respect a guy who
 bankrupted himself four times, he would not
 vote for him
 Sandy Cheeks is an independent scientist
 receiving grants from academies to further her
 research in foreign lands, so she would never
 vote for him. Also, she would never respect a
 man who made such sexist comments since
 Spongebob did that once (to motivate his pet
 snail like a traditional sports coach) and she
 kicked HIS ass over a fucking field
 Patrick can't spell so he couldn't vote for
 anyone
 Spongebob is too nice and would never vote
 for anyone who used such inappropriate "bad
 words" during their campaign.
 Squidward is too lazy and defeatist to even
 vote because he thinks there would be no point.
 Pearl is a teenager and therefore too young to
 vote
 Larry Lobster is a trained medic and custodian
 and would not vote for anyone that crippled
 such services
 Bubble Bass WOULD vote for him because
 Bass is an arrogant self-entitled prick who
 enjoys deceiving others just for the sake of
 humiliating them, and would approve of such a
 person.
 Squilliam Fancyson would also vote for him
 because he's a wealthy narcissist.
 Mrs. Puff has a criminal record and is
 therefore not eligible to vote
 ohdebt
 Squidward is a full time minimum wage retail
 worker who is pro-union and anti-capitalist, and
 also a firm supporter and member of the fine
 arts community. He would actively vote against
 Trump, defeatist or not, and you can't convince
 me otherwise
Things are heating up in the spongebob fandom (no political discourse allowed in the comments)

Things are heating up in the spongebob fandom (no political discourse allowed in the comments)

Ass, Bad, and Bitch: c3po sandy cheeks would ve voted trump that evil southern rat ass bitch Sandy Cheeks is a pro-science feminist who lives in a foreign land that she respects the customs of and she would be offended you would even accuse her of this. varkarrus mr krabs would've voted trump lishadra Mr Krabs absolutely would've voted trump. Mr. Krabs would not have voted for Trump because Mr. Krabs earned most of his money through hard work (and being a cheapskate and get rich quick schemes but those still require some effort on his part) whereas Trump inherited most of his wealth and thinks a million dollars is a small loan, Mr. Krabs would consider him an insult to richness for which he could not stand Plankton would've voted Trump. You think he needs competition taking over the world? Face it folks. No one on Spongebob would vote for Trump. None of them. Face it. legarcon Bubble Bass Shit. Dammit. Goddammit. Shit. God Dammit. Fuck. the-collecting-turnip Squilliam Fancyson would vote for Trump fgsshinyhoard okay im just gonna put down my things here Plankton would not want competition, he would not vote for him Krabs would never respect a guy who upted not vote for him himself four times, he would Sandy Cheeks is an independent scientist re- ceiving grants from academies to further her research in foreign lands, so she would never vote for him. Also, she would never respect a man who made such sexist comments since Spongebob did that once (to motivate his pet snail like a traditional sports coach) and she kicked HIS ass over a fucking field. Patrick can't spell so he couldn't vote for anyone Spongebob is too nice and would never vote for anyone who used such inappropriate "bad words" during their campaign. Squidward is too lazy and defeatist to even vote because he thinks there would be no point. Pearl is a teenager and therefore too young to vote Larry Lobster is a trained medic and custodian and would not vote for anyone that crippled such services. Bubble Bass WOULD vote for him because Bass is an arrogant self-entitled prick who enjoys deceiving others just for the sake of humiliating them, and would approve of such a person. Squilliam Fancyson would also vote for him because he's a wealthy narcissist. Mrs. Puff has a criminal record and is therefore not eligible to vote ohdebt Squidward is a full time minimum wage retail worker who is pro-union and anti-capitalist, and also a firm supporter and member of the fine arts community. He would actively vote against Trump, defeatist or not, and you can't convince me otherwise Gary is a snail, which is seemingly the cat of the Spongebob universe, so he can't vote. However, Gary is more intelligent than almost every character on that show, and would never vote for Trump if he could Source: c3po #i fucking died # she has a record 332,823 notes Squidward is a socialist Change My Mindtm
Ass, Bad, and Bitch: c3po
 sandy cheeks would ve voted trump that evil
 southern rat ass bitch
 Sandy Cheeks is a pro-science feminist who
 lives in a foreign land that she respects the
 customs of and she would be offended you
 would even accuse her of this.
 varkarrus
 mr krabs would've voted trump
 lishadra
 Mr Krabs absolutely would've voted trump.
 Mr. Krabs would not have voted for Trump
 because Mr. Krabs earned most of his money
 through hard work (and being a cheapskate
 and get rich quick schemes but those still
 require some effort on his part) whereas
 Trump inherited most of his wealth and thinks
 a million dollars is a small loan, Mr. Krabs
 would consider him an insult to richness for
 which he could not stand
 Plankton would've voted Trump.
 You think he needs competition taking
 over the world? Face it folks. No one on
 Spongebob would vote for Trump. None
 of them. Face it.
 legarcon
 Bubble Bass
 Shit. Dammit. Goddammit. Shit. God
 Dammit. Fuck.
 the-collecting-turnip
 Squilliam Fancyson would vote for Trump
 fgsshinyhoard
 okay im just gonna put down my things here
 Plankton would not want competition, he
 would not vote for him
 Krabs would never respect a guy who
 upted
 not vote for him
 himself four times, he would
 Sandy Cheeks is an independent scientist re-
 ceiving grants from academies to further her
 research in foreign lands, so she would never
 vote for him. Also, she would never respect a
 man who made such sexist comments since
 Spongebob did that once (to motivate his pet
 snail like a traditional sports coach) and she
 kicked HIS ass over a fucking field.
 Patrick can't spell so he couldn't vote
 for anyone
 Spongebob is too nice and would never vote
 for anyone who used such inappropriate "bad
 words" during their campaign.
 Squidward is too lazy and defeatist to
 even vote because he thinks there would
 be no point.
 Pearl is a teenager and therefore too
 young to vote
 Larry Lobster is a trained medic and
 custodian and would not vote for anyone that
 crippled such services.
 Bubble Bass WOULD vote for him because
 Bass is an arrogant self-entitled prick who
 enjoys deceiving others just for the sake
 of humiliating them, and would approve
 of such a person.
 Squilliam Fancyson would also vote for him
 because
 he's a wealthy narcissist.
 Mrs. Puff has a criminal record and is
 therefore not eligible to vote
 ohdebt
 Squidward is a full time minimum wage retail
 worker who is pro-union and anti-capitalist,
 and also a firm supporter and member of the
 fine arts community. He would actively vote
 against Trump, defeatist or not, and you can't
 convince me otherwise
 Gary is a snail, which is seemingly the cat
 of the Spongebob universe, so he can't vote.
 However, Gary is more intelligent than almost
 every character on that show, and would never
 vote for Trump if he could
 Source: c3po #i fucking died
 # she has a record
 332,823 notes
Squidward is a socialist Change My Mindtm

Squidward is a socialist Change My Mindtm

Fake, Fucking, and Girls: a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy I'm going to save up for a new motorcycle by running a scam where I bet straight dudes at bars twenty bucks that I can get a girl's number in under five minutes and then politely walk up her and say, "I just bet that asshole twenty bucks that I could get your number. I'll split it with you if you pretend to laugh like I just said a good pick up line and then write a fake number on my hand." Like, I never understood those kind of bets in those shitty teen movies. Everybody loves being part of a scheme, man. Use your head whoamiamneko If anyone ever does this to me l'll call them out on being a con artist a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy Joke's on you, buddy. That'll only have consequences the first, what, couple dozern times? I can take a punch But then eventually, l'll have money for the bike, and whenever I get called out, I'Il just speed off, and, sure, maybe I crash and die in a gutter and the police can't figure out why I have hundreds of fake phone numbers stuffed in my jacket and it launches a huge investigation that becomes sort of a local legend, but you know whose problem that is? Not fucking mine Because l'm a slutty motorcycle ghost, and who's gonna' stop me then? The ghost cops? Nice try. Everybody knows cops can't become ghosts because they just go straight to hell. It's basic math whoamiamneko Moral of the story, don't be a con artist or you will die in a horrible accident and become a lonely ghost a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy First of all, don't you ever accuse me of having morals, narrative or otherwise, ever again And second, where did I say l'd be lonely? I'd be a ghost on a motorcycle. That's the sexiest thing that there is. You look me in the eyes and tell me you wouldn't bone Ghostrider. Look me in the goddamn eyes Source: a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy How to become a legend
Fake, Fucking, and Girls: a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy
 I'm going to save up for a new motorcycle by running a scam where I bet straight
 dudes at bars twenty bucks that I can get a girl's number in under five minutes and
 then politely walk up her and say, "I just bet that asshole twenty bucks that I could get
 your number. I'll split it with you if you pretend to laugh like I just said a good pick up
 line and then write a fake number on my hand."
 Like, I never understood those kind of bets in those shitty teen movies. Everybody
 loves being part of a scheme, man. Use your head
 whoamiamneko
 If anyone ever does this to me l'll call them out on being a con artist
 a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy
 Joke's on you, buddy. That'll only have consequences the first, what, couple dozern
 times? I can take a punch
 But then eventually, l'll have money for the bike, and whenever I get called out, I'Il just
 speed off, and, sure, maybe I crash and die in a gutter and the police can't figure out
 why I have hundreds of fake phone numbers stuffed in my jacket and it launches a
 huge investigation that becomes sort of a local legend, but you know whose problem
 that is? Not fucking mine
 Because l'm a slutty motorcycle ghost, and who's gonna' stop me then? The ghost
 cops? Nice try. Everybody knows cops can't become ghosts because they just go
 straight to hell. It's basic math
 whoamiamneko
 Moral of the story, don't be a con artist or you will die in a horrible accident and
 become a lonely ghost
 a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy
 First of all, don't you ever accuse me of having morals, narrative or otherwise, ever
 again
 And second, where did I say l'd be lonely? I'd be a ghost on a motorcycle. That's the
 sexiest thing that there is. You look me in the eyes and tell me you wouldn't bone
 Ghostrider. Look me in the goddamn eyes
 Source: a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy
How to become a legend

How to become a legend

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

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

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

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


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


Important 


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

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