His
His

His

Has
Has

Has

Have
Have

Have

Are
Are

Are

In A
In A

In A

Was
Was

Was

After
After

After

Take
Take

Take

Your
Your

Your

From
From

From

🔥 | Latest

Af, Animals, and Bad: thefingerfuckingfemalefury: brookietf: thefingerfuckingfemalefury: drydrangea: association-of-free-people: cruzan-for-love: wethepotterheads0214: trashytoclassy: bunnywith: uleanblue: hermionxjean: maddeningmagic106: doctorsiggy: jitterbugjive: whoweargoldintheirhair: mememiya-anthy: #freshly peeled sheeps reblogging solely for that deeply unnerving caption @theosartisticthematics FRESHLY PEELED SHEEPS Fuck this. Does everyone just not see the blood scrapes on some of their backs and faces???!!! Anyone, seriously, correct me if I’m wrong because this is making me upset af Domesticated sheep need to be sheared because they don’t shed their coats on their own and it can be bad for their health if it gets too big. Also, it looks considering how close they cut that it went fairly well. I see like 2 nicks maybe, but with the photo it’s hard to tell. I mean, unfortunately, you’re going to nick a few animals because they don’t understand the order of “stand still” very well.  Sheep can die from heat exhaustion if they aren’t sheared.  Also, their skin secretes lanolin, which quickly soothes and heals any nicks they get during shearing.  in conclusion, it is good to peel the sheeps Please peel your sheeps They. Look. Like. Peeled. Potatoes Peel your sheep peeps! Remember when they found Shrek living in that cave and freed him he’s smiling in that last one HE HAS BEEN SAVED Anyone who has had a lot of hair then got a very close hair cut, that amazing feel of the breeze on your scalp? Imagine that for your whole body. Sheep LOOOOVE being sheared, especially in summer here in AUS. It saves them from MELTING!
Af, Animals, and Bad: thefingerfuckingfemalefury:
brookietf:

thefingerfuckingfemalefury:

drydrangea:

association-of-free-people:


cruzan-for-love:


wethepotterheads0214:


trashytoclassy:

bunnywith:

uleanblue:

hermionxjean:

maddeningmagic106:

doctorsiggy:

jitterbugjive:

whoweargoldintheirhair:

mememiya-anthy:
#freshly peeled sheeps
reblogging solely for that deeply unnerving caption

@theosartisticthematics

FRESHLY PEELED SHEEPS

Fuck this. Does everyone just not see the blood scrapes on some of their backs and faces???!!! Anyone, seriously, correct me if I’m wrong because this is making me upset af

Domesticated sheep need to be sheared because they don’t shed their coats on their own and it can be bad for their health if it gets too big.
Also, it looks considering how close they cut that it went fairly well. I see like 2 nicks maybe, but with the photo it’s hard to tell. I mean, unfortunately, you’re going to nick a few animals because they don’t understand the order of “stand still” very well. 

Sheep can die from heat exhaustion if they aren’t sheared. 
Also, their skin secretes lanolin, which quickly soothes and heals any nicks they get during shearing. 

in conclusion, it is good to peel the sheeps


Please peel your sheeps


They. Look. Like. Peeled. Potatoes


Peel your sheep peeps!


Remember when they found Shrek living in that cave and freed him


he’s smiling in that last one

HE HAS BEEN SAVED 

Anyone who has had a lot of hair then got a very close hair cut, that amazing feel of the breeze on your scalp? Imagine that for your whole body.
Sheep LOOOOVE being sheared, especially in summer here in AUS.

It saves them from MELTING!

thefingerfuckingfemalefury: brookietf: thefingerfuckingfemalefury: drydrangea: association-of-free-people: cruzan-for-love: wethepott...

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: ...

Tumblr, Blog, and Com: corgikistan: Meet Mochi! He has trouble standing still long enough for photos.
Tumblr, Blog, and Com: corgikistan:

Meet Mochi! He has trouble standing still long enough for photos.

corgikistan: Meet Mochi! He has trouble standing still long enough for photos.

Energy, Head, and Life: Sairam Gudiseva 3nt period Never has a man influenced physics so profoundly as Niels Bohr in the early 1900's Going back to this time period, little was known about atomic structure: Bohr set out to end the obscurity of physics. However.things didn't come easy for Bohr. He had to give up most of his life for physics and research of many hypothesis. But, this is why you and I have even heard of the quantum theory and atomic structures. Bohr came with his quantum theory while studying at Cambridge. Bohr was a skeptic and he never truly believed in Max Planck's old quantum theory. He put forth the idea that. going from one high-energy orbit o a lower one, an electron could, in fact, be trying to emit a quantum of discrete energy. Bohr was criticized for this idea, but he didn't let up. Soon after, Bohr said his famed quote," If quantum mechanics hasn't shocked you you haven't understood it yet. This quote is extremely famous and has gone down as the motto for quantum physicist around the world. Understandably, Bohr never won a Nobel prize outside of physics (of which he only won one). Bohr's stil going strong with his theories on atomic structure; he allowed for 100's of scientists to fully experiment with the cell and its many components Bohr was largely on the run from the Nazi's when he came up with this discovery, which is amazing because around this time, Bohr's home country of Denmark was invaded by the Nazi's. Bohr and Ernest Rutherford are given credit, but it is believed that Rutherford decided to desert Bohr in the middle of their work Rutherford once, quite famously said tha you should never bet against the wonders of science. Niels Bohr's famous career never really kicked off until he was forty years old. Most other major scientists were going all over the world with their ideas by their early twenties However, in order to preserve the legacy of Niels Bohr, he has his own institution, whose goal is to make many more great strides in the field of physics for years. How did Bohr affect you and me? Without Niels Bohrs' more advanced atomic theory, we might as well over how little we know of the atoms and their compounds. Physics would have never been such a force in the todays society. However, to this day, research is still going on to improve and update the atomic theory. Although scientists clearly want to improve on Bohr's theory, many famous physicists come out publicly and openly that Bohr's ideas will never be improved upon, todays society cannot say goodbye to an opportunity to improve our understanding of the sciences. If Bohr never had silenced his critics, we would still be following Planck's theories, and going on incomplete information. Bohr's later life was all occupied when he decided to go back to Denmark and head the Royal Danish Academy. His main goal was to the world of the of the greatness of the Danish Sciences and most likely educate a new crop of scientists for years to come. There is controversy surrounding Bohr's lie during his stint in the Manhattan project. Though he claimed to be anti-violence and a peace-seeker, Bohr engineered on the Manhattan Project. Though he didn't hurt anyone directly, thousands of people died. Neils Bohr opened many doors for you and I in the physics world, he will go down as one of the greatest physicists Wonder what the grade was
Energy, Head, and Life: Sairam Gudiseva
 3nt period
 Never has a man influenced physics so profoundly as Niels Bohr in the early 1900's
 Going back to this time period, little was known about atomic structure: Bohr set out
 to end the obscurity of physics. However.things didn't come easy for Bohr. He had to
 give up most of his life for physics and research of many hypothesis. But, this is why
 you and I have even heard of the quantum theory and atomic structures. Bohr came
 with his quantum theory while studying at Cambridge. Bohr was a skeptic and he
 never truly believed in Max Planck's old quantum theory. He put forth the idea that.
 going from one high-energy orbit o a lower one, an electron could, in fact, be trying
 to emit a quantum of discrete energy. Bohr was criticized for this idea, but he didn't
 let up. Soon after, Bohr said his famed quote," If quantum mechanics hasn't shocked
 you you haven't understood it yet. This quote is extremely famous and has gone
 down as the motto for quantum physicist around the world. Understandably, Bohr
 never won a Nobel prize outside of physics (of which he only won one). Bohr's stil
 going strong with his theories on atomic structure; he allowed for 100's of scientists
 to fully experiment with the cell and its many components Bohr was largely on the
 run from the Nazi's when he came up with this discovery, which is amazing because
 around this time, Bohr's home country of Denmark was invaded by the Nazi's. Bohr
 and Ernest Rutherford are given credit, but it is believed that Rutherford decided to
 desert Bohr in the middle of their work Rutherford once, quite famously said tha
 you should never bet against the wonders of science. Niels Bohr's famous career
 never really kicked off until he was forty years old. Most other major scientists were
 going all over the world with their ideas by their early twenties However, in order
 to preserve the legacy of Niels Bohr, he has his own institution, whose goal is to
 make many more great strides in the field of physics for years. How did Bohr affect
 you and me? Without Niels Bohrs' more advanced atomic theory, we might as well
 over how little we know of the atoms and their compounds. Physics would have
 never been such a force in the todays society. However, to this day, research is still
 going on to improve and update the atomic theory. Although scientists clearly want
 to improve on Bohr's theory, many famous physicists come out publicly and openly
 that Bohr's ideas will never be improved upon, todays society cannot say
 goodbye to an opportunity to improve our understanding of the sciences. If Bohr
 never had silenced his critics, we would still be following Planck's theories, and
 going on incomplete information. Bohr's later life was all occupied when he decided
 to go back to Denmark and head the Royal Danish Academy. His main goal was to
 the world of the of the greatness of the Danish Sciences and most likely educate
 a new crop of scientists for years to come. There is controversy surrounding Bohr's
 lie during his stint in the Manhattan project. Though he claimed to be anti-violence
 and a peace-seeker, Bohr engineered on the Manhattan Project. Though he didn't
 hurt anyone directly, thousands of people died. Neils Bohr opened many doors for
 you and I in the physics world, he will go down as one of the greatest physicists
Wonder what the grade was

Wonder what the grade was