No You Aint
No You Aint

No You Aint

For The
For The

For The

5Pm
5Pm

5Pm

Are
Are

Are

Our
Our

Our

Receive
Receive

Receive

Result
Result

Result

Let
Let

Let

With
With

With

Was
Was

Was

🔥 | Latest

Children, Donald Trump, and Fbi: Repost @time: At first glance, the man on our July 30, 2018, cover might seem familiar: it was created by morphing images of two of the world’s most recognizable men, President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The composite image, by visual artist @nancyburson, is meant to represent this particular moment in U.S. foreign policy, following the pair’s recent meeting in Helsinki. As our senior White House correspondent Brian Bennett writes in this week’s cover story: “A year and a half into his presidency, Trump’s puzzling affinity for Putin has yet to be explained. Trump is bruised by the idea that Russian election meddling taints his victory, those close to him say, and can’t concede the fact that Russia did try to interfere in the election, regardless of whether it impacted the outcome. He views this problem entirely through a political lens, these people say, unable or unwilling to differentiate between the question of whether his campaign colluded with Russia—which he denies—and the question of whether Russia attempted to influence the election.” Burson, who became well known for developing a technique to age faces, which is used by the FBI to find missing children, says the goal of her latest composite is to help readers “stop and think” when it comes to similarities between the two leaders. “What my work has always been about is allowing people to see differently,” she tells TIME. “The combining of faces is a different way for people to see what they couldn’t see before.” Read this week's full cover story on TIME.com. Photo illustration by @nancyburson for TIME (Digital imaging by @johndepew. Source photographs: Trump: @gettyimages; Putin: Kremlin handout)
Children, Donald Trump, and Fbi: Repost @time: At first glance, the man on our July 30, 2018, cover might seem familiar: it was created by morphing images of two of the world’s most recognizable men, President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The composite image, by visual artist @nancyburson, is meant to represent this particular moment in U.S. foreign policy, following the pair’s recent meeting in Helsinki. As our senior White House correspondent Brian Bennett writes in this week’s cover story: “A year and a half into his presidency, Trump’s puzzling affinity for Putin has yet to be explained. Trump is bruised by the idea that Russian election meddling taints his victory, those close to him say, and can’t concede the fact that Russia did try to interfere in the election, regardless of whether it impacted the outcome. He views this problem entirely through a political lens, these people say, unable or unwilling to differentiate between the question of whether his campaign colluded with Russia—which he denies—and the question of whether Russia attempted to influence the election.” Burson, who became well known for developing a technique to age faces, which is used by the FBI to find missing children, says the goal of her latest composite is to help readers “stop and think” when it comes to similarities between the two leaders. “What my work has always been about is allowing people to see differently,” she tells TIME. “The combining of faces is a different way for people to see what they couldn’t see before.” Read this week's full cover story on TIME.com. Photo illustration by @nancyburson for TIME (Digital imaging by @johndepew. Source photographs: Trump: @gettyimages; Putin: Kremlin handout)

Repost @time: At first glance, the man on our July 30, 2018, cover might seem familiar: it was created by morphing images of two of the worl...

Anaconda, Future, and Juice: Not everything will be 100% accurate SPACE DID NOT TRY OUT. SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION Rascal wasn't happy that OGE was brought in without any try outs. xac agreed Rascal would baby rage. Rascal was straight up bought from Spitfire. He didn't have a say and was wasn't happy about the move? Rascal didn't perform well enough early on so not much changed. xQc felt players had no say in the team. Doesn't think they should get a new support but try another support and another off-tank. Rascal talked a lot in matches but wouldn't listen When the team would complain Kyky said there wasn't much he could do. Space eame in for tryouts- xQc was praying Space. xQc, Custa wanted him to come into to the team. But obviously they didn't have any say When Fuel starts to play like garbage, Effect develops a different play style. More aggressive, more "soloQ" it was unpredictable but sometimes it could work. Literally no plans during games some times. Lots of arguing. Chips just disappears. Custa was the only consistent good thing about the team. Doesn't understand why they risked trading him. ase Thump Seagut He pve up gcd treaming oppotuntsan 'sn e ench xQc feels really sad now he's talking about his release from OWL. Loved the Fuel. Doesn't have anything left. Didn't scrim much when he was in the team. Sacrificed the Juice just like Seagull but he never saw a "future". This is actually really sad... He said "What's left? Just the experience?" His parents didn't believe in him... xQc didn't want any handout while being in the team. He wanted someone to believe in him. The only reason he played against LAG was because the owner said fuck it he was unbanned Doesn't understand why OWL didn't hire someone to monitor player behavior. To give warnings to things like TriHard7 If anybody from Blizzard is listening to this. Please fixed ranked. Role distribution is a mess. SoloQ for main tanks sucks. He feels it's hard to scout for new talent. Its one wave of players and that's it. He wouldn't be able to find a good Main Tank that isn't already on a team. Cocco has his own problems. Doesn't believe Mickie was given the proper guidance to re-new his play style and knowledge of D.va. The success earlier on wasn't because Mickie was on Winston but because Seagull was on D.va AKM is a soldier bot. Only works if the team pockets him shddragons: j_jon on reddit summed up xqc’s stream
Anaconda, Future, and Juice: Not everything will be 100% accurate
 SPACE DID NOT TRY OUT. SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION
 Rascal wasn't happy that OGE was brought in without any try outs. xac agreed
 Rascal would baby rage.
 Rascal was straight up bought from Spitfire. He didn't have a say and was wasn't happy about the move?
 Rascal didn't perform well enough early on so not much changed.
 xQc felt players had no say in the team.
 Doesn't think they should get a new support but try another support and another off-tank.
 Rascal talked a lot in matches but wouldn't listen

 When the team would complain Kyky said there wasn't much he could do.
 Space eame in for tryouts- xQc was praying Space. xQc, Custa wanted him to come into to the team. But obviously they didn't have any
 say
 When Fuel starts to play like garbage, Effect develops a different play style. More aggressive, more "soloQ" it was unpredictable but
 sometimes it could work. Literally no plans during games some times. Lots of arguing.
 Chips just disappears.
 Custa was the only consistent good thing about the team. Doesn't understand why they risked trading him.
 ase Thump Seagut He pve up gcd treaming oppotuntsan 'sn e ench
 xQc feels really sad now he's talking about his release from OWL. Loved the Fuel. Doesn't have anything left. Didn't scrim much when
 he was in the team. Sacrificed the Juice just like Seagull but he never saw a "future".
 This is actually really sad... He said "What's left? Just the experience?"

 His parents didn't believe in him...
 xQc didn't want any handout while being in the team. He wanted someone to believe in him. The only reason he played against LAG
 was because the owner said fuck it he was unbanned
 Doesn't understand why OWL didn't hire someone to monitor player behavior. To give warnings to things like TriHard7
 If anybody from Blizzard is listening to this. Please fixed ranked. Role distribution is a mess. SoloQ for main tanks sucks.
 He feels it's hard to scout for new talent. Its one wave of players and that's it. He wouldn't be able to find a good Main Tank that isn't
 already on a team.
 Cocco has his own problems.
 Doesn't believe Mickie was given the proper guidance to re-new his play style and knowledge of D.va. The success earlier on wasn't
 because Mickie was on Winston but because Seagull was on D.va
 AKM is a soldier bot. Only works if the team pockets him
shddragons:

j_jon on reddit summed up xqc’s stream

shddragons: j_jon on reddit summed up xqc’s stream

Abc, Girls, and Money: ooo Verizon 9:27 PM O 71%) a Search ABC News NEWS 5 hrs. 14-year-old Utah teen gives every girl in his school a Valentine's Day chocolate to let them know that they are "special and unique" after learning about high rates of depression in young teen girls. Utah teen gives chocolates to all 537 girls in school ABC News 16K Shares Like Comment share Write a comment... Post reachmouse: buttermilk-thegoat: Don’t read the comments on this article. The kid did it because he was learning about how teenage girls suffer from depression more than any other age group, and didn’t want any girls going home feeling sad on Valentine’s Day. Ofc half the comments are like “what an EPIC playa, bet he got some action after that hahaha” or “why do these special snowflakes need a handout like this” or “what kind of Richie Rich kid” (chocolate company donated the boxes after learning why he wanted so much) Like… why is humanity like this THIS BURNS MY BACON, LET ME SHARE WHY.  At the school where I work, we had a similar lovely Valentine’s moment:  One of our seniors bought hundreds of roses on Valentine’s Day. Every girl in every grade got one; there were enough left over for staff and extras for others who might want one. This is our library bouquet.  One year ago, our school lost a student to suicide. As Valentine’s Day was approaching, this sad anniversary was all our student body was talking about and remembering. This senior student decided to try to lift us up from that narrative, and literally fill the halls with flowers. The surprise was carried out flawlessly – even his own sister didn’t know what he was about to do.  I have rarely seen a happier school holiday.  I’ve seen EXACTLY those comments on social media about what happened with us, and about similar gestures from high school students. Lots of “spoiled kids with money”, lots of “this is just to get laid”.  I don’t think this diminishes my senior student or his gesture at all, but it diminishes us when good things happen and we turn around and reduce these moments to their most cynical interpretation. And that’s not even touching on what it says when people feel the need to belittle younger people for trying to do good; the kids can’t catch a break from some people. Can’t we take sweet things at face value the way we do all the darkness out there lately? 
Abc, Girls, and Money: ooo Verizon
 9:27 PM
 O 71%)
 a Search
 ABC News
 NEWS 5 hrs.
 14-year-old Utah teen gives every girl in his school a
 Valentine's Day chocolate to let them know that they
 are "special and unique" after learning about high
 rates of depression in young teen girls.
 Utah teen gives chocolates to all 537 girls in school
 ABC News
 16K Shares
 Like
 Comment
 share
 Write a comment...
 Post
reachmouse:

buttermilk-thegoat:
Don’t read the comments on this article. The kid did it because he was learning about how teenage girls suffer from depression more than any other age group, and didn’t want any girls going home feeling sad on Valentine’s Day. 
Ofc half the comments are like “what an EPIC playa, bet he got some action after that hahaha” or “why do these special snowflakes need a handout like this” or “what kind of Richie Rich kid” (chocolate company donated the boxes after learning why he wanted so much)
Like… why is humanity like this
THIS BURNS MY BACON, LET ME SHARE WHY. 
At the school where I work, we had a similar lovely Valentine’s moment: 
One of our seniors bought hundreds of roses on Valentine’s Day. Every girl in every grade got one; there were enough left over for staff and extras for others who might want one. This is our library bouquet. 
One year ago, our school lost a student to suicide. As Valentine’s Day was approaching, this sad anniversary was all our student body was talking about and remembering. This senior student decided to try to lift us up from that narrative, and literally fill the halls with flowers. The surprise was carried out flawlessly – even his own sister didn’t know what he was about to do. 
I have rarely seen a happier school holiday. 
I’ve seen EXACTLY those comments on social media about what happened with us, and about similar gestures from high school students. Lots of “spoiled kids with money”, lots of “this is just to get laid”. 
I don’t think this diminishes my senior student or his gesture at all, but it diminishes us when good things happen and we turn around and reduce these moments to their most cynical interpretation. And that’s not even touching on what it says when people feel the need to belittle younger people for trying to do good; the kids can’t catch a break from some people.
Can’t we take sweet things at face value the way we do all the darkness out there lately? 

reachmouse: buttermilk-thegoat: Don’t read the comments on this article. The kid did it because he was learning about how teenage girls suf...

Detroit, Do It Again, and Doctor: Do You See a Pattern Here? Conservatives opposed the American Revolution. Liberals won Conservatives supported slavery. Liberals won. Conservatives opposed Blacks and women voting. Liberals won. Conservatives opposed stopping child labor. Liberals won Conservatives opposed a minimum wage. Liberals won. Conservatives opposed the 40 hour work week. Liberals won. Conservatives opposed the 8 hour work day. Liberals won. Conservatives opposed workplace safety regulation. Liberals won Conservatives opposed unemployment insurance. Liberals won. Conservatives opposed workmen's compensation. Liberals won. Conservatives opposed compulsory education. Liberals won Conservatives opposed Social Security Liberals won. Conservatives opposed Medicare. Liberals won. Conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act. Liberals won <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://futurepotus1322.tumblr.com/post/82028713661/source-though-i-wouldnt-stray-for-too-long">futurepotus1322</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/TheMarmelPage/photos/pb.216484961711918.-2207520000.1396903860./869790146381393/?type=3&amp;theater">Source</a> (Though I wouldn’t stray for too long, blood may shoot out of your ears.) </p> <p>1.) Conservatives opposed the American Revolution</p> <p>- Republicanism is deeply rooted in our history, going all the way back to ancient Greco-Roman times.  The ideals of Republicanism was based off of virtue and duty of a citizen to their republic.  It was these Republican ideals that helped light the whisk to the American Revolution.  With the growing tariffs being implemented on the colonies (taxation without representation), Britain appeared as more of a corrupt persevere overseer than as a guiding hand.  The true opposition to the Revolution were the Tories.  They came from all socioeconomic structures, but a large amount of them had a financial stake in the British maintaining their thumb in the new world’s pie.  Conservatives didn’t oppose the Revolution, but it was those who relied on GB to pay their salaries that primarily did; <em>And who does that sound like? </em></p> <p>2.) Conservatives supported Slavery </p> <p>This is where the intellectual dishonesty is troubling in the Democrats.  They attempt to paint Lincoln as something he simply never was: A Democrat.  The Civil war was a war to end slavery, the secession of the south was fueled by Democrats who wanted to continue to twist the Constitution to fit their <em>liberal</em> interpretation.  That’s where these classifications come from, liberals have a loose interpretation of the constitution, hence why they’re <em>liberal.  </em>The same <em>liberal</em> interpretation that allowed them to have as their platform that POC’s were only 3/5ths of a man when compared to white men.  Conservatives held to the constitution that nothing and no one can take away a persons <em>right</em> to life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. </p> <p>3.) Conservatives opposed blacks and women voting </p> <p>The civil rights act of 1964 saw 82% and 80% of the Republican Senate, and House respectively, voting in favor of the right to vote for any and all.  </p> <p>This is as opposed to a 69% and 63% ‘yay,’ vote (Senate/House) for what was a <strong>Democrat controlled Congress.</strong> </p> <p>If the Republicans were so against the right to enfranchisement for women and POC, then why did they vote <strong>more in favor of it than their liberal counterparts?</strong></p> <p>4.) Conservatives opposed Child Labor Laws</p> <p>That’s insanely interesting considering that the very first mentioning of the Federal government stepping in to regulate child Labor was in 1924 by a Ohio congressmen by the name of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Amendment">Israel Moore Foster</a>. </p> <p><em>Oh, did I mention he was a Republican…which was a part of a Republican controlled Congress…Which was ratified in all <strong>Republican </strong>states except for the Democratic South? </em></p> <p>The support for this amendment died out around 1938 when the Fair Labor Standard was passed with the tack on provision of ending child labor, though the main provision in it was to raise <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act">minimum wage</a>. </p> <p>Kind of hard to oppose something you’re party not only introduced, but <strong>tried</strong> to pass a decade before.  Weird. </p> <p>5.) Republicans opposed the New Deal, Public Unions, Handout Programs.  </p> <p>I’m tying in the next couple of claims made by our photo creator because they all stem from the same time period in which Roosevelt dragged the US economy through the mud.  It’s no surprise that the new deal is being heralded as possibly one of the worst things ever done…<a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-fdrs-new-deal-harmed-millions-poor-people">ever</a>. </p> <p>Because it was, it sought the end of a deep depression, an admirable task, but the myriad of Keynesian economics to help off set the failing economy only put more of a burden on the working poor than it did to uplift them.  </p> <p>The same goes for public unions, as the Detroit auto crisis has shown.  The inflated wages and pensions of the workers under the union broke the back of the auto sector.  The fact that the government bailed them out did not allow for the companies to settle their differences in Bankruptcy court.  Because of this, these companies were unable to renegotiate their contracts with UAW in order to mitigate the costs, the government had essentially paid the balance for them.  Furthermore, Public unions are the creator of every pension problem in this country, and will more than likely continue to be until that bubble bursts.  </p> <p>The problems resides in the notion that it is <strong>forced tax payer dollars paying for it.</strong>  It’s a fancy way of wealth redistribution, and everyone’s involved.  </p> <p>The Supreme Court originally passed rulings that had eventually led to the passing of several Federal standards for the employer-employee relationship.  These mandated programs were opposed because it had introduced a third party into what was originally an arms length relationship between employer and employee.  </p> <p>Conservatives opposed these things because the government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating the private sector.  This was, at the time, an over reach of the governments power.  Before the ‘new deal,’ the government wasn’t a part of the private sector, they didn’t have any regulations because they were in two different worlds.  Conservatives sought to keep it that way, not because they sought to keep in place unfair labor laws, but because it was an issue for the employer-employee relationship; and the people were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes">handling it just fine</a>. </p> <p>Republicans didn’t want to expand the power of government, true to their conservative Republican values.  Certainly not after it was the roaring 20’s were our free market economy turned our nation into a production powerhouse and conservatives believed we could do it again. </p> <p>Mandated programs will always be opposed by Conservatives, because it comes out of your wallet.  All of these mandated programs are essentially coercion with no promise of the same benefits when we’re eligible for the same services.  If a guy asked to borrow five dollars, and promised to repay you forty years from now, would you really expect to seem him in 40 years? Neither would I. </p> <p>6.) Conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act. </p> <p>Remember that this upcoming election when the glitz and glamour of Democrats can’t change what’s on the inside of an envelope holding your policy termination letter, or the broken website, or the hundreds of dollars of premiums, or the long emergency room lines, or your old doctor/hospital not covered under your plan.  </p> <p>Remember, that Conservatives tried to keep your money in your pocket, as they always have and always will.  </p> <p><img alt="image" src="http://cdn.gifbay.com/2013/05/colbert_mic_drop-52522.gif"/></p> </blockquote>
Detroit, Do It Again, and Doctor: Do You See a Pattern Here?
 Conservatives opposed the American Revolution.
 Liberals won
 Conservatives supported slavery.
 Liberals won.
 Conservatives opposed Blacks and women voting.
 Liberals won.
 Conservatives opposed stopping child labor.
 Liberals won
 Conservatives opposed a minimum wage.
 Liberals won.
 Conservatives opposed the 40 hour work week.
 Liberals won.
 Conservatives opposed the 8 hour work day.
 Liberals won.
 Conservatives opposed workplace safety regulation.
 Liberals won
 Conservatives opposed unemployment insurance.
 Liberals won.
 Conservatives opposed workmen's compensation.
 Liberals won.
 Conservatives opposed compulsory education.
 Liberals won
 Conservatives opposed Social Security
 Liberals won.
 Conservatives opposed Medicare.
 Liberals won.
 Conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act.
 Liberals won
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://futurepotus1322.tumblr.com/post/82028713661/source-though-i-wouldnt-stray-for-too-long">futurepotus1322</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/TheMarmelPage/photos/pb.216484961711918.-2207520000.1396903860./869790146381393/?type=3&amp;theater">Source</a> (Though I wouldn’t stray for too long, blood may shoot out of your ears.) </p>
<p>1.) Conservatives opposed the American Revolution</p>
<p>- Republicanism is deeply rooted in our history, going all the way back to ancient Greco-Roman times.  The ideals of Republicanism was based off of virtue and duty of a citizen to their republic.  It was these Republican ideals that helped light the whisk to the American Revolution.  With the growing tariffs being implemented on the colonies (taxation without representation), Britain appeared as more of a corrupt persevere overseer than as a guiding hand.  The true opposition to the Revolution were the Tories.  They came from all socioeconomic structures, but a large amount of them had a financial stake in the British maintaining their thumb in the new world’s pie.  Conservatives didn’t oppose the Revolution, but it was those who relied on GB to pay their salaries that primarily did; <em>And who does that sound like? </em></p>
<p>2.) Conservatives supported Slavery </p>
<p>This is where the intellectual dishonesty is troubling in the Democrats.  They attempt to paint Lincoln as something he simply never was: A Democrat.  The Civil war was a war to end slavery, the secession of the south was fueled by Democrats who wanted to continue to twist the Constitution to fit their <em>liberal</em> interpretation.  That’s where these classifications come from, liberals have a loose interpretation of the constitution, hence why they’re <em>liberal.  </em>The same <em>liberal</em> interpretation that allowed them to have as their platform that POC’s were only 3/5ths of a man when compared to white men.  Conservatives held to the constitution that nothing and no one can take away a persons <em>right</em> to life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. </p>
<p>3.) Conservatives opposed blacks and women voting </p>
<p>The civil rights act of 1964 saw 82% and 80% of the Republican Senate, and House respectively, voting in favor of the right to vote for any and all.  </p>
<p>This is as opposed to a 69% and 63% ‘yay,’ vote (Senate/House) for what was a <strong>Democrat controlled Congress.</strong> </p>
<p>If the Republicans were so against the right to enfranchisement for women and POC, then why did they vote <strong>more in favor of it than their liberal counterparts?</strong></p>
<p>4.) Conservatives opposed Child Labor Laws</p>
<p>That’s insanely interesting considering that the very first mentioning of the Federal government stepping in to regulate child Labor was in 1924 by a Ohio congressmen by the name of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Amendment">Israel Moore Foster</a>. </p>
<p><em>Oh, did I mention he was a Republican…which was a part of a Republican controlled Congress…Which was ratified in all <strong>Republican </strong>states except for the Democratic South? </em></p>
<p>The support for this amendment died out around 1938 when the Fair Labor Standard was passed with the tack on provision of ending child labor, though the main provision in it was to raise <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act">minimum wage</a>. </p>
<p>Kind of hard to oppose something you’re party not only introduced, but <strong>tried</strong> to pass a decade before.  Weird. </p>
<p>5.) Republicans opposed the New Deal, Public Unions, Handout Programs.  </p>
<p>I’m tying in the next couple of claims made by our photo creator because they all stem from the same time period in which Roosevelt dragged the US economy through the mud.  It’s no surprise that the new deal is being heralded as possibly one of the worst things ever done…<a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-fdrs-new-deal-harmed-millions-poor-people">ever</a>. </p>
<p>Because it was, it sought the end of a deep depression, an admirable task, but the myriad of Keynesian economics to help off set the failing economy only put more of a burden on the working poor than it did to uplift them.  </p>
<p>The same goes for public unions, as the Detroit auto crisis has shown.  The inflated wages and pensions of the workers under the union broke the back of the auto sector.  The fact that the government bailed them out did not allow for the companies to settle their differences in Bankruptcy court.  Because of this, these companies were unable to renegotiate their contracts with UAW in order to mitigate the costs, the government had essentially paid the balance for them.  Furthermore, Public unions are the creator of every pension problem in this country, and will more than likely continue to be until that bubble bursts.  </p>
<p>The problems resides in the notion that it is <strong>forced tax payer dollars paying for it.</strong>  It’s a fancy way of wealth redistribution, and everyone’s involved.  </p>
<p>The Supreme Court originally passed rulings that had eventually led to the passing of several Federal standards for the employer-employee relationship.  These mandated programs were opposed because it had introduced a third party into what was originally an arms length relationship between employer and employee.  </p>
<p>Conservatives opposed these things because the government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating the private sector.  This was, at the time, an over reach of the governments power.  Before the ‘new deal,’ the government wasn’t a part of the private sector, they didn’t have any regulations because they were in two different worlds.  Conservatives sought to keep it that way, not because they sought to keep in place unfair labor laws, but because it was an issue for the employer-employee relationship; and the people were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes">handling it just fine</a>. </p>
<p>Republicans didn’t want to expand the power of government, true to their conservative Republican values.  Certainly not after it was the roaring 20’s were our free market economy turned our nation into a production powerhouse and conservatives believed we could do it again. </p>
<p>Mandated programs will always be opposed by Conservatives, because it comes out of your wallet.  All of these mandated programs are essentially coercion with no promise of the same benefits when we’re eligible for the same services.  If a guy asked to borrow five dollars, and promised to repay you forty years from now, would you really expect to seem him in 40 years? Neither would I. </p>
<p>6.) Conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act. </p>
<p>Remember that this upcoming election when the glitz and glamour of Democrats can’t change what’s on the inside of an envelope holding your policy termination letter, or the broken website, or the hundreds of dollars of premiums, or the long emergency room lines, or your old doctor/hospital not covered under your plan.  </p>
<p>Remember, that Conservatives tried to keep your money in your pocket, as they always have and always will.  </p>
<p><img alt="image" src="http://cdn.gifbay.com/2013/05/colbert_mic_drop-52522.gif"/></p>
</blockquote>

futurepotus1322: Source (Though I wouldn’t stray for too long, blood may shoot out of your ears.)  1.) Conservatives opposed the American R...