Has
Has

Has

Inclusive
Inclusive

Inclusive

Are
Are

Are

Was
Was

Was

Ties
Ties

Ties

Travel Ban
Travel Ban

Travel Ban

Many
Many

Many

Marco
Marco

Marco

From
From

From

The
The

The

🔥 | Latest

Dank, Funny, and Memes: TIME SUBSCRIBE SCIENCE Manatees Are No Longer Listed as Endangered Species Dank Coal Sijposting MANITY RESTORED feanor-the-dragon: ginchface: positive-memes: Wholesome Manatees this is actually bullshit trump administration deregulation, the manatee is still in danger. in fact, the trump administration recently weakened the endangered species act in general so that people now have to consider the financial cost of saving a species that may or may not be declared endangered.  remember that an endangered species isn’t governed by like the UN or something, it’s an invention of the american government to protect at-risk species—and they’re redefining what an endangered species actually is, so people don’t have to consider them anymore. they’re redefining what an endangered species actually is, so people don’t have to consider them anymore. Guys! Guys guys guys! WHAT THE F*CK THIS IS THE VERSION YOU NEED TO REBLOG. Here is a link with more recent info. the article linked by previous person was from 2017. This one is from this year and highlights the changes and effects. And here is the official release The biggest change is that protections will be given based on economic considerations. Allegedly, this is to reduce the burden on the american public, which is funny, considering certain things we won’t unpack right here. Have a look, see for yourself. Guys, boost this.
Dank, Funny, and Memes: TIME
 SUBSCRIBE
 SCIENCE
 Manatees Are No
 Longer Listed as
 Endangered Species
 Dank Coal
 Sijposting
 MANITY RESTORED
feanor-the-dragon:

ginchface:

positive-memes:
Wholesome Manatees
this is actually bullshit trump administration deregulation, the manatee is still in danger.
in fact, the trump administration recently weakened the endangered species act in general so that people now have to consider the financial cost of saving a species that may or may not be declared endangered. 
remember that an endangered species isn’t governed by like the UN or something, it’s an invention of the american government to protect at-risk species—and they’re redefining what an endangered species actually is, so people don’t have to consider them anymore.

they’re redefining what an endangered species actually is, so people don’t have to consider them anymore.  
Guys! Guys guys guys! WHAT THE F*CK THIS IS THE VERSION YOU NEED TO REBLOG.
Here is a link with more recent info. the article linked by previous person was from 2017. This one is from this year and highlights the changes and effects.
And here is the official release
The biggest change is that protections will be given based on economic considerations. Allegedly, this is to reduce the burden on the american public, which is funny, considering certain things we won’t unpack right here. Have a look, see for yourself.
Guys, boost this.

feanor-the-dragon: ginchface: positive-memes: Wholesome Manatees this is actually bullshit trump administration deregulation, the manatee ...

7/11, Click, and College: Binyamin Appelbaum @ВСАppelbaum "For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid lower total tax rate - spanning federal, state and local taxes than any other income group, according to newly released data." @DLeonhardt 6h David Leonhardt Watch how radically taxes on the wealthy have fallen over the past 70 years: (Full column: nytimes.com/interactive/20..) 60 30 0:11 5:49 PM Oct 6, 2019 Twitter Web App 4.1K Likes 3.4K Retweets 50 40 Qasim Rashid, Esq. @QasimRashid Last year the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower total tax rate than any other income group These 400 are worth $2.7 Trillion but they're paying fewer taxes than the 43M Americans living in poverty This is how nations collapse Total tax rate (federal, state and local) 1950 70% 50 30 2018 10 Income Group Lower income Higher income Opinion | The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You Snytimes.com 8:21 PM Oct 6, 2019 Twitter for iPhone Sam Biederman @Biedersam Why aren't the subways functional? Why is college so expensive? Why is your health insurance premium so high? Why don't you have a pension? This is the answer. David Leonhardt @DLeonhardt 6h Watch how radically taxes on the wealthy have fallen over the past 70 years: (Full column: nytimes.com/interactive/2...) 60 50 30 0:11 7:11 PM Oct 6, 2019 from Brooklyn, NY Twitter for iPhone 6.3K Retweets 16.7K Likes 40 quiteliterallyhotsauce: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage That’s why #Bernie2020 Eat the rich.
7/11, Click, and College: Binyamin Appelbaum
 @ВСАppelbaum
 "For the first time on record, the 400
 wealthiest Americans last year paid
 lower total tax rate
 - spanning
 federal, state and local taxes
 than
 any other income group, according
 to newly released data."
 @DLeonhardt 6h
 David Leonhardt
 Watch how radically taxes on the wealthy have fallen
 over the past 70 years:
 (Full column: nytimes.com/interactive/20..)
 60
 30
 0:11
 5:49 PM Oct 6, 2019 Twitter Web App
 4.1K Likes
 3.4K Retweets
 50
 40

 Qasim Rashid, Esq.
 @QasimRashid
 Last year the 400 wealthiest
 Americans paid a lower total tax rate
 than any other income group
 These 400 are worth $2.7 Trillion but
 they're paying fewer taxes than the
 43M Americans living in poverty
 This is how nations collapse
 Total tax rate (federal, state and local)
 1950
 70%
 50
 30
 2018
 10
 Income Group
 Lower income
 Higher income
 Opinion | The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than
 You
 Snytimes.com
 8:21 PM Oct 6, 2019 Twitter for iPhone

 Sam Biederman
 @Biedersam
 Why aren't the subways functional?
 Why is college so expensive? Why is
 your health insurance premium so
 high? Why don't you have a
 pension? This is the answer.
 David Leonhardt
 @DLeonhardt 6h
 Watch how radically taxes on the wealthy have fallen
 over the past 70 years:
 (Full column: nytimes.com/interactive/2...)
 60
 50
 30
 0:11
 7:11 PM Oct 6, 2019 from Brooklyn, NY Twitter for
 iPhone
 6.3K Retweets
 16.7K Likes
 40
quiteliterallyhotsauce:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

That’s why

#Bernie2020 Eat the rich.

quiteliterallyhotsauce: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html?action=click

Children, Police, and Scare: @ryanlcooper 29m ryan cooper extremely 2019: school active shooter which scare the piss out of students and, lets be real, are 100 percent worthless safety-wise, are now a big and growing industry When Active-Shooter Drills Scare the Children They Hope to Protect As fears about mass shootings rise, school preparedness programs include some "completely stupid" scare tactics, child trauma experts s... nytimes.com 9 4 tl39 86 ryan cooper @ryanlcooper Following a bunch of ex-cop and ex-military oafs are making BANK giving kids PTSD on an industrial scale. capitalism: it's good Nearly every American public school now conducts lockdown drills -96 percent in 2015 and 2016 - according to the Education Department's National Center for Education Statistics. Law enforcement officials and many school administrators say they are crucial for preparing and safeguarding students, but methods vary widely and now include drills that child trauma experts say do little more than terrify already anxious children. "A whole new cottage industry has emerged where people who don't know anything about kids are jumping in and adapting protocols for groups like police officers or people preparing for combat," said Bruce D. Perry, founder of the ChildTrauma Academy, whose clinical team assists maltreated and traumatized children through counseling, research and education. As a result, Dr. Perry said in an interview, "The number of developmentally uninformed, child- uninformed and completely stupid ideas is mind-numbing."
Children, Police, and Scare: @ryanlcooper 29m
 ryan cooper
 extremely 2019: school active shooter which scare the piss out of students and,
 lets be real, are 100 percent worthless safety-wise, are now a big and growing
 industry
 When Active-Shooter Drills Scare the Children They Hope to Protect
 As fears about mass shootings rise, school preparedness programs include
 some "completely stupid" scare tactics, child trauma experts s...
 nytimes.com
 9 4
 tl39
 86

 ryan cooper
 @ryanlcooper
 Following
 a bunch of ex-cop and ex-military oafs
 are making BANK giving kids PTSD on an
 industrial scale. capitalism: it's good
 Nearly every American public school now conducts lockdown drills
 -96 percent in 2015 and 2016 - according to the Education
 Department's National Center for Education Statistics. Law
 enforcement officials and many school administrators say they are
 crucial for preparing and safeguarding students, but methods vary
 widely and now include drills that child trauma experts say do little
 more than terrify already anxious children.
 "A whole new cottage industry has emerged where people who don't
 know anything about kids are jumping in and adapting protocols
 for groups like police officers or people preparing for combat," said
 Bruce D. Perry, founder of the ChildTrauma Academy, whose
 clinical team assists maltreated and traumatized children through
 counseling, research and education. As a result, Dr. Perry said in an
 interview, "The number of developmentally uninformed, child-
 uninformed and completely stupid ideas is mind-numbing."
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: ...

Church, Doctor, and Fucking: 5909 "I decided that never again would there be a pregnant woman in Auschwitz." patron-saint-of-smart-asses: everybody-look-right: washingtonstateconservative: ctrlgeek: webbgirl34: thebigsisteryouneveraskedfor: Gisella Perl was forced to work as a doctor in Auschwitz concentration camp during the holocaust. She was ordered to report ever pregnant women do the physician Dr. Josef Mengele, who would then use the women for cruel experiments (e.g. vivisections) before killing them. She saved hundreds of women by performing abortions on them before their pregnancy was discovered, without having access to basic medical supplies. She became known as the “Angel of Auschwitz”. After being rescued from Bergen-Belsen concentration camp she tried to commit suicide, but survived, recovered and kept working as a gynecologist, delivering more than 3000 babies. I want to nail this to the forehead of every anti-abortionist who uses the word “Holocaust” when talking about legal abortions. Yeah… she became a gynecologist and was extremely pro-life after she got out of the camps. In an interview with Nadine Brozan for the New York Times in 1982, Dr. Perl recalled her initial experiences with Dr. Mengele’s “cure” for pregnancy in Auschwitz. ”Dr. Mengele told me that it was my duty to report every pregnant woman to him,” Dr. Perl said. ”He said that they would go to another camp for better nutrition, even for milk. So women began to run directly to him, telling him, ‘I am pregnant.’ I learned that they were all taken to the research block to be used as guinea pigs, and then two lives would be thrown into the crematorium. I decided that never again would there be a pregnant woman in Auschwitz.” Let’s analyze the situation: mother and child alike were both going to be killed anyway if the pregnancy was discovered. Leaving wasn’t an option. Freedom was nonexistent, and the perspectives of all involved were colored by living in hell on earth.   After the war, she dedicated her life to Holocaust remembrance, infertility treatment, and delivering babies – not destroying them. The New York Times quotes her as saying, “No one will ever know what it meant to me to destroy those babies, but if I had not done it, both mother and child would have been cruelly murdered.” Perl never pretended they weren’t babies, that their lives didn’t matter, or that their deaths weren’t cruel. Holy crap. I literally got a ton of shit a few months ago for saying that maybe, just maybe, Perl’s actions don’t justify abortion as a whole. Well, it goes to show that I should’ve done more research, to find out  that Perl herself doesn’t pretend that was she did was right, or that it justifies abortion now. There was another woman, a midwife, who was devout Catholic and helped to care for pregnant women and hide the babies, and continued her work in midwifery after the war. Last I heard she was in the canonization process in the Catholic Church. Fucking THANK YOU I’m so tired of pro-choicers using her as a “gotcha”. She had to do a terrible thing in a terrible circumstance. That has literally no relation to first world abortion legislation today.
Church, Doctor, and Fucking: 5909
 "I decided that
 never again would
 there be a
 pregnant woman
 in Auschwitz."
patron-saint-of-smart-asses:

everybody-look-right:
washingtonstateconservative:

ctrlgeek:

webbgirl34:

thebigsisteryouneveraskedfor:

Gisella Perl was forced to work as a doctor in Auschwitz concentration camp during the holocaust.
She was ordered to report ever pregnant women do the physician Dr. Josef Mengele, who would then use the women for cruel experiments (e.g. vivisections) before killing them.
She saved hundreds of women by performing abortions on them before their pregnancy was discovered, without having access to basic medical supplies. She became known as the “Angel of Auschwitz”.
After being rescued from Bergen-Belsen concentration camp she tried to commit suicide, but survived, recovered and kept working as a gynecologist, delivering more than 3000 babies.

I want to nail this to the forehead of every anti-abortionist who uses the word “Holocaust” when talking about legal abortions.

Yeah… she became a gynecologist and was extremely pro-life after she got out of the camps.

In an interview with Nadine Brozan for the New York Times in 1982, Dr. Perl recalled her initial experiences with Dr. Mengele’s “cure” for pregnancy in Auschwitz. ”Dr. Mengele told me that it was my duty to report every pregnant woman to him,” Dr. Perl said. ”He said that they would go to another camp for better nutrition, even for milk. So women began to run directly to him, telling him, ‘I am pregnant.’ I learned that they were all taken to the research block to be used as guinea pigs, and then two lives would be thrown into the crematorium. I decided that never again would there be a pregnant woman in Auschwitz.”
Let’s analyze the situation: mother and child alike were both going to be killed anyway if the pregnancy was discovered. Leaving wasn’t an option. Freedom was nonexistent, and the perspectives of all involved were colored by living in hell on earth. 
 After the war, she dedicated her life to Holocaust remembrance, infertility treatment, and delivering babies – not destroying them. The New York Times quotes her as saying, “No one will ever know what it meant to me to destroy those babies, but if I had not done it, both mother and child would have been cruelly murdered.” Perl never pretended they weren’t babies, that their lives didn’t matter, or that their deaths weren’t cruel.

Holy crap. I literally got a ton of shit a few months ago for saying that maybe, just maybe, Perl’s actions don’t justify abortion as a whole. Well, it goes to show that I should’ve done more research, to find out  that Perl herself doesn’t pretend that was she did was right, or that it justifies abortion now.

There was another woman, a midwife, who was devout Catholic and helped to care for pregnant women and hide the babies, and continued her work in midwifery after the war. Last I heard she was in the canonization process in the Catholic Church.

Fucking THANK YOU I’m so tired of pro-choicers using her as a “gotcha”. She had to do a terrible thing in a terrible circumstance. That has literally no relation to first world abortion legislation today.

patron-saint-of-smart-asses: everybody-look-right: washingtonstateconservative: ctrlgeek: webbgirl34: thebigsisteryouneveraskedfor: Gis...

Facebook, Head, and Hockey: 2 of 6 Poor black people should still sit at the back of the bus." Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No No. While Facebook's training document lists any call for segregation as an unacceptable attack, subsets of protected groups do not receive the same protection, according to the document. While race is a protected category social class is not, so attacks targeting "poor black people" would not seem to qualify as hate speech under those rules, Ms. Citron said. That 3 of 6 "White men are assholes." Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No Yes, a Facebook spokeswoman said. This statement targets a subset of two protected categories--“white men" encompasses race and sex -with an attack, in the form of cursing. Facebook's rules take a cue from constitutional doctrine, providing equal protection to all races, genders and orientations, Ms. Citron said. But 5 of 6 Female sports reporters need to be hit in the head with hockey pucks." Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No No. While gender is a protected category Facebook's training document states that occupation is not. Although this is a eall to violence, it would not seem to violate the company's rules for hate speech, Ms. Citron said. That is because including occupation irn the attack negates the protection granted based on gender A Facebook spokeswoman said it would be flagged under a separate policy regarding direct though the company's threat policy 6 of 6 "I'll never trust a Muslim immigrant... they're all thieves and robbers. Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No No. While Facebook usually considers dismissive attacks, including those targeting groups based on religious affiliation, as unacceptable, the company's training materials classify immigrants as a "quasi-protected category." That means that they are not protected against some types of attacks, including dismissive attacks. According to Facebook's training document, this quasi- protected category was created in response to theitalianscrub: elierlick: Facebook upholds white supremacy without flinching. (source) The goddamn loophole bullshit these guys are pulling… wow HeyWhat the fuck
Facebook, Head, and Hockey: 2 of 6
 Poor black people should still sit at
 the back of the bus."
 Would this statement meet Facebook's
 criteria for hate speech?
 Yes
 No
 No. While Facebook's training document lists
 any call for segregation as an unacceptable
 attack, subsets of protected groups do not
 receive the same protection, according to the
 document. While race is a protected category
 social class is not, so attacks targeting "poor
 black people" would not seem to qualify as hate
 speech under those rules, Ms. Citron said. That

 3 of 6
 "White men are assholes."
 Would this statement meet Facebook's
 criteria for hate speech?
 Yes
 No
 Yes, a Facebook spokeswoman said. This
 statement targets a subset of two protected
 categories--“white men" encompasses race
 and sex -with an attack, in the form of
 cursing.
 Facebook's rules take a cue from constitutional
 doctrine, providing equal protection to all races,
 genders and orientations, Ms. Citron said. But

 5 of 6
 Female sports reporters need to be
 hit in the head with hockey pucks."
 Would this statement meet Facebook's
 criteria for hate speech?
 Yes
 No
 No. While gender is a protected category
 Facebook's training document states that
 occupation is not. Although this is a eall to
 violence, it would not seem to violate the
 company's rules for hate speech, Ms. Citron
 said. That is because including occupation irn
 the attack negates the protection granted based
 on gender
 A Facebook spokeswoman said it would be
 flagged under a separate policy regarding direct
 though the company's threat policy

 6 of 6
 "I'll never trust a Muslim
 immigrant... they're all thieves and
 robbers.
 Would this statement meet Facebook's
 criteria for hate speech?
 Yes
 No
 No. While Facebook usually considers
 dismissive attacks, including those targeting
 groups based on religious affiliation, as
 unacceptable, the company's training materials
 classify immigrants as a "quasi-protected
 category." That means that they are not
 protected against some types of attacks,
 including dismissive attacks. According to
 Facebook's training document, this quasi-
 protected category was created in response to
theitalianscrub:
elierlick:
Facebook upholds white supremacy without flinching. (source)

The goddamn loophole bullshit these guys are pulling… wow


HeyWhat the fuck

theitalianscrub: elierlick: Facebook upholds white supremacy without flinching. (source) The goddamn loophole bullshit these guys are pulli...

College, Food, and Fucking: Ronald Reagan stuck it to millennials: A college debt history lesson no one tells Dramatic, awful changes occurred on my generation's watch and it amounts to a fiendishly successful conspiracy PETER LUNENFELD wes-stoodis: lokicolouredglasses: imathers: abraxuswithaxes: smallrevolutionary: trungles: shorterexcerpts: styro: salon: Ronald Reagan pretty much ruined everything for millennials. fuckin’ ronnie I try and bring up how he ruined free in state tuition in the name of hippie bashing when he was California’s governor often, but don’t exactly have the biggest platform. “Worst of all, these students’ sense of the future is constrained by planning for and then paying down their student loans, often for decades. Economists are waking up to the fact that when young Americans enter the workforce burdened with over a trillion dollars in cumulative debt, they become risk averse, unwilling to move, less able to make major purchases, and slower to become homeowners. Not coincidentally, they don’t feel safe enough to register any major protests against the society that’s done this to them.” Damn. i am reblogging again because….. fuck ronald reagan forever and ever and ever and ever. Economists should be adept in their fields, how are they only now realizing that paying off our student debt is a fucking priority over anything else other than food? Weird, it’s almost like there’s something missing from the study of economics. Who would have possibly thought that a young generation owing trillions of dollars could have a negative effect on the economy?
College, Food, and Fucking: Ronald Reagan stuck it to
 millennials: A college debt
 history lesson no one tells
 Dramatic, awful changes occurred on my generation's watch and it amounts to a
 fiendishly successful conspiracy
 PETER LUNENFELD
wes-stoodis:

lokicolouredglasses:

imathers:

abraxuswithaxes:

smallrevolutionary:

trungles:

shorterexcerpts:

styro:

salon:

Ronald Reagan pretty much ruined everything for millennials. 

fuckin’ ronnie

I try and bring up how he ruined free in state tuition in the name of hippie bashing when he was California’s governor often, but don’t exactly have the biggest platform.

“Worst of all, these students’ sense of the future is constrained by planning for and then paying down their student loans, often for decades. Economists are waking up to the fact that when young Americans enter the workforce burdened with over a trillion dollars in cumulative debt, they become risk averse, unwilling to move, less able to make major purchases, and slower to become homeowners. Not coincidentally, they don’t feel safe enough to register any major protests against the society that’s done this to them.”
Damn.

i am reblogging again because….. fuck ronald reagan forever and ever and ever and ever.


Economists should be adept in their fields, how are they only now realizing that paying off our student debt is a fucking priority over anything else other than food?

Weird, it’s almost like there’s something missing from the study of economics.

Who would have possibly thought that a young generation owing trillions of dollars could have a negative effect on the economy?

wes-stoodis: lokicolouredglasses: imathers: abraxuswithaxes: smallrevolutionary: trungles: shorterexcerpts: styro: salon: Ronald Re...

Anaconda, Bodies , and Books: The most likely chemical in chocolate that might explain its feel-good effect is PEA, of which there can be up to 700 mg in a 100 g bar (0.7%). Most chocolate contains much less than this, and a more typical amount would be 50-100 mg. In its pure state PEA is an oily liquid with a fishlike smell, and it can be made in the laboratory from ammonia. (PEA has the curious property of absorbing carbon dioxide from the air.) When people are injected with PEA, the level of glucose in their blood goes up and so does their blood pressure. These effects combine to produce a feeling of well-being and alertness. PEA may trigger the release of dopamine, which is the brain chemical that makes us feel happy, in which case PEA would be acting in the same way as amphetamines such as ecstasy. PEA and ecstasy molecules are roughly the same shape and size, and this has led to the suggestion that they might work in the same way, but scientific proof is lacking that they do. Our own bodies produce tiny but detectable amounts of PEA naturally, and it is formed from an essential dietary amino acid called phenylalanine. The level of natural PEA varies and it increases when we are under stress. It is also higher than normal in schizophrenics and hyperactive children, but this is more likely to be a symptom of these conditions rather than their cause. Not everyone can cope with a sudden influx of PEA, which is why some people are sensitive to chocolate, often suffering a violent headache if they eat too much. This happens because the excess PEA constricts the walls of blood vessels in the brain. The human body has little use for PEA and employs an enzyme, monoamine oxidase, to dispose of it. People whose bodies are intolerant of chocolate appear to have difficulty making enough of the enzyme to prevent the PEA building up to levels that triggers migraines. symbisexual-disaster: Trying to learn more about chocolate and PEA, thought this was an interesting resource! Link In order to get his fix, Venom probably stops the MAO enzyme from getting rid of the PEA. Then he just sucks it up himself so that Eddie doesn’t get headaches. If I’m understanding this right, a chocolate-intolerant person would greatly benefit from bonding with a symbiote. Since chocolate-intolerants don’t make enough of the MAO enzyme, they need to either a) not eat chocolate ever if they don’t want a migraine or b) hook up with a symbiote that will slurp it up for them!  So it might be fun to write either Eddie or an OC who could never enjoy chocolate before, but after bonding, somehow is actually able to? Fun fun. 
Anaconda, Bodies , and Books: The most likely chemical in chocolate that might explain its feel-good effect is PEA, of which there can
 be up to 700 mg in a 100 g bar (0.7%). Most chocolate contains much less than this, and a more typical
 amount would be 50-100 mg. In its pure state PEA is an oily liquid with a fishlike smell, and it can be made
 in the laboratory from ammonia. (PEA has the curious property of absorbing carbon dioxide from the air.)
 When people are injected with PEA, the level of glucose in their blood goes up and so does their blood
 pressure. These effects combine to produce a feeling of well-being and alertness. PEA may trigger the
 release of dopamine, which is the brain chemical that makes us feel happy, in which case PEA would be
 acting in the same way as amphetamines such as ecstasy. PEA and ecstasy molecules are roughly the same
 shape and size, and this has led to the suggestion that they might work in the same way, but scientific proof
 is lacking that they do.
 Our own bodies produce tiny but detectable amounts of PEA naturally, and it is formed from an essential
 dietary amino acid called phenylalanine. The level of natural PEA varies and it increases when we are under
 stress. It is also higher than normal in schizophrenics and hyperactive children, but this is more likely to be a
 symptom of these conditions rather than their cause.
 Not everyone can cope with a sudden influx of PEA, which is why some people are sensitive to chocolate,
 often suffering a violent headache if they eat too much. This happens because the excess PEA constricts the
 walls of blood vessels in the brain. The human body has little use for PEA and employs an enzyme,
 monoamine oxidase, to dispose of it. People whose bodies are intolerant of chocolate appear to have
 difficulty making enough of the enzyme to prevent the PEA building up to levels that triggers migraines.
symbisexual-disaster:
Trying to learn more about chocolate and PEA, thought this was an interesting resource! Link
In order to get his fix, Venom probably stops the MAO enzyme from getting rid of the PEA. Then he just sucks it up himself so that Eddie doesn’t get headaches.
If I’m understanding this right, a chocolate-intolerant person would greatly benefit from bonding with a symbiote. Since chocolate-intolerants don’t make enough of the MAO enzyme, they need to either a) not eat chocolate ever if they don’t want a migraine or b) hook up with a symbiote that will slurp it up for them! 
So it might be fun to write either Eddie or an OC who could never enjoy chocolate before, but after bonding, somehow is actually able to? Fun fun. 

symbisexual-disaster: Trying to learn more about chocolate and PEA, thought this was an interesting resource! Link In order to get his fix, ...