Squad

You and the homies in your crew.
ลธหœโ€š
ลธหœโ€š

ลธหœโ€š

my childhood
my childhood

my childhood

the casting
the casting

the casting

poped
poped

poped

joel
joel

joel

like comment share
like comment share

like comment share

momentous
momentous

momentous

were
were

were

yours
yours

yours

ons
ons

ons

๐Ÿ”ฅ | Latest

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Love, and Squad: theactioneer: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gerry Lopez Sandahl Bergman, Conan the Barbarian (1982) They look like a squad of posing cosplayers and i love it
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Love, and Squad: theactioneer: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gerry Lopez Sandahl Bergman, Conan the Barbarian (1982) They look like a squad of posing cosplayers and i love it

theactioneer: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gerry Lopez Sandahl Bergman, Conan the Barbarian (1982) They look like a squad of posing cosplayers ...

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, Iโ€™m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didnโ€™t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell โ€ฆ 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? Donโ€™t read that with a tone, donโ€™t read that as an attack. Thatโ€™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 doesnโ€™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 authorโ€™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 doesnโ€™t convince you, thereโ€™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. Heโ€™s broken literally every one of those rules. Heโ€™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 isnโ€™t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasnโ€™t his to distribute. Thatโ€™s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and thatโ€™s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, thatโ€™s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so thatโ€™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, heโ€™s on the hook for contempt, if he doesnโ€™t then heโ€™s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesnโ€™t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago heโ€™s committing grand larceny by fraud, because heโ€™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, โ€œhigh crimes and misdemeanorsโ€. 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 heโ€™s failing that job. Trumpโ€™s supporters probably believe heโ€™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 didnโ€™t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and theyโ€™ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. โ€œ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And heโ€™s failing that job. โ€œ I like how Bogleech doesnโ€™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 Itโ€™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. Thatโ€™s what โ€˜above reproachโ€™ means. An impossible standard, considering people โ€œreproachโ€ 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, Iโ€™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 saysย โ€œmerits thisโ€. 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 tenetsโ€ฆ Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You donโ€™t need to know the context, or any other point, when youโ€™re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trumpโ€™s execution, weโ€™re 5 paragraphs in and you havenโ€™t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, Iโ€™m guessing, because Iโ€™m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-โ€concoctingโ€ a response, and yet youโ€™re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isnโ€™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, doesnโ€™t mean theyโ€™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 Trumpโ€™s execution. Thatโ€™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,ย โ€œSo, click-bait subtitle that you donโ€™t see until youโ€™ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, hereโ€™s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,โ€ could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. Itโ€™s likeโ€ฆ itโ€™s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like,ย โ€œOh, seems you made a typo,โ€ youโ€™d jump in like,ย โ€œBut what about theyโ€™re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. Theyโ€™re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates itโ€. You and whatโ€™s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, yโ€™all keep sayingย โ€œbut what of the context?โ€ when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken.ย โ€œSure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.โ€ 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, Iโ€™m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didnโ€™t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell โ€ฆ 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? Donโ€™t read that with a tone, donโ€™t read that as an attack. Thatโ€™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 doesnโ€™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 authorโ€™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 doesnโ€™t convince you, thereโ€™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. Heโ€™s broken literally every one of those rules. Heโ€™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 isnโ€™t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasnโ€™t his to distribute. Thatโ€™s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and thatโ€™s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, thatโ€™s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so thatโ€™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, heโ€™s on the hook for contempt, if he doesnโ€™t then heโ€™s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesnโ€™t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago heโ€™s committing grand larceny by fraud, because heโ€™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, โ€œhigh crimes and misdemeanorsโ€. 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 heโ€™s failing that job. Trumpโ€™s supporters probably believe heโ€™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 didnโ€™t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and theyโ€™ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. โ€œ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And heโ€™s failing that job. โ€œ I like how Bogleech doesnโ€™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 Itโ€™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. Thatโ€™s what โ€˜above reproachโ€™ means. An impossible standard, considering people โ€œreproachโ€ 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, Iโ€™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 saysย โ€œmerits thisโ€. 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 tenetsโ€ฆ Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You donโ€™t need to know the context, or any other point, when youโ€™re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trumpโ€™s execution, weโ€™re 5 paragraphs in and you havenโ€™t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, Iโ€™m guessing, because Iโ€™m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-โ€concoctingโ€ a response, and yet youโ€™re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isnโ€™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, doesnโ€™t mean theyโ€™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 Trumpโ€™s execution. Thatโ€™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,ย โ€œSo, click-bait subtitle that you donโ€™t see until youโ€™ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, hereโ€™s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,โ€ could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. Itโ€™s likeโ€ฆ itโ€™s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like,ย โ€œOh, seems you made a typo,โ€ youโ€™d jump in like,ย โ€œBut what about theyโ€™re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. Theyโ€™re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates itโ€. You and whatโ€™s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, yโ€™all keep sayingย โ€œbut what of the context?โ€ when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken.ย โ€œSure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.โ€ 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: ...