jesussbabymomma

kennyvee:

kjuw89:

justplainsomething:

hermionegranger:

Real Time with Bill Maher: 6.6.14 — Anthony Weiner, Jim Geraghety, Nicolle Wallace

#FINALLYSOMEONESAYSIT

Holy shit, Anthony Weiner actually said something important.

It’s a miracle!

That’s been the Republican strategy since day one of Obama’s presidency. Block the President at every turn, then blame him for not getting anything done. In fact, here’s Newt Gingrich openly admitting to it.

That’s why Republicans block jobs bills — so they can blame Obama for the economy still sucking. They’ve blocked budgets, resulting in a government shutdown that they then tried to blame on Obama. They’ve tried over and over again to block Obamacare, and complain that it’s a failure as they work their asses off to try to make it fail.

It’s kindergarten politics, and we need to vote these schmucks out in November. A bunch of white guys throwing temper tantrums and shouting NO! to everything just because they don’t like the president is no way to run a government, especially if we’re going to continue to pretend to be one of the greatest nations on earth.

bamfmum

milkmomma:

apersnicketylemon:

confuesedmortal:

Can we just talk about how this kid puts every pro choice argument I’ve ever heard to shame?

LMAO NO SHE REALLY DOESN’T

Here’s why

1. A fetus is not sentient or aware and doesn’t care about whether it gets aborted

2. a fetus ISN’T a child

3. The latin root doesn’t actually matter

4. Abortions aren’t performed on 5 month fetuses ‘all the time’ because the only time they’re done after 20 weeks (4.5 months) is when the fetus is dead, actively dying, suffers severe abnormalities or will kill the pregnant person.

5.THE FETUSES RIGHTS DO NOTOVERRIGHT THE PREGNANT PERSONS RIGHTS. ANy right to life the fetus has DOES NOT override the pregnant persons right to bodily autonomy. Not now, not ever. So saying ‘is the mothers right to choose really more important than the rights the fetus was never given?’??? YES. THE PREGNANT PERSONS RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT USE THEIR BODY IS ALWAYS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYONE ELSES RIGHTS, WANTS OR DESIRES.

6. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, so a person consenting to the act of having sex does not mean they should be denied abortions.

7. 54% of the people getting abortions DID use contraception and did NOT have unprotected sex

8. Abortion IS a form or responsibility (Woops, another thing she’s conveniently glossed over)

9. Actually ‘hard case’ is more common. 1.75% areto IMMEDIATELY save the pregnant persons life, 3-5% are rape and incest, and 12% are for mental or physical health reasons BEFORE they become immediately life threatening. That’s a LOT more than what she claims and I have sources to back it up, she doesn’t.

10. Those health problems are actually myths and have been debunked NUMEROUS times by non-biased sources. There is a WHOLE POST I did debunking a lot more than what she claims and what she claims! (And the number is way, WAY lower than ‘17% of abortion recipients.)The Cancer institute says she’s wrong about the breast cancer thing.

11. The mood disorders thing is also bullshit, no major prospective studies support that. In fact studies found the fair opposite. More people feel relief than anything else!

12. Alcohol and drug abuse more common? Interesting how I can ONLY find this on pro life sites and very interesting how I see 2x more likely, 5x more likely, 4x more likely… the inconsistancy reeks of bullshit.

13. God is not something you should be bringing into the discussion as belief is varied and *gasp* many religious beliefs actually teach a pro choice stand point.

14. Dr. Suess was pro choice, Hortan Hears A Who was about the internment camps of the japanese and the vietnam war and his widow not only donates to planned parenthood but regularily SUE’S people who use the quote she did for pro life rallies.

So no. She hasn’t ‘put every pro choice argument to shame’. She’s proven she’s a child with NO concept of what abortion is or why people get them. She’s committed a copyright infringement, she’s regurgitated all the pro life rhetoric every pro choicer has heard a hundred times and she’s proven she can’t be bothered to actually research her topic correctly (Did she use lifenews or something? Because she failed to mention any sources for information and got an enormous number of things very, very wrong).

Sorry but this kid hasn’t got a fucking clue what they’re talking about.

What bothers me about this more than anything that no 12 year old would know about this/feel this strongly about this unless they’re heavily influenced by their parents or something…to me it seems as if some adults have made up her mind for her already, almost brainwashed her.

blackmarketanti-matter
prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.
High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.
But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.

High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.

But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

laugh-addict

eroticmirotic:

timemachineyeah:

huntokar:

pardonmewhileipanic:

jackpowerx:

hellhound-gytrash:

letshaveapantsoffdanceoff:

motivationforfitness:

r-dart:

My Dad isn’t a bad person, he’s just… old fashioned.

This is so much the outlook by many men on a woman’s hormonal fluctuation. As if there is no control. No matter what, women cannot have control of their bodies.

Your dad tells the fucking truth. The last thing America needs is a woman in charge.

Sorry ladies, I’m just saying what we’re all thinking. Women are cuntwaffles during their period.

I’m willing to bet that most people who are irritable are so because they’re uncomfortable or in pain - it’s really hard to be level-headed when you’re in gut-tearing amounts of pain.

The hormonal argument is the biggest load of crap - as if males don’t have hormones or don’t have a hormonal cycle. Actually, male hormone cycles are more frequent and less predictable.

http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/male-hormonal-cycles-andropause-1009127

I’m not putting this out there to put one sex above the other but rather to point out that “hur hur hormones!!!” is a really ridiculous reason to discredit and entire group of people, especially when we all have hormones and hormonal cycles.

So we shouldn’t allow a woman president because she supposedly loses her shit and becomes hyperaggressive once a month, but we regularly give power to men who lose their shit and become hyperaggressive whenever a woman rejects their advances.

Seems legit.

I’m not trying to be sexist, but let me use this super archaic view on hormones, coupled with sexist slurs meant to oppress women, all in defense of not giving them power

hurr hurr we’re all thinking it tho amirite

EAT. MY. SHIT.

We can’t let women have power because once a month they turn into TOTAL… dudes.

I’ve said this before and I’ll point it out again - 

Menstruation is caused by change in hormonal levels to stop the creation of a uterine lining and encourage the body to flush the lining out. The body does this by lowering estrogen levels and raising testosterone. 

Or, to put it more plainly “That time of the month” is when female hormones most closely resemble male hormones. So if (cis) women aren’t suited to office at “That time of the month” then (cis) men are NEVER suited to office.

If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time. 

And, on a final note, post-menopausal (cis) women are the most hormonally stable of all human demographics. They have fewer hormonal fluctuations of anyone, meaning older women like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would theoretically be among the least likely candidates to make an irrational decision due to hormonal fluctuations, and if we were basing our leadership decisions on hormone levels, then only women over fifty should ever be allowed to hold office. 

Reblogging hard for that last comment.