🔥 | Latest

Ass, Bad, and Bitch: kitfisto sandy cheeks would've voted trump that evil southern rat ass bitch thecouchwitch Sandy Cheeks is a pro-science feminist who lives in a foreign land that she respects the customs of and she would be offended you would even accuse her of this. varkarrus mr krabs would've voted trump lishadra Mr Krabs absolutely would've voted trump Mr. Krabs would not have voted for Trump because Mr. Krabs earned most of his money through hard work (and being a cheapskate and get rich quick schemes but those still require some effort on his part) whereas Trump inherited most of his wealth and thinks a million dollars is a small loan, Mr. Krabs would consider him an insult to richness for which he could not stand Plankton would've voted Trump You think he needs competition taking over the world? Face it folks. No one on Spongebob would vote for Trump. None of them. Face it. arcon Bubble Bass Shit. Dammit. Goddammit. Shit. God. Dammit. Fuck the-collecting-turnip Squilliam Fancyson would vote for Trump fgsshinyhoard okay im just gonna put down my things here Plankton would not want competition, he would not vote for him Krabs would never respect a guy who bankrupted himself four times, he would not vote for him Sandy Cheeks is an independent scientist receiving grants from academies to further her research in foreign lands, so she would never vote for him. Also, she would never respect a man who made such sexist comments since Spongebob did that once (to motivate his pet snail like a traditional sports coach) and she kicked HIS ass over a fucking field Patrick can't spell so he couldn't vote for anyone Spongebob is too nice and would never vote for anyone who used such inappropriate "bad words" during their campaign. Squidward is too lazy and defeatist to even vote because he thinks there would be no point. Pearl is a teenager and therefore too young to vote Larry Lobster is a trained medic and custodian and would not vote for anyone that crippled such services Bubble Bass WOULD vote for him because Bass is an arrogant self-entitled prick who enjoys deceiving others just for the sake of humiliating them, and would approve of such a person. Squilliam Fancyson would also vote for him because he's a wealthy narcissist. Mrs. Puff has a criminal record and is therefore not eligible to vote ohdebt Squidward is a full time minimum wage retail worker who is pro-union and anti-capitalist, and also a firm supporter and member of the fine arts community. He would actively vote against Trump, defeatist or not, and you can't convince me otherwise Things are heating up in the spongebob fandom (no political discourse allowed in the comments)
Ass, Bad, and Bitch: kitfisto
 sandy cheeks would've voted trump that evil
 southern rat ass bitch
 thecouchwitch
 Sandy Cheeks is a pro-science feminist who
 lives in a foreign land that she respects the
 customs of and she would be offended you
 would even accuse her of this.
 varkarrus
 mr krabs would've voted trump
 lishadra
 Mr Krabs absolutely would've voted trump
 Mr. Krabs would not have voted for Trump
 because Mr. Krabs earned most of his money
 through hard work (and being a cheapskate and
 get rich quick schemes but those still require
 some effort on his part) whereas Trump
 inherited most of his wealth and thinks a million
 dollars is a small loan, Mr. Krabs would
 consider him an insult to richness for which he
 could not stand
 Plankton would've voted Trump
 You think he needs competition taking over the
 world? Face it folks. No one on Spongebob
 would vote for Trump. None of them. Face it.
 arcon
 Bubble Bass
 Shit. Dammit. Goddammit. Shit. God. Dammit.
 Fuck
 the-collecting-turnip
 Squilliam Fancyson would vote for Trump
 fgsshinyhoard
 okay im just gonna put down my things here
 Plankton would not want competition, he
 would not vote for him
 Krabs would never respect a guy who
 bankrupted himself four times, he would not
 vote for him
 Sandy Cheeks is an independent scientist
 receiving grants from academies to further her
 research in foreign lands, so she would never
 vote for him. Also, she would never respect a
 man who made such sexist comments since
 Spongebob did that once (to motivate his pet
 snail like a traditional sports coach) and she
 kicked HIS ass over a fucking field
 Patrick can't spell so he couldn't vote for
 anyone
 Spongebob is too nice and would never vote
 for anyone who used such inappropriate "bad
 words" during their campaign.
 Squidward is too lazy and defeatist to even
 vote because he thinks there would be no point.
 Pearl is a teenager and therefore too young to
 vote
 Larry Lobster is a trained medic and custodian
 and would not vote for anyone that crippled
 such services
 Bubble Bass WOULD vote for him because
 Bass is an arrogant self-entitled prick who
 enjoys deceiving others just for the sake of
 humiliating them, and would approve of such a
 person.
 Squilliam Fancyson would also vote for him
 because he's a wealthy narcissist.
 Mrs. Puff has a criminal record and is
 therefore not eligible to vote
 ohdebt
 Squidward is a full time minimum wage retail
 worker who is pro-union and anti-capitalist, and
 also a firm supporter and member of the fine
 arts community. He would actively vote against
 Trump, defeatist or not, and you can't convince
 me otherwise
Things are heating up in the spongebob fandom (no political discourse allowed in the comments)

Things are heating up in the spongebob fandom (no political discourse allowed in the comments)

Ass, Bad, and Bitch: c3po sandy cheeks would ve voted trump that evil southern rat ass bitch Sandy Cheeks is a pro-science feminist who lives in a foreign land that she respects the customs of and she would be offended you would even accuse her of this. varkarrus mr krabs would've voted trump lishadra Mr Krabs absolutely would've voted trump. Mr. Krabs would not have voted for Trump because Mr. Krabs earned most of his money through hard work (and being a cheapskate and get rich quick schemes but those still require some effort on his part) whereas Trump inherited most of his wealth and thinks a million dollars is a small loan, Mr. Krabs would consider him an insult to richness for which he could not stand Plankton would've voted Trump. You think he needs competition taking over the world? Face it folks. No one on Spongebob would vote for Trump. None of them. Face it. legarcon Bubble Bass Shit. Dammit. Goddammit. Shit. God Dammit. Fuck. the-collecting-turnip Squilliam Fancyson would vote for Trump fgsshinyhoard okay im just gonna put down my things here Plankton would not want competition, he would not vote for him Krabs would never respect a guy who upted not vote for him himself four times, he would Sandy Cheeks is an independent scientist re- ceiving grants from academies to further her research in foreign lands, so she would never vote for him. Also, she would never respect a man who made such sexist comments since Spongebob did that once (to motivate his pet snail like a traditional sports coach) and she kicked HIS ass over a fucking field. Patrick can't spell so he couldn't vote for anyone Spongebob is too nice and would never vote for anyone who used such inappropriate "bad words" during their campaign. Squidward is too lazy and defeatist to even vote because he thinks there would be no point. Pearl is a teenager and therefore too young to vote Larry Lobster is a trained medic and custodian and would not vote for anyone that crippled such services. Bubble Bass WOULD vote for him because Bass is an arrogant self-entitled prick who enjoys deceiving others just for the sake of humiliating them, and would approve of such a person. Squilliam Fancyson would also vote for him because he's a wealthy narcissist. Mrs. Puff has a criminal record and is therefore not eligible to vote ohdebt Squidward is a full time minimum wage retail worker who is pro-union and anti-capitalist, and also a firm supporter and member of the fine arts community. He would actively vote against Trump, defeatist or not, and you can't convince me otherwise Gary is a snail, which is seemingly the cat of the Spongebob universe, so he can't vote. However, Gary is more intelligent than almost every character on that show, and would never vote for Trump if he could Source: c3po #i fucking died # she has a record 332,823 notes Squidward is a socialist Change My Mindtm
Ass, Bad, and Bitch: c3po
 sandy cheeks would ve voted trump that evil
 southern rat ass bitch
 Sandy Cheeks is a pro-science feminist who
 lives in a foreign land that she respects the
 customs of and she would be offended you
 would even accuse her of this.
 varkarrus
 mr krabs would've voted trump
 lishadra
 Mr Krabs absolutely would've voted trump.
 Mr. Krabs would not have voted for Trump
 because Mr. Krabs earned most of his money
 through hard work (and being a cheapskate
 and get rich quick schemes but those still
 require some effort on his part) whereas
 Trump inherited most of his wealth and thinks
 a million dollars is a small loan, Mr. Krabs
 would consider him an insult to richness for
 which he could not stand
 Plankton would've voted Trump.
 You think he needs competition taking
 over the world? Face it folks. No one on
 Spongebob would vote for Trump. None
 of them. Face it.
 legarcon
 Bubble Bass
 Shit. Dammit. Goddammit. Shit. God
 Dammit. Fuck.
 the-collecting-turnip
 Squilliam Fancyson would vote for Trump
 fgsshinyhoard
 okay im just gonna put down my things here
 Plankton would not want competition, he
 would not vote for him
 Krabs would never respect a guy who
 upted
 not vote for him
 himself four times, he would
 Sandy Cheeks is an independent scientist re-
 ceiving grants from academies to further her
 research in foreign lands, so she would never
 vote for him. Also, she would never respect a
 man who made such sexist comments since
 Spongebob did that once (to motivate his pet
 snail like a traditional sports coach) and she
 kicked HIS ass over a fucking field.
 Patrick can't spell so he couldn't vote
 for anyone
 Spongebob is too nice and would never vote
 for anyone who used such inappropriate "bad
 words" during their campaign.
 Squidward is too lazy and defeatist to
 even vote because he thinks there would
 be no point.
 Pearl is a teenager and therefore too
 young to vote
 Larry Lobster is a trained medic and
 custodian and would not vote for anyone that
 crippled such services.
 Bubble Bass WOULD vote for him because
 Bass is an arrogant self-entitled prick who
 enjoys deceiving others just for the sake
 of humiliating them, and would approve
 of such a person.
 Squilliam Fancyson would also vote for him
 because
 he's a wealthy narcissist.
 Mrs. Puff has a criminal record and is
 therefore not eligible to vote
 ohdebt
 Squidward is a full time minimum wage retail
 worker who is pro-union and anti-capitalist,
 and also a firm supporter and member of the
 fine arts community. He would actively vote
 against Trump, defeatist or not, and you can't
 convince me otherwise
 Gary is a snail, which is seemingly the cat
 of the Spongebob universe, so he can't vote.
 However, Gary is more intelligent than almost
 every character on that show, and would never
 vote for Trump if he could
 Source: c3po #i fucking died
 # she has a record
 332,823 notes
Squidward is a socialist Change My Mindtm

Squidward is a socialist Change My Mindtm

Fake, Fucking, and Girls: a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy I'm going to save up for a new motorcycle by running a scam where I bet straight dudes at bars twenty bucks that I can get a girl's number in under five minutes and then politely walk up her and say, "I just bet that asshole twenty bucks that I could get your number. I'll split it with you if you pretend to laugh like I just said a good pick up line and then write a fake number on my hand." Like, I never understood those kind of bets in those shitty teen movies. Everybody loves being part of a scheme, man. Use your head whoamiamneko If anyone ever does this to me l'll call them out on being a con artist a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy Joke's on you, buddy. That'll only have consequences the first, what, couple dozern times? I can take a punch But then eventually, l'll have money for the bike, and whenever I get called out, I'Il just speed off, and, sure, maybe I crash and die in a gutter and the police can't figure out why I have hundreds of fake phone numbers stuffed in my jacket and it launches a huge investigation that becomes sort of a local legend, but you know whose problem that is? Not fucking mine Because l'm a slutty motorcycle ghost, and who's gonna' stop me then? The ghost cops? Nice try. Everybody knows cops can't become ghosts because they just go straight to hell. It's basic math whoamiamneko Moral of the story, don't be a con artist or you will die in a horrible accident and become a lonely ghost a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy First of all, don't you ever accuse me of having morals, narrative or otherwise, ever again And second, where did I say l'd be lonely? I'd be a ghost on a motorcycle. That's the sexiest thing that there is. You look me in the eyes and tell me you wouldn't bone Ghostrider. Look me in the goddamn eyes Source: a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy How to become a legend
Fake, Fucking, and Girls: a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy
 I'm going to save up for a new motorcycle by running a scam where I bet straight
 dudes at bars twenty bucks that I can get a girl's number in under five minutes and
 then politely walk up her and say, "I just bet that asshole twenty bucks that I could get
 your number. I'll split it with you if you pretend to laugh like I just said a good pick up
 line and then write a fake number on my hand."
 Like, I never understood those kind of bets in those shitty teen movies. Everybody
 loves being part of a scheme, man. Use your head
 whoamiamneko
 If anyone ever does this to me l'll call them out on being a con artist
 a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy
 Joke's on you, buddy. That'll only have consequences the first, what, couple dozern
 times? I can take a punch
 But then eventually, l'll have money for the bike, and whenever I get called out, I'Il just
 speed off, and, sure, maybe I crash and die in a gutter and the police can't figure out
 why I have hundreds of fake phone numbers stuffed in my jacket and it launches a
 huge investigation that becomes sort of a local legend, but you know whose problem
 that is? Not fucking mine
 Because l'm a slutty motorcycle ghost, and who's gonna' stop me then? The ghost
 cops? Nice try. Everybody knows cops can't become ghosts because they just go
 straight to hell. It's basic math
 whoamiamneko
 Moral of the story, don't be a con artist or you will die in a horrible accident and
 become a lonely ghost
 a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy
 First of all, don't you ever accuse me of having morals, narrative or otherwise, ever
 again
 And second, where did I say l'd be lonely? I'd be a ghost on a motorcycle. That's the
 sexiest thing that there is. You look me in the eyes and tell me you wouldn't bone
 Ghostrider. Look me in the goddamn eyes
 Source: a-fragile-sort-of-anarchy
How to become a legend

How to become a legend

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced t...

Anaconda, Arguing, and Books: SENSATIONA $1.50 US SOMETHING WOT FRivOLOUS ITS NOT FAIR TO ACCUSE ME OF VANITY! BECAVSE IAM A MAN JUST THRIVE 3OTw siryouarebeingmocked: darkado: mornington-the-crescent: mightyoctopus: siryouarebeingmocked: cisnowflake: anti-capitalistlesbianwitch: 100 Women: The artist redrawing ‘sexist’ comic book covers An artist in India is challenging sexist drawings of women in comic books by parodying them using male heroes in poses typically associated with women. She-Hulk has superhuman strength and speed and is one of the most formidable hand-to-hand combatants in the Marvel world. Like Hulk, not only does she have physical power, she’s also completely green. Yet, on a 1991 comic book cover, she is shown in a seductive pose, wearing a G-string bikini, with her curves sharply accentuated. Indian artist Shreya Arora was shocked when she saw the image. “For Hulk, the visual representation focuses on his strength. For She-Hulk, all we see is an emphasis on sexuality,” says Arora, who grew up reading comic books. The 21-year-old graphic designer decided she wanted to flip the narrative. Why is depicting women as sexy considered sexist? The irony, of course, is that there already was a Spider-Man cover like that second one. Also, this is literally judging a book by its cover. Heck, you’re even ignoring the self-aware speech bubble. The book actually starts with She-Hulk on a beach, so the cover is actually appropriate to the contents. And can I just- LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT. Yes, clearly we needed a view of Tony’s skintight bodysuit. This is doing the same thing as the Hawkeye Initiative. It’s not clever or original. There are blogs I’d expect to caption a Spiderman picture with “LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT.” and then there is this blog. Guess I was wrong. The artist also completely failed to get the joke: August, 1991, Demi Moore appears on the cover of “Vanity Fair” magazine, nude and pregnant. It caused quite an outrage, but the controversy lead to increased sales. In December of the same year, Marvel decided to riff on that idea, showing She-Hulk in the same pose, with a beach ball instead of a pregnant belly. She even says, “It’s not FAIR to accuse me of VANITY“, a not-so-subtle nod to the famous magazine cover. tl;dr: Artist is offended by someone else’s work, not understanding anything about the history or concept behind the artwork. I’m usually here for pointing out that men can be sexualized like women but wow you guys really chose the wrong thing to argue with. Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era? Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older. Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. Even a quick Google search will show that they tried to sell the the comics with sex appeal and She-Hulk admitting that doesn’t make it any better. Comepltely unrelated to the story Entirely nude Completely unnecessary (as stated by She-Hulk) I don’t think I need to explain why these are much more gratuitous than Spidey or Tony. Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era?OP didn’t make distinctions about era.Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older.The Spider-Woman cover is from 2014. That Spidey web-ball cover is from 2000 or so. She-hulk is from 1991.So, even if I give you the whopping two years between the Spider-Woman cover and Civil War 2, OP’s range still covers the time period of that Spidey cover.But in the interests of fairness, lets take a gander at 90s Iron Man.Look at that cyber-bulge and those cyber-abs.Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. You mean the light-hearted, self-aware comic where the fanservice is clearly a joke, and the character still has choice and agency? How does that represent all female-led comics? At least if they had used a few Catwoman Jim Balent covers, they might’ve had some ground, seeing as he actually seems to have a thing for leather, latex, and lace. Of course, these days Shulk has more conventional covers, which explains why the artist had to go back 25+ years to find them.Also, are you absolutely sure it’s every issue?Every single one?Wow, Electro is ripped here. I don’t need to explain the Bugs Bunny ref, do I?This isn’t even an actual comic cover, it’s Frank Cho fanart. If there’s so much actual examples, why is she using a non-cover? The parody artist even admits she’s focusing on the visuals. People who get bent out of shape because of comic book covers really have too much time on their hands.
Anaconda, Arguing, and Books: SENSATIONA
 $1.50 US
 SOMETHING
 WOT FRivOLOUS
 ITS NOT FAIR
 TO ACCUSE ME
 OF VANITY!
 BECAVSE
 IAM A MAN
 JUST THRIVE
 3OTw
siryouarebeingmocked:

darkado:

mornington-the-crescent:

mightyoctopus:

siryouarebeingmocked:

cisnowflake:

anti-capitalistlesbianwitch:




100 Women: The artist redrawing ‘sexist’ comic book covers



An artist in India is challenging sexist drawings of women in comic books by parodying them using male heroes in poses typically associated with women.
She-Hulk has superhuman strength and speed and is one of the most formidable hand-to-hand combatants in the Marvel world.
Like Hulk, not only does she have physical power, she’s also completely green.
Yet, on a 1991 comic book cover, she is shown in a seductive pose, wearing a G-string bikini, with her curves sharply accentuated.
Indian artist Shreya Arora was shocked when she saw the image.
“For Hulk, the visual representation focuses on his strength. For She-Hulk, all we see is an emphasis on sexuality,” says Arora, who grew up reading comic books.
The 21-year-old graphic designer decided she wanted to flip the narrative.



Why is depicting women as sexy considered sexist? 

The irony, of course, is that there already was a Spider-Man cover like that second one.
Also, this is literally judging a book by its cover. Heck, you’re even ignoring the 

self-aware speech bubble. The book actually starts with She-Hulk on a beach, so the cover is actually appropriate to the contents. And can I just-

LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT.
Yes, clearly we needed a view of Tony’s skintight bodysuit.
This is doing the same thing as the Hawkeye Initiative. It’s not clever or original.

There are blogs I’d expect to caption a Spiderman picture with “LOOK AT SPIDEY’S CROTCH. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT.” and then there is this blog. Guess I was wrong.

The artist also completely failed to get the joke: 
August, 1991, Demi Moore appears on the cover of “Vanity Fair” magazine, nude and pregnant. It caused quite an outrage, but the controversy lead to increased sales.
In December of the same year, Marvel decided to riff on that idea, showing She-Hulk in the same pose, with a beach ball instead of a pregnant belly. She even says, “It’s not FAIR to accuse me of VANITY“, a not-so-subtle nod to the famous magazine cover.
tl;dr: Artist is offended by someone else’s work, not understanding anything about the history or concept behind the artwork.


I’m usually here for pointing out that men can be sexualized like women but wow you guys really chose the wrong thing to argue with. Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era? Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older. Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single  issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. Even a quick Google search will show that they tried to sell the the comics with sex appeal and She-Hulk admitting that doesn’t make it any better.
Comepltely unrelated to the story
Entirely nude
Completely unnecessary (as stated by She-Hulk)
I don’t think I need to explain why these are much more gratuitous than Spidey or Tony.

Sure, Spidey has a nice crotch and Tony is in a bodysuit, but I do really need to point out that not all of these comics are even from the same era?OP didn’t make distinctions about era.Using Civil War II is ridiculous considering it came out only two years when others are over two decades older.The Spider-Woman cover is from 2014. That Spidey web-ball cover is from 2000 or so. She-hulk is from 1991.So, even if I give you the whopping two years between the Spider-Woman cover and Civil War 2, OP’s range still covers the time period of that Spidey cover.But in the interests of fairness, lets take a gander at 90s Iron Man.Look at that cyber-bulge and those cyber-abs.Also, trying to say that the She-Hulk cover is a simple nod could be acceptable if they didn’t do this for every single issue of The Sensational She-Hulk. You mean the light-hearted, self-aware comic where the fanservice is clearly a joke, and the character still has choice and agency? How does that represent all female-led comics? At least if they had used a few Catwoman Jim Balent covers, they might’ve had some ground, seeing as he actually seems to have a thing for leather, latex, and lace. Of course, these days Shulk has more conventional covers, which explains why the artist had to go back 25+ years to find them.Also, are you absolutely sure it’s every issue?Every single one?Wow, Electro is ripped here. I don’t need to explain the Bugs Bunny ref, do I?This isn’t even an actual comic cover, it’s Frank Cho fanart. If there’s so much actual examples, why is she using a non-cover? The parody artist even admits she’s focusing on the visuals. 

People who get bent out of shape because of comic book covers really have too much time on their hands.

siryouarebeingmocked: darkado: mornington-the-crescent: mightyoctopus: siryouarebeingmocked: cisnowflake: anti-capitalistlesbianwitch:...