🔥 | Latest

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: ...

Africa, Bitch, and Cats: Nassim B. 4 months ago I had a cat that used to sleep with me, and once she had given birth to 4 kittens, she brought them to me at night to bed, so I got scared to smash them by accident and went to sleep downstairs in the living room, after 10 mins she comes to sleep with me, then goes upstairs and bring her kittens one by one. can we call that trust? Reply 5201 nitethekitten: flowercrownsnstuff: awanderingpig: claricechiarasorcha: meggannn: how can ppl say cats are heartless tbh I once stayed at a game reserve in South Africa, and they had three cheetahs – two males and one female. The boys stuck together (they were brothers), but female cheetahs are solitary, save for when they are raising cubs. Which is hard work for cheetahs, because they don’t/can’t den, she’s working constantly to protect/move her cubs, as well as feeding both them and herself. Now, these cheetahs ARE in a private reserve, but they’re still essentially wild. But they are more or less accustomed to the presence of people. And this cheetah, Ketswiri, got very badly injured in her leg one time, which usually would be fatal to a cheetah. The staff at the reserve helped her. Another time, she was starving, and they provided her a fresh antelope carcass. And she remembered this, because the science officer was telling us how one time he was watching Ketswiri and her cubs, and she wandered over and dumped all her cubs at his feet, and walked off. Like “watch my kids, I need some me time.” And he was panicking like COME BACK I CAN’T BABYSIT YOUR KIDS WTF Half of the comments are about cats giving birth on top of or next to their owners and I’m not crying at all it’s so funny though because domesticated cats are aggressively social in raising their young so basically op’s cat was like bitch these are your kids too, where tf you think you’re going??? A long time ago there was a stray cat that visited us pretty often. She kinda became our cat. She got pregnant, and gave birth in a little hole under our AC unit outside. One night it started pouring down rain. Me and my parents were kinda worried because we were sure that their little den would flood. So we pulled back the blinds to our sliding glass door. Low and behold there’s mama cat, sitting on our patio and staring up at us, desperation in her eyes. She meowed at us and when we went out she led us to her babies. We were right- their nest had started flooding. We pulled them out and brought them inside, and mama seemed so relieved and happy. I think about this a lot when people say cats are stupid, or heartless. She knew to come to us for help. She knew we would help her. Even if we hadn’t went to look I’m sure she would have screamed at the door loud enough for us to know something was wrong. Cats are amazing, wonderful creatures.
Africa, Bitch, and Cats: Nassim B. 4 months ago
 I had a cat that used to sleep with me, and once she had given birth to 4 kittens, she
 brought them to me at night to bed, so I got scared to smash them by accident and went
 to sleep downstairs in the living room, after 10 mins she comes to sleep with me, then
 goes upstairs and bring her kittens one by one. can we call that trust?
 Reply 5201
nitethekitten:
flowercrownsnstuff:

awanderingpig:

claricechiarasorcha:

meggannn:

how can ppl say cats are heartless tbh


I once stayed at a game reserve in South Africa, and they had three cheetahs – two males and one female. The boys stuck together (they were brothers), but female cheetahs are solitary, save for when they are raising cubs. Which is hard work for cheetahs, because they don’t/can’t den, she’s working constantly to protect/move her cubs, as well as feeding both them and herself.
Now, these cheetahs ARE in a private reserve, but they’re still essentially wild. But they are more or less accustomed to the presence of people. And this cheetah, Ketswiri, got very badly injured in her leg one time, which usually would be fatal to a cheetah. The staff at the reserve helped her. Another time, she was starving, and they provided her a fresh antelope carcass. And she remembered this, because the science officer was telling us how one time he was watching Ketswiri and her cubs, and she wandered over and dumped all her cubs at his feet, and walked off. Like “watch my kids, I need some me time.” And he was panicking like COME BACK I CAN’T BABYSIT YOUR KIDS WTF


Half of the comments are about cats giving birth on top of or next to their owners and I’m not crying at all

it’s so funny though because domesticated cats are aggressively social in raising their young so basically op’s cat was like bitch these are your kids too, where tf you think you’re going???


A long time ago there was a stray cat that visited us pretty often. She kinda became our cat. She got pregnant, and gave birth in a little hole under our AC unit outside. 
One night it started pouring down rain. Me and my parents were kinda worried because we were sure that their little den would flood. So we pulled back the blinds to our sliding glass door. 
Low and behold there’s mama cat, sitting on our patio and staring up at us, desperation in her eyes. She meowed at us and when we went out she led us to her babies. We were right- their nest had started flooding. We pulled them out and brought them inside, and mama seemed so relieved and happy. 
I think about this a lot when people say cats are stupid, or heartless. She knew to come to us for help. She knew we would help her. Even if we hadn’t went to look I’m sure she would have screamed at the door loud enough for us to know something was wrong. 
Cats are amazing, wonderful creatures.

nitethekitten: flowercrownsnstuff: awanderingpig: claricechiarasorcha: meggannn: how can ppl say cats are heartless tbh I once stayed ...

Being Alone, Beautiful, and Cats: The 10O Most Beautiful Words in Ailurophile: A cat-lover emblage: A gathering. Becoming: Attr Beleaguer: To exhaust with attacks Brood: To think alone ng Bungalow: A small, cozy cottage Chatoyant: Like a cat's eye ely: Attractive Conflate: To blend together Cynosure: A focal point of admiration. Dalliance: A brief love affair Demesne: Dominion, territory Demure: Shy and reserved Denouement: The resolution of a mystery Desuetude: Disuse. Desultory: Slow, sluggish. Diaphanous: Filmy Dissemble ive Dulcet: Sweet, sugary. Ebullience: Bubbling enthusiasm. Effervescent: Bubbly Efflorescence: Flowering, blooming. Elision: Dropping a sound or syllable in a word r: Eloquence: Beauty and persuasion in speech. Embrocation: Rubbing on a lotion. Emollient: A softener Ephemeral: Short-lived Epiphany: A sudden revelation. Erstwhile: At one time, for a time Ethereal: Gaseous, invisible but detectable Evanescent: Vanishing quickly, lasting a very short time Evocative: Suggestive Fetching:Pretty Felicity: Pleasantness Forbearance: Withholding response to provocation. Fugacious: Fleeting hifty, sneaky Gambol: To skip or leap about joyfully Glamour: Beauty. Gossamer: The finest piece of thread, a spider's silk n: Harbinger: Messenger with news of the future Imbrication: Overlapping and forming a regular pattern. Imbroglio: An altercation or complicated situation. Imbue: To infuse, instill. Incipient: Beginning, in an early stage Ineffable: Unutterable, inexpressible Ingénue: A naive young woman. Inglenook: A cozy nook by the hearth. Insouciance: Blithe nonchalance Inure: To become jaded Labyrinthine: Twisting and turning Lagniappe: A special kind of gift. Lagoon: A small gulf or inlet. Languor: Listlessness, inactivity Lassitude: Weariness, listlessness. Lilt: To move musically or lively Lissome: Slender and graceful. Lithe: Slender and flexible. ve Mellifluous: Sweet sounding. Moiety: One of two equal parts. Mondegreen: A slip of the ear Murmurous: Murmuring Nemesis:An unconquerable archenemy Offing: The sea between the horizon and the offshore Onomatopoeia: A word that sounds like its meaning Opulent: Lush, luxuriant. Palimpsest: A manuscript written over earlier ones Panacea: A solution for all problems Panoply: A complete set. Pastiche: An art work combining materials from various sources. Penumbra: A half-shadow Petrichor: The smell of earth after rain. Plethora:A large quantity. Propinquity: An inclination. Pyrrhic: Successful with heavy losses. Quintessential: Most essential Ratatouille: A spicy French stew. Ravel: To knit or unknit. Redolent: Fragrant. Riparian: By the bank of a stream. Ripple: A very small wave Scintilla: A spark or very small thing Sempiternal: Eternal Seraglio: Rich, luxurious oriental palace or harem. Serendipity: Finding something nice while looking for something else Summery: Light, delicate or warm and sunny Sumptuous: Lush, luxurious. Surreptitious: Secretive, sneaky Susquehanna: A river in Pennsylvania Susurrous: Whispering, hissing Talisman: A good luck charm. Tintinnabulation: Tinkling. Umbrella: Protection from sun or rain. Untoward: Unseemly, inappropriate. Vestigial: In trace amounts Wafture: Waving Wherewithal: The means. Woebegone: Sorrowful, downcast THE META PICTURE laughoutloud-club: Beautiful English Words
Being Alone, Beautiful, and Cats: The 10O Most Beautiful
 Words in
 Ailurophile: A cat-lover
 emblage: A gathering.
 Becoming: Attr
 Beleaguer: To exhaust with attacks
 Brood: To think alone
 ng
 Bungalow: A small, cozy cottage
 Chatoyant: Like a cat's eye
 ely: Attractive
 Conflate: To blend together
 Cynosure: A focal point of admiration.
 Dalliance: A brief love affair
 Demesne: Dominion, territory
 Demure: Shy and reserved
 Denouement: The resolution of a mystery
 Desuetude: Disuse.
 Desultory: Slow, sluggish.
 Diaphanous: Filmy
 Dissemble
 ive
 Dulcet: Sweet, sugary.
 Ebullience: Bubbling enthusiasm.
 Effervescent: Bubbly
 Efflorescence: Flowering, blooming.
 Elision: Dropping a sound or syllable in a word
 r:
 Eloquence: Beauty and persuasion in speech.
 Embrocation: Rubbing on a lotion.
 Emollient: A softener
 Ephemeral: Short-lived
 Epiphany: A sudden revelation.
 Erstwhile: At one time, for a time
 Ethereal: Gaseous, invisible but detectable
 Evanescent: Vanishing quickly, lasting a very short time
 Evocative: Suggestive
 Fetching:Pretty
 Felicity: Pleasantness
 Forbearance: Withholding response to provocation.
 Fugacious: Fleeting
 hifty, sneaky
 Gambol: To skip or leap about joyfully
 Glamour: Beauty.
 Gossamer: The finest piece of thread, a spider's silk
 n:
 Harbinger: Messenger with news of the future
 Imbrication: Overlapping and forming a regular pattern.
 Imbroglio: An altercation or complicated situation.
 Imbue: To infuse, instill.
 Incipient: Beginning, in an early stage
 Ineffable: Unutterable, inexpressible
 Ingénue: A naive young woman.
 Inglenook: A cozy nook by the hearth.
 Insouciance: Blithe nonchalance
 Inure: To become jaded
 Labyrinthine: Twisting and turning
 Lagniappe: A special kind of gift.
 Lagoon: A small gulf or inlet.
 Languor: Listlessness, inactivity
 Lassitude: Weariness, listlessness.
 Lilt: To move musically or lively
 Lissome: Slender and graceful.
 Lithe: Slender and flexible.
 ve
 Mellifluous: Sweet sounding.
 Moiety: One of two equal parts.
 Mondegreen: A slip of the ear
 Murmurous: Murmuring
 Nemesis:An unconquerable archenemy
 Offing: The sea between the horizon and the offshore
 Onomatopoeia: A word that sounds like its meaning
 Opulent: Lush, luxuriant.
 Palimpsest: A manuscript written over earlier ones
 Panacea: A solution for all problems
 Panoply: A complete set.
 Pastiche: An art work combining materials from various sources.
 Penumbra: A half-shadow
 Petrichor: The smell of earth after rain.
 Plethora:A large quantity.
 Propinquity: An inclination.
 Pyrrhic: Successful with heavy losses.
 Quintessential: Most essential
 Ratatouille: A spicy French stew.
 Ravel: To knit or unknit.
 Redolent: Fragrant.
 Riparian: By the bank of a stream.
 Ripple: A very small wave
 Scintilla: A spark or very small thing
 Sempiternal: Eternal
 Seraglio: Rich, luxurious oriental palace or harem.
 Serendipity: Finding something nice while looking for something else
 Summery: Light, delicate or warm and sunny
 Sumptuous: Lush, luxurious.
 Surreptitious: Secretive, sneaky
 Susquehanna: A river in Pennsylvania
 Susurrous: Whispering, hissing
 Talisman: A good luck charm.
 Tintinnabulation: Tinkling.
 Umbrella: Protection from sun or rain.
 Untoward: Unseemly, inappropriate.
 Vestigial: In trace amounts
 Wafture: Waving
 Wherewithal: The means.
 Woebegone: Sorrowful, downcast
 THE META PICTURE
laughoutloud-club:

Beautiful English Words

laughoutloud-club: Beautiful English Words