🔥 Popular | Latest

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.
Save
America, College, and Drinking: PART 2 OF 2 Hon. Brett M. Kavanaugh U.S. NEWS KAVANAUGH'S TESTIMONY Sept 27 | Judge Brett Kavanaugh completec his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee following Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's hearing. Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, completed his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, following the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. In Kavanaugh’s opening statement, he assured that he would not be intimidated. Kavanaugh said: - "You may defeat me in the final vote, but I will not quit. I have never sexually assaulted anyone." ____ When Kavanaugh was asked by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) why he did not ask the FBI to investigate, the Supreme Court nominee said: - "The FBI doesn’t reach a conclusion. It’s an outrage that I was not allowed to come [before the committee] and immediately defend my name." ___ When asked about his history with drinking, specifically in high school and college, Kavanaugh repeatedly stated he never drank to the extent of “blacking out.” ___ Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that Kavanaugh is as much of a victim as Dr. Blasey Ford, describing the hearing as “the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics." ___ Brett Kavanaugh stated that he has not taken a polygraph test yet, but will if asked. ___ Minutes after the hearing ended, President Trump tweeted: - “Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats’ search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!” ___ Photo: Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, completed his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, following the testimony of Dr. ...

Save
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 peteschult: 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. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs!
Save
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 <p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>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.</b></p> <p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>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.</p> <p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>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.</p> <p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>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.”<br/>(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.)</p> <p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>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.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “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.</p> <p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>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.</p> <p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>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.</p> <p>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).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>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</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Important </p> </blockquote> <p>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.</p>
Save
Be Like, Bless Up, and Bruh: My sister's gentle giant German Shepherd wears a bow tie everywhere because it makes people less intimidated and afraid of him. @DrSmashlove Reddit u/tricksy_trixie Say Bruh shout to u pretty a$$ ladies with resting bish face (RBF) bruv I fux with y’all. I fux witchu ladies the long way bruv y’all sexy. I’m talking and u just eyeing me. Scrutinizing me. U feel me? Am I making her mad? Is she disagreeing with me? What is she thinking? I need that. That element of risk. Like u might could reach across the table and break a bottle over my head bruv. That sh!t dangerous to me that’s sexy lol. Scowl at me. U feel me? HANGRY - even tho u just bodied four tacos, a bowl of guac, and a large horchata 😩. I fux with that. And women with RBF do well in business! That’s why women get successful and ppl be like “wow Susan is a bish” NO SHE AINT! SHE JUST GOT SKRONG RBF! “David if you don’t start being reasonable imma stab this pen into your neck. How you gon explain that to ya kids? You could have given us $17,000 more per month for this amazing software but nah. You wanted to die on your sword. Well David, act like a bish you gon DIE LIKE A BISH.” I mean I still remember tryina explain to my mama why my sister crying and my mama already got the chancleta IN HER HAND - RAISED - maybe EEN a wooden spoon in the other - just preparing for that cosmic two-tiered simultaneous SHLAP - SHMACK - CRACK of the spoon handle to end my existence u feel me? “Wow smash what a childhood that explains why you’re like this no wonder.” Ok first of all ...... YES ASF 😂. Y’all could judge my mama all u want to but u can’t have 1-on-1 convo’s with all ya chirren once u have more than three like after that u gotta be efficient and the flip flop - wooden spoon is efficient ASF. All I’m saying is at the end of the day I love my mama and perhaps RBF remind me of her Resting Boutta Whup Dat A$$ Face all I’m saying is for u ladies who are like “MY FRIENDS ALL SAY I HAVE THE WORST RBF LIKE HOW DO I GET RID OF THIS”...don’t 😍😂. As Tupac said, “You are appreciated ☺️”. Now none of u extra-a$$ ladies who follow me DM me talmbout “can I ride the Peepington while slapping u with a sandal and breaking wooden spoons on u zaddy ☺️” I told u I ain’t into being dominated! (Nah but DM me tho if u gon do it 🤤🤫) BLESS UP 😍😂😂😂
Save
America, Ass, and Bad: Music CONFESSIONS TUMBLRCOM IP-HOP HOORAY ee q eers of the music world celebrate their rise to the top of the charts -and ther newfound industry power By dames Patrick Herman. Photographed by Elig-FEs TUMBLR.COM s Lauryn Hills Grammy sweep last February proved, America is, offi. cially, a hip-hop nation. And after two decades under male leadership, women now rule. Just ask rap kingpin Sean "Puffy" Combs "Female MCs always had it so hard-no respect-it was like thcy was livin' in Siberia, he says. "But it made 'em strong. Now their shit's so hot, they dont needa mike to be heard." In fact, soon every one will be hearing the new albums from hip-hop queens Mary J. Blige, Aaliyah, Lil' Kim, Missy "Misdemeanor" Elliott, and Da Brat, all friends as well as frequent collaborators. They're even making plans to take their act-The Bitch Tour-on the road with a funky twist on Lilith Fair, coming to a sold-out stadium near you. But dont call them divas (except perhaps for Ms. Blige, who cited personal drama at the last minute and was unable to attend the photo shoot). Mary J. Blige, 28. Claim to fame: The queen of hip-hop soul. There's something about Mary: "Hip-hop plays a big part in my music. I've always been sample-orient ed-Barry White, Isaac Hayes. The strcets is gonna be happy with my record. You'll cry to it, dance to it, fuck to it. I've done a lot of love songs. Most of'em are about how fucked up women are treated. It's good to know my music helps people. Im goin' through it, too-the same tears, the same black eye, the same stomachachc and I'm gonna get us through it. I'm at such a place now, such a peace, I cannot be knocked down. Im Mary the lone woman. Mmm-hmmm," What becomes a diva most: "Someone who got through tough times and paid dues, like Tina Turner and Aretha Franklin. Good God, those were war storics they had to tell. Men wanted to rule them and treat them like shit, and they got through it." The Mary Jane girls: "People expect us to be com- petitive, but I didn't give Lauryn Hill her career-that was somethin' she worked for. And she didn't give me my career. Why should I think about competition if she got somethin' she could contribute to my project? I cannot be jealous. It's wasted energy. Ijust did a duet with the Queen of Soul herself, Miss Aretha Franklin I keep quiet when the veterans are in the room-and honey, she is a veteran. When I came out of the booth, she said, 'That was very nice.' And then she went in Power players (from eft): Aaliyah, Lil Kim, Missy Misdemeanor" Ellot and Da Brat. Not pictured the booth and killed me. FOR CAADEY CURRY MANAGEMENT MAKEUP BY NONKA FOR TE CEBCRAHMARTIN AGENCY. MSSY VAR DyCH NA POTTER FOR a NAS 00LL HOUSE NY, MAKEUP UY CF0G FER ELL 8RAT l-Kim-CONFESSIONS TUMBLR.COM aliyah, 20. Claim to fame: The R&B Lolita is now filming Joel Silvers Romeo Must Die for Warner Bros. Ready for her close-up: I want people to look at me as a full-on entertainer, not just as a singer or a dancer. It's taking my career to another level and showing every side of me." Foxy lady: "My mom will say, 'There is some- thing about her that was always sexy.' My image isnt a put-on. When you listen to me and hear the smooth tones--that's what I'm givin' off. As a child, I didn't notice. Now Im in tune with it. It can definitely be a power, and I use it to my advantage." Fierce competition: "People try to bring negativity my way, especially with Brandy and Monica. If Im competing with anybody, I'm competing with myselfto be original." What becomes a diva most: "Oh, that word. The Websters definition is an opera singer who has a lot of range, but that's changed over time. Now a diva is a bitch. Were not all bitchy. Its just a myth thatš not goin' anywhere. If you're gonna describe somebody, call her a queen.I shows respect.Is royaly." issy "Misdemeanor" Elliott, 27. Claim to fame: record business is male-dominated, and when yo're not bein' The female Pufly" runs her own record label, taken as seriously as you should, you gotta go in there screamin the Gold Mind, Inc; she rapped for a Gap TV because they'll walk all over you. And the word can be positive: ad campaign. Talkin' bout a revolution: "Fe IfIbe like, 'Thats a baaad bitch,' you know that means dope. males are takin' over. We droppin' our albums We gotta stop thinkin of it as bein' negative, 'cause it's gonna at the same time to make that point clear, so when we do our be used regardless. Men call us that when they're intimidated. Bitch Tour itll be obvious. It took a strong female like Lauryn Female bonding: "Instcad of compcting, we help out and en to be successful and open doors. Now everybody else can fall in hance cach other. When I see another female artist, we always line." Bitch, bitch, bitch: "My first single's called Shes a Bitch.' show cach other love-we just so happy that we broke that bar- That doesn't have to be your everyday personality. But the rier down of us not ein' able to do as much as the men." lKimCONFESSIONS. TUMBLR.COM 0 Music a Brat, 25. Claim to fame: Runs her own record label, Thowin' Tantrums Entertainment; she is the first female rapper to have a platinum record. She's the one: "Before me, people didnt know how to market a female rap artist. I laid the path in the way Queen Latifah and MC Lyte did for me. But you need to grow in this industry. I want to produce, act, and direct -get my hands in every thing. I got an cye and an car for good talent." Birds of a feather: "My friends all stick together. There's only a handful of us women in the industry with labels-theres not enough of us to be bickerin'. We're like the dream team. Its all about unity, havin' a strong support system. Were mature adults and we know the value of friendship. Nothin' should come between two friends- friends are forever, men aint." To each her own: "I got the tomboy thing goini on, and I can still be sexy. Missy's futuristic you dont know what she's gonna do next. Kim is like the madam-diva type-raunchy and nasty. Shell shoot your ass. Mary's sultry and spiritual and soulful, the ghetto queen of R&B Aaliyahs funky, she represents the teenagers. Shell make you party with her. We all are supa dupa fresh, and we gotta hold hands and rock together." il' Kim, 24. Claim to fame: The girlfriend of the late Notus B.I.G. runs her own label, Queen Bee Records. She's come a long way, baby: "Im really proud of my CONFESSIONS TUMBLRICOM new album. My favorite lyrics 'A queen is not a queen because she has failed/ But a queen is a queen because failure has not stopped her..../ Women are taking over for the new millen nium.' Like Puffy said, we dont need a mike anymore. We bein' heard. Its our era." What becomes a diva most: People love to use the word diva. I like queen better. A queen knows it all but doesnt let you know it right off. She's good-spirited and righteous. She's the boss: "With Queen Bee, I call the shots. I want my label to be the female version of Bad Boy. Me and Puffy may be family, but at the end of the day, I'm gonna do what I have to do. I'm also working on Bad Girl Films- ever since I did Sheš AllThat, Miramax has been offering me lots of things." In the company of women: "Were all characters. Brats the southern street girl who needs to be wild. Aaliyah's the pretty-girl type, the sexy artist that's un- touchable. Missy's like a cartoon and you love to watch her, shes so cute. Mary, you love to watch for her rength. Mary's the girl you can identify with. And me, Im like a little Mary. Lauryn's getting what she deserves. Her success made me work harder. Now we all know a hip-hop woman can make it."O ki- CONFESSIONS TUMBLR COM thabeehive-deactivated20160215: lil’ kim, aaliyah, missy elliott, da brat photographed by elfie semotan for the august 1999 issue of elle magazine.
Save
Animals, Ass, and Be Like: u/AndrewY17 1d i.redd.it This is why i cant get house @DrSmashlove A lot of times at work when u ask somebody how they doing, they say “ok”, “eh”, “I’m alright”, “TIRED LOL”, “ugh”, “is it Friday yet”. U feel me? U reply in a slouchy, exhausted manner. But see Bruh one of my partners at the firm named Todd, he ain’t like that. He small. Real small, like if u had a running start and played soccer as a kid, u could punt the him across the city lol. But he always got a fresh haircut. Always rock a nice pastel Hermès tie with lil animals on it. Always got his shoes shined. And when u ask him how he doing, he got one reply, always: “KILLING IT.” I’m dead ass. That’s what he say every time: “KILLING IT” 😂. Sometimes he say it aggressively: “KILLING IT 😳.” Sometimes he say it in a sing-songy manner: “killing it ☺️.” But regardless, it’s always the same. Homeboy is a caveman. Don’t let the Ferragamo loafers fool u. He got his spear out and he ready to slay this MF Work. He ain’t doing work. He bout to GIVE U THIS WORK. U feel me? U GON GET ALL THIS WORK 😂. He gon talk his sh!t and he gon dance. And that’s what he do. I’ve pitched clients with him and dude’s talk game is majestic. He pitch clients in areas of work we never done before and he make it sound like this is all we do. I ask him “bruv. How did u just do that? We don’t even do this type of work?” And he say “smash, relax. We’ll ‘ham and egg’ it.” I don’t eat pork but I know exactly what dude mean and I say it all the time. It means “we’ll figure it out.” Be like Todd bruv. Get into work. Kill it. Never be intimidated by something u never done before. Identify a co worker with experience in this area and say “hey Karen can I take you to coffee and chat a little bit about a task I’ve been assigned that I haven’t done before?” She’ll never turn u down. NOBODY TURN DOWN FREE PUMPKIN SPICE LATTES IN OCTOBER LOL. Investment: $4. Return on investment: immeasurable, because U gained a skill set. Kill it. Ham and Egg it. (Halal ham tho. Like ham made from beef 🤗😂). Be enthusiastic. Be a winner. U get me! Bless up! 😍😂😂😂
Save