🔥 Popular | Latest

Life, Shit, and Yo: 126 Successful Women Think Differently and health by Dutch researcher Dr. Ruut Veenhoven she being chronically unhappy has the same effect on lon ng cigarettes daily. Onaverade theefrecisotunhappinessk. expectancy by sx Successful people take their happi They don't dwell on the negative and they fill their life with fho tive-positive words, positive people, and a positive outlok showed that longevity as sm Onaverage the effects ofunha Cut the Posi as rustened to a presectorbout happiness given by Dr. V hoven, a noted sociologist, I was intrigued by his classification of qualities of life that comprise overall happiness and well-beino sider them (paraphrased below with my definitions and coachino tions) to help you determine the areas of your life in which you have room to enhance your happiness and well-being: fo may Read that shit! iva "Livability" is about the environments in which you live, work, an play. Does your environment nurture you or drain you? Do the cumstances in which you find yourself empower you to thrive or merely survive? What would create a more livable and happier e ronment for you? 2. Life abilities Life abilities are your personal strengths, knowledge, preparation ibility, and potential. They can be developed, explored, and imp upon. Greater personal abilities often create more enjoyable op nities. What talents and strengths are going underutilized in yo What potential is going untapped? Meaning CHAT ᴍᴏʀᴇ ᴀᴛ @ᴘɪᴍᴘᴄᴇssᴍɪsʜᴀ
Anaconda, Anna, and Community: hobbit-hole if i had to get in a fistfight with any member of the fellowship it would be Frodo because i would easily win hobbit-hole all i am saying is that he would ostensibly be the easiest one to take on in a fight given that he's like three feet tall and has led a life of (physical) leisure compared to all of the others due to his standing as a gentlehobbit legolas, aragorn, and gimli are all used to combat, sam works as a gardener merry and pippin often gallivant off and get into mischief so they have the advantage of experience in whatever it is they've gotten up to/would possibly fight dirty, gandalf is gandalf so while weapons are out of the question i suppose that depends on if magic is involved. i don't think i could take him without magic even if he is old because he's a very large guy, but maybe it would be my knuckles against Frodo's baby soft poet hands, plus rve got the additional height and fighting experience. i just think that he would be the easiest to win against in hand-to-hand combat out of the rest of them. also he isn't real so he can't offer a rebuttal to my claim penny-anna you're absolutely correct BUT wanting to fight Frodo makes you a monster D hobbit-hole this has nothing to do with WANTING to fight Frodo, i just think he would be easiest for me to beat in a fight with no weapons. unless he utilized his very large feet, but i think he's too polite to do that because it's a fist fight and that would be considered playing dirty penny anna for someone who doesn't want to fight Frodo you sure have put a lot of thought into fighting Frodo. animate-mush OP is wrong though: you fight Pippin. First off, Pippin has it coming, so you won't be fighting your conscience at the same time Secondly, Pippin is a spoiled rich kid. He's no less gentry than Frodo is, but Frodo works out and is shown to have better stamina, at least at the outset. Pippin is also both the stupidest and the slowest of the hobbits. They both nearly beat one (1) troll, so that's comparable, but Pippin appears not to have got a single hit in against the orcs that captured them while Merry was cutting off hands like a boss. Pippin also straight-up tell Bergil that he's not a fighter Also there's a nonzero chance that Frodo will just straight up curse you (if the guilt of fighting Frodo isn't enough if a curse by itself) And, of course, if you try to fight Frodo, you will 100% end up fighting Sam, and he will wreck you (and you'll deserve it, you penny-anna Also: if you fight Frodo you'll have a very angry Sam & possibly also the entire Fellowship to deal with BUT if you fight Pippin they will probably cheer you on ainurs Bold of you to assume one could attempt to fight Pippin and NOT instantly be killed by Boromir feynites So here's the thing - you absolutely DO NOT want to try and fight Frodo or Pippin because they are going to be protected by the rest of the Fellowship which basically exists to stop asshole Big People from picking on the hobbits. Folk might talk a big game but when the chips are down, you are not going to lay a single hand on any of the hobbits. Either you'll find yourself immediately fighting all four of them or else you'll move to land your first hit and suddenly Aragorn will side-tackle you into the trees. And he probably hits like a freight train tbh. So here's what you do You fight Legolas. The thing about fist-fighting Legolas of course is that you will lose. This is not a fight you're gonna win no matter what. But Legolas has his standing competition with Gimili, so once the challenge is issued, he's not gonna let anyone else step in and fight you either. No one is liable to volunteer on his behalf, either, so you will only end up fighting the one member of the fellowship. If you are lucky he might also take his shirt off. Bonus! Anyway Legolas will mop the floor with you, but he's also already convinced you're weaker than him anyway because you're not an elf, so he's gonna go kind of easy on you And when you lose he will be all snide and superior about it, which means everyone in the fellowship is gonna sympathize with you, and Gimli will probably challenge him on your behalf afterwards, but here's the key thing You will have lost a fist-fight to an immortal warrior prince That's a way better loss to cop to than that time you tried to fistfight a pudgy gentlehobbit and got beaten to the point of unconsciousness by his gardener yeah? icescrabblerjerky okay so tolkien tumblr is fast becoming my fave tumblr community thank you thank you all you are the true fellowship here. Source:hobbit-hole #mmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 32,148 notes The Tolkien discourse is getting violent
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.