đŸ‘Ģ  Boyfriend Meme

👟  Student Athlete Meme

👑  Game Of Thrones Memes

☚ī¸  Sad Memes

🧟‍♂ī¸  Walking Dead Memes

🕗  Friday Memes

Health Insurance Memes

Monthly
Monthly
Trumps
Trumps
The
The
Excellent
Excellent
Where
Where
lowered
lowered
lowers
lowers
yours
yours
ons
ons
depends
depends 

    
                    

                

            
        
    

    
    
    






            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    
                    
                    

                        


	


    đŸ”Ĩ Popular | Latest






    

    
        
            
                

                    

                        
                    

                    
                    

                        
                            'No Memes': Obama Puts Out 'Serious' Video Reminding Everyone to Get Health Insurance
                        
                    

                    
                

            
        
    
    






    

    
    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        quiteliterallyhotsauce:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

That’s why

#Bernie2020 Eat the rich.

: Binyamin Appelbaum
 @ВСАppelbaum
 "For the first time on record, the 400
 wealthiest Americans last year paid
 lower total tax rate
 - spanning
 federal, state and local taxes
 than
 any other income group, according
 to newly released data."
 @DLeonhardt 6h
 David Leonhardt
 Watch how radically taxes on the wealthy have fallen
 over the past 70 years:
 (Full column: nytimes.com/interactive/20..)
 60
 30
 0:11
 5:49 PM Oct 6, 2019 Twitter Web App
 4.1K Likes
 3.4K Retweets
 50
 40

 Qasim Rashid, Esq.
 @QasimRashid
 Last year the 400 wealthiest
 Americans paid a lower total tax rate
 than any other income group
 These 400 are worth $2.7 Trillion but
 they're paying fewer taxes than the
 43M Americans living in poverty
 This is how nations collapse
 Total tax rate (federal, state and local)
 1950
 70%
 50
 30
 2018
 10
 Income Group
 Lower income
 Higher income
 Opinion | The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than
 You
 Snytimes.com
 8:21 PM Oct 6, 2019 Twitter for iPhone

 Sam Biederman
 @Biedersam
 Why aren't the subways functional?
 Why is college so expensive? Why is
 your health insurance premium so
 high? Why don't you have a
 pension? This is the answer.
 David Leonhardt
 @DLeonhardt 6h
 Watch how radically taxes on the wealthy have fallen
 over the past 70 years:
 (Full column: nytimes.com/interactive/2...)
 60
 50
 30
 0:11
 7:11 PM Oct 6, 2019 from Brooklyn, NY Twitter for
 iPhone
 6.3K Retweets
 16.7K Likes
 40
quiteliterallyhotsauce:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

That’s why

#Bernie2020 Eat the rich.


        

            
            

                
                
                    quiteliterallyhotsauce:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

That’s why

#Bernie2020 Eat the rich.

: Binyamin Appelbaum
 @ВСАppelbaum
 "For the first time on record, the 400
 wealthiest Americans last year paid
 lower total tax rate
 - spanning
 federal, state and local taxes
 than
 any other income group, according
 to newly released data."
 @DLeonhardt 6h
 David Leonhardt
 Watch how radically taxes on the wealthy have fallen
 over the past 70 years:
 (Full column: nytimes.com/interactive/20..)
 60
 30
 0:11
 5:49 PM Oct 6, 2019 Twitter Web App
 4.1K Likes
 3.4K Retweets
 50
 40

 Qasim Rashid, Esq.
 @QasimRashid
 Last year the 400 wealthiest
 Americans paid a lower total tax rate
 than any other income group
 These 400 are worth $2.7 Trillion but
 they're paying fewer taxes than the
 43M Americans living in poverty
 This is how nations collapse
 Total tax rate (federal, state and local)
 1950
 70%
 50
 30
 2018
 10
 Income Group
 Lower income
 Higher income
 Opinion | The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than
 You
 Snytimes.com
 8:21 PM Oct 6, 2019 Twitter for iPhone

 Sam Biederman
 @Biedersam
 Why aren't the subways functional?
 Why is college so expensive? Why is
 your health insurance premium so
 high? Why don't you have a
 pension? This is the answer.
 David Leonhardt
 @DLeonhardt 6h
 Watch how radically taxes on the wealthy have fallen
 over the past 70 years:
 (Full column: nytimes.com/interactive/2...)
 60
 50
 30
 0:11
 7:11 PM Oct 6, 2019 from Brooklyn, NY Twitter for
 iPhone
 6.3K Retweets
 16.7K Likes
 40
quiteliterallyhotsauce:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

That’s why

#Bernie2020 Eat the rich.


                    
                    

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        drtanner-dickery:
myothertardisisonthemun:

caelumrising:

That title makes me so fucking angry. we “lose” a lot of money each paycheck for our health insurance. We “lose” a lot of income due to rich CEOs refusing to give us a livable wage. We “lose” personal time by companies refusing to adequately staff their places of business.And I’m supposed to give a shit about the richest in our country “losing” money to a system that actually goes directly supplying the public with a better life? jesus christ.

Money to run a country has to come from somewhere. Far better for it to come from people who effectively have a lot to spare than everyone else.

The rest of us actually, tangibly lose billions every year when they vanish into a rich fucker’s already overflowing coffers. They have more money than they can ever physically spend; money never makes its way back into the economy after a billionaire gets their hands on it. 
When our money winds up in the pockets of the rich, it doesn’t come back out.
: Bloomberg Politics
 @bpolitics
 Bloomberg
 Politics
 The richest could lose hundreds of
 billions under Elizabeth Warren's
 wealth tax
 andi zeisler
 @andizeisler
 yes that's literally the point
drtanner-dickery:
myothertardisisonthemun:

caelumrising:

That title makes me so fucking angry. we “lose” a lot of money each paycheck for our health insurance. We “lose” a lot of income due to rich CEOs refusing to give us a livable wage. We “lose” personal time by companies refusing to adequately staff their places of business.And I’m supposed to give a shit about the richest in our country “losing” money to a system that actually goes directly supplying the public with a better life? jesus christ.

Money to run a country has to come from somewhere. Far better for it to come from people who effectively have a lot to spare than everyone else.

The rest of us actually, tangibly lose billions every year when they vanish into a rich fucker’s already overflowing coffers. They have more money than they can ever physically spend; money never makes its way back into the economy after a billionaire gets their hands on it. 
When our money winds up in the pockets of the rich, it doesn’t come back out.

        

            
            

                
                
                    drtanner-dickery:
myothertardisisonthemun:

caelumrising:

That title makes me so fucking angry. we “lose” a lot of money each paycheck for our health insurance. We “lose” a lot of income due to rich CEOs refusing to give us a livable wage. We “lose” personal time by companies refusing to adequately staff their places of business.And I’m supposed to give a shit about the richest in our country “losing” money to a system that actually goes directly supplying the public with a better life? jesus christ.

Money to run a country has to come from somewhere. Far better for it to come from people who effectively have a lot to spare than everyone else.

The rest of us actually, tangibly lose billions every year when they vanish into a rich fucker’s already overflowing coffers. They have more money than they can ever physically spend; money never makes its way back into the economy after a billionaire gets their hands on it. 
When our money winds up in the pockets of the rich, it doesn’t come back out.
: Bloomberg Politics
 @bpolitics
 Bloomberg
 Politics
 The richest could lose hundreds of
 billions under Elizabeth Warren's
 wealth tax
 andi zeisler
 @andizeisler
 yes that's literally the point
drtanner-dickery:
myothertardisisonthemun:

caelumrising:

That title makes me so fucking angry. we “lose” a lot of money each paycheck for our health insurance. We “lose” a lot of income due to rich CEOs refusing to give us a livable wage. We “lose” personal time by companies refusing to adequately staff their places of business.And I’m supposed to give a shit about the richest in our country “losing” money to a system that actually goes directly supplying the public with a better life? jesus christ.

Money to run a country has to come from somewhere. Far better for it to come from people who effectively have a lot to spare than everyone else.

The rest of us actually, tangibly lose billions every year when they vanish into a rich fucker’s already overflowing coffers. They have more money than they can ever physically spend; money never makes its way back into the economy after a billionaire gets their hands on it. 
When our money winds up in the pockets of the rich, it doesn’t come back out.

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        fandomsandfeminism:

jenniferrpovey:

beachgirlnikita:

thememacat:
WTF is this for real?
Yes - https://www.costco.com/benefits.html

See, what the race-to-the-bottom people forget is one simple fact:
The average cost to replace a minimum-wage retail employee, according to a study by the Center for American Progress, is $3,328. And that’s a lowball. Basically, any time somebody quits or is fired, it costs the company money. A lot of money. New employees are also less productive (because it takes people longer to do things they are less familiar with). Employee churn is very expensive.
The Wal-Mart (and Amazon) model is to consider employees as expendable robots. They completely dismiss the costs of hiring, onboarding, training, reduced productivity during the training period, etc, because “these people are cheap.”
Costco treats employees as “appreciating assets” - that is to say, employees become more valuable over time. Therefore, it is better and more productive to only replace employees who aren’t doing their jobs.
Let’s take a warehouse worker in a large facility. A new worker will waste time remembering which aisle it is, may take a longer route there, etc. Somebody who has been there a year has it down cold. They’ll pick the item far quicker than the new person. This improves productivity, which improves profits.
But for some reason a lot of companies don’t seem to grasp this.
All they see is the paycheck, when the actual figure they should be looking at is the profit a worker produces. That is to say, the difference between productivity and pay. Raising pay causes people to stick around and become more productive, which actually increases the profit in the long term.
We need to stop thinking so short term.


Oh my god. Costco employees get paid better than starting teachers in my school district.
 (Which is not to say they should be paid less. We should be paid more.)
: COSTCO'S CEO EXPLAINS HOW
 THEY MAKE RECORD PROFITS
 "WE PAY WORKERS $45K/YEAR, PROVIDE
 HEALTH INSURANCE AND LET THEM UNIONIZE
 THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WALMART DOES."
 quickmeme.com
fandomsandfeminism:

jenniferrpovey:

beachgirlnikita:

thememacat:
WTF is this for real?
Yes - https://www.costco.com/benefits.html

See, what the race-to-the-bottom people forget is one simple fact:
The average cost to replace a minimum-wage retail employee, according to a study by the Center for American Progress, is $3,328. And that’s a lowball. Basically, any time somebody quits or is fired, it costs the company money. A lot of money. New employees are also less productive (because it takes people longer to do things they are less familiar with). Employee churn is very expensive.
The Wal-Mart (and Amazon) model is to consider employees as expendable robots. They completely dismiss the costs of hiring, onboarding, training, reduced productivity during the training period, etc, because “these people are cheap.”
Costco treats employees as “appreciating assets” - that is to say, employees become more valuable over time. Therefore, it is better and more productive to only replace employees who aren’t doing their jobs.
Let’s take a warehouse worker in a large facility. A new worker will waste time remembering which aisle it is, may take a longer route there, etc. Somebody who has been there a year has it down cold. They’ll pick the item far quicker than the new person. This improves productivity, which improves profits.
But for some reason a lot of companies don’t seem to grasp this.
All they see is the paycheck, when the actual figure they should be looking at is the profit a worker produces. That is to say, the difference between productivity and pay. Raising pay causes people to stick around and become more productive, which actually increases the profit in the long term.
We need to stop thinking so short term.


Oh my god. Costco employees get paid better than starting teachers in my school district.
 (Which is not to say they should be paid less. We should be paid more.)

        

            
            

                
                
                    fandomsandfeminism:

jenniferrpovey:

beachgirlnikita:

thememacat:
WTF is this for real?
Yes - https://www.costco.com/benefits.html

See, what the race-to-the-bottom people forget is one simple fact:
The average cost to replace a minimum-wage retail employee, according to a study by the Center for American Progress, is $3,328. And that’s a lowball. Basically, any time somebody quits or is fired, it costs the company money. A lot of money. New employees are also less productive (because it takes people longer to do things they are less familiar with). Employee churn is very expensive.
The Wal-Mart (and Amazon) model is to consider employees as expendable robots. They completely dismiss the costs of hiring, onboarding, training, reduced productivity during the training period, etc, because “these people are cheap.”
Costco treats employees as “appreciating assets” - that is to say, employees become more valuable over time. Therefore, it is better and more productive to only replace employees who aren’t doing their jobs.
Let’s take a warehouse worker in a large facility. A new worker will waste time remembering which aisle it is, may take a longer route there, etc. Somebody who has been there a year has it down cold. They’ll pick the item far quicker than the new person. This improves productivity, which improves profits.
But for some reason a lot of companies don’t seem to grasp this.
All they see is the paycheck, when the actual figure they should be looking at is the profit a worker produces. That is to say, the difference between productivity and pay. Raising pay causes people to stick around and become more productive, which actually increases the profit in the long term.
We need to stop thinking so short term.


Oh my god. Costco employees get paid better than starting teachers in my school district.
 (Which is not to say they should be paid less. We should be paid more.)
: COSTCO'S CEO EXPLAINS HOW
 THEY MAKE RECORD PROFITS
 "WE PAY WORKERS $45K/YEAR, PROVIDE
 HEALTH INSURANCE AND LET THEM UNIONIZE
 THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WALMART DOES."
 quickmeme.com
fandomsandfeminism:

jenniferrpovey:

beachgirlnikita:

thememacat:
WTF is this for real?
Yes - https://www.costco.com/benefits.html

See, what the race-to-the-bottom people forget is one simple fact:
The average cost to replace a minimum-wage retail employee, according to a study by the Center for American Progress, is $3,328. And that’s a lowball. Basically, any time somebody quits or is fired, it costs the company money. A lot of money. New employees are also less productive (because it takes people longer to do things they are less familiar with). Employee churn is very expensive.
The Wal-Mart (and Amazon) model is to consider employees as expendable robots. They completely dismiss the costs of hiring, onboarding, training, reduced productivity during the training period, etc, because “these people are cheap.”
Costco treats employees as “appreciating assets” - that is to say, employees become more valuable over time. Therefore, it is better and more productive to only replace employees who aren’t doing their jobs.
Let’s take a warehouse worker in a large facility. A new worker will waste time remembering which aisle it is, may take a longer route there, etc. Somebody who has been there a year has it down cold. They’ll pick the item far quicker than the new person. This improves productivity, which improves profits.
But for some reason a lot of companies don’t seem to grasp this.
All they see is the paycheck, when the actual figure they should be looking at is the profit a worker produces. That is to say, the difference between productivity and pay. Raising pay causes people to stick around and become more productive, which actually increases the profit in the long term.
We need to stop thinking so short term.


Oh my god. Costco employees get paid better than starting teachers in my school district.
 (Which is not to say they should be paid less. We should be paid more.)

                    
                
            

            
                
                
fandomsandfeminism:

jenniferrpovey:

beachgirlnikita:

thememacat:
WTF is this for real?
Yes - https://www.costco.com/benefits.html

See...

                
            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        actualmythicalcreature:
somecunttookmyurl:


tyse-has-unpopular-opinions:

juxtapoesition:


oistrong:
I’m all for fighting for marriage equality in the LGBT community. But we’re so focused on that no one knows about this problem.

Wâ€Ļwait Thats a thing????


Yep! The man I refer to as my husband? We aren’t actually married. We can’t be. 
If I married him, the government would literally expect me to care for him and be his sole source of income. He would lose all of his benefits, including SSDI. Spouses are expected to share income and that effects ALL of his benefits, even his health insurance. We simply can’t afford to be married. 
But it goes even further than that. If I were disabled, our incomes would STILL be combined, meaning BOTH of us would have our benefits cut. 
For people reviving supplemental income, their benefits can be cut anywhere from 25% of their current income all the way down to 0%
In fact, one of the stipulations of receiving income under the adult disabled child program (which provides benefits for people who were disabled before age 22) is that they LITERALLY never be married. 
I normally don’t link to blog posts as resources, but since social service resource sites like to dress this problem up and make it seem smaller than it really is, I’m gonna call it appropriate! Check it out!
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/06/29/op-ed-why-no-matter-what-i-still-cant-marry-my-girlfriend
I’m upset about the situation in case you couldn’t tell. 


Disabled people in the UK do not have marriage equality.

If you so much as LIVE with a partner you lose a massive chunk of income 


Disabled Canadian chiming in - it’s the same here. I can even be kicked off disability for living with a romantic partner for longer than 6 months because then I’m considered common-law, and said partners income is deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits. Things like alimony, spousal support, and child support are also deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits - so you also get in shit for having previous relationships. If I have a roommate, they can request I PROVE that I’m not in a relationship with them by getting character references to swear it. Essentially, anyone whose unlucky enough to love me, is considered my financial caretaker. It fucking sucks. 
: Chronic Sex
 @ChronicSexChat
 Chronic Sex
 *Psst*
 Marriage equality doesn't exist
 anywhere unless disabled people can
 marry without losing their benefits
 Pass it orn
 5/21/18, 7:03 AM
actualmythicalcreature:
somecunttookmyurl:


tyse-has-unpopular-opinions:

juxtapoesition:


oistrong:
I’m all for fighting for marriage equality in the LGBT community. But we’re so focused on that no one knows about this problem.

Wâ€Ļwait Thats a thing????


Yep! The man I refer to as my husband? We aren’t actually married. We can’t be. 
If I married him, the government would literally expect me to care for him and be his sole source of income. He would lose all of his benefits, including SSDI. Spouses are expected to share income and that effects ALL of his benefits, even his health insurance. We simply can’t afford to be married. 
But it goes even further than that. If I were disabled, our incomes would STILL be combined, meaning BOTH of us would have our benefits cut. 
For people reviving supplemental income, their benefits can be cut anywhere from 25% of their current income all the way down to 0%
In fact, one of the stipulations of receiving income under the adult disabled child program (which provides benefits for people who were disabled before age 22) is that they LITERALLY never be married. 
I normally don’t link to blog posts as resources, but since social service resource sites like to dress this problem up and make it seem smaller than it really is, I’m gonna call it appropriate! Check it out!
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/06/29/op-ed-why-no-matter-what-i-still-cant-marry-my-girlfriend
I’m upset about the situation in case you couldn’t tell. 


Disabled people in the UK do not have marriage equality.

If you so much as LIVE with a partner you lose a massive chunk of income 


Disabled Canadian chiming in - it’s the same here. I can even be kicked off disability for living with a romantic partner for longer than 6 months because then I’m considered common-law, and said partners income is deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits. Things like alimony, spousal support, and child support are also deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits - so you also get in shit for having previous relationships. If I have a roommate, they can request I PROVE that I’m not in a relationship with them by getting character references to swear it. Essentially, anyone whose unlucky enough to love me, is considered my financial caretaker. It fucking sucks. 

        

            
            

                
                
                    actualmythicalcreature:
somecunttookmyurl:


tyse-has-unpopular-opinions:

juxtapoesition:


oistrong:
I’m all for fighting for marriage equality in the LGBT community. But we’re so focused on that no one knows about this problem.

Wâ€Ļwait Thats a thing????


Yep! The man I refer to as my husband? We aren’t actually married. We can’t be. 
If I married him, the government would literally expect me to care for him and be his sole source of income. He would lose all of his benefits, including SSDI. Spouses are expected to share income and that effects ALL of his benefits, even his health insurance. We simply can’t afford to be married. 
But it goes even further than that. If I were disabled, our incomes would STILL be combined, meaning BOTH of us would have our benefits cut. 
For people reviving supplemental income, their benefits can be cut anywhere from 25% of their current income all the way down to 0%
In fact, one of the stipulations of receiving income under the adult disabled child program (which provides benefits for people who were disabled before age 22) is that they LITERALLY never be married. 
I normally don’t link to blog posts as resources, but since social service resource sites like to dress this problem up and make it seem smaller than it really is, I’m gonna call it appropriate! Check it out!
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/06/29/op-ed-why-no-matter-what-i-still-cant-marry-my-girlfriend
I’m upset about the situation in case you couldn’t tell. 


Disabled people in the UK do not have marriage equality.

If you so much as LIVE with a partner you lose a massive chunk of income 


Disabled Canadian chiming in - it’s the same here. I can even be kicked off disability for living with a romantic partner for longer than 6 months because then I’m considered common-law, and said partners income is deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits. Things like alimony, spousal support, and child support are also deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits - so you also get in shit for having previous relationships. If I have a roommate, they can request I PROVE that I’m not in a relationship with them by getting character references to swear it. Essentially, anyone whose unlucky enough to love me, is considered my financial caretaker. It fucking sucks. 
: Chronic Sex
 @ChronicSexChat
 Chronic Sex
 *Psst*
 Marriage equality doesn't exist
 anywhere unless disabled people can
 marry without losing their benefits
 Pass it orn
 5/21/18, 7:03 AM
actualmythicalcreature:
somecunttookmyurl:


tyse-has-unpopular-opinions:

juxtapoesition:


oistrong:
I’m all for fighting for marriage equality in the LGBT community. But we’re so focused on that no one knows about this problem.

Wâ€Ļwait Thats a thing????


Yep! The man I refer to as my husband? We aren’t actually married. We can’t be. 
If I married him, the government would literally expect me to care for him and be his sole source of income. He would lose all of his benefits, including SSDI. Spouses are expected to share income and that effects ALL of his benefits, even his health insurance. We simply can’t afford to be married. 
But it goes even further than that. If I were disabled, our incomes would STILL be combined, meaning BOTH of us would have our benefits cut. 
For people reviving supplemental income, their benefits can be cut anywhere from 25% of their current income all the way down to 0%
In fact, one of the stipulations of receiving income under the adult disabled child program (which provides benefits for people who were disabled before age 22) is that they LITERALLY never be married. 
I normally don’t link to blog posts as resources, but since social service resource sites like to dress this problem up and make it seem smaller than it really is, I’m gonna call it appropriate! Check it out!
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/06/29/op-ed-why-no-matter-what-i-still-cant-marry-my-girlfriend
I’m upset about the situation in case you couldn’t tell. 


Disabled people in the UK do not have marriage equality.

If you so much as LIVE with a partner you lose a massive chunk of income 


Disabled Canadian chiming in - it’s the same here. I can even be kicked off disability for living with a romantic partner for longer than 6 months because then I’m considered common-law, and said partners income is deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits. Things like alimony, spousal support, and child support are also deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits - so you also get in shit for having previous relationships. If I have a roommate, they can request I PROVE that I’m not in a relationship with them by getting character references to swear it. Essentially, anyone whose unlucky enough to love me, is considered my financial caretaker. It fucking sucks. 

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        lagonegirl:





Super fucked up! wtf is wrong with these people?  #IamWithMili!




What is every little girl supposed to have long hair in a ponytail? So happy to see all of the support going her way.


: Sports Illustrated
 @Sinow
 & Follow
 An 8-year-old girl and her entire team were
 banned from a Nebraska soccer tournament
 because she 'looks like a boy'
 ONLY ON 6
 GIRL CAN'T PLAY; "LOOKS LIKE A BOY
 Girl, 8, banned from tournament because she looks like a boy
 Tournament organizers banned Mili Hernandez's team despite her family's
 repeated pleas.
 si.com
 RETWEETS LIKES
 ,177 1,307
 3:15 PM- 5 Jun 2017

 WOWT News
 oWT6News
 Follow v
 ā¸Ŗā¸šāš‰āš€
 Mili led her team to the finals of a girls soccer
 tourney in Springfield before officials insisted
 she's a boy.
 8 year-old girl disqualified from soccer game because she
 Mili Hernandez loves soccer - and her short haircut. She helped lead her girls
 soccer team to the finals of a girls tournament this weekend. They were suddenly
 wowt.com
 RETWEETS LIKES
 223 456
 8:12 AM -5 Jun 2017

 Abby Wambach
 @AbbyWambach
 Follovw
 Mili, don't EVER let anyone tell you that you
 aren't perfect just as you are.i won
 championships with short hair
 8 year-old girl disqualified from soccer game because she
 Mili Hernandez loves soccer and her short haircut. She helped lead her girls
 soccer team to the finals of a girls tournament this weekend. They were suddenly
 wowt.com
 RETWEETS LIKES
 3,049 10,032
 3:36 PM -5 Jun 2017

 Michael McCann
 @McCannSportsLaw
 Follow
 Despite seeing Mili Hernandez's health
 insurance card that proved her gender,
 tournament officials disagreed. Good luck
 with that in court.
 Sports Illustrated @Slnow
 An 8-year-old girl and her entire team were banned from a Nebraska soccer
 tournament because she 'looks like a boy' on.si.com/2saLBqP
 RETWEETS LIKES
 1,110 2,087
 3:45 PM-5 Jun 2017

 Chicago Red Stars
 @chicagoredstars
 Follow
 Hey Mili
 You've inspired all of us! Come join us here in
 Chicago for a game. Your jersey is waiting for
 you
 See you soon!
 TOYOTA PARK
 RETWEETS LIKES
 636
 4,349
 5:52 AM - 6 Jun 2017
lagonegirl:





Super fucked up! wtf is wrong with these people?  #IamWithMili!




What is every little girl supposed to have long hair in a ponytail? So happy to see all of the support going her way.



        

            
            

                
                
                    lagonegirl:





Super fucked up! wtf is wrong with these people?  #IamWithMili!




What is every little girl supposed to have long hair in a ponytail? So happy to see all of the support going her way.


: Sports Illustrated
 @Sinow
 & Follow
 An 8-year-old girl and her entire team were
 banned from a Nebraska soccer tournament
 because she 'looks like a boy'
 ONLY ON 6
 GIRL CAN'T PLAY; "LOOKS LIKE A BOY
 Girl, 8, banned from tournament because she looks like a boy
 Tournament organizers banned Mili Hernandez's team despite her family's
 repeated pleas.
 si.com
 RETWEETS LIKES
 ,177 1,307
 3:15 PM- 5 Jun 2017

 WOWT News
 oWT6News
 Follow v
 ā¸Ŗā¸šāš‰āš€
 Mili led her team to the finals of a girls soccer
 tourney in Springfield before officials insisted
 she's a boy.
 8 year-old girl disqualified from soccer game because she
 Mili Hernandez loves soccer - and her short haircut. She helped lead her girls
 soccer team to the finals of a girls tournament this weekend. They were suddenly
 wowt.com
 RETWEETS LIKES
 223 456
 8:12 AM -5 Jun 2017

 Abby Wambach
 @AbbyWambach
 Follovw
 Mili, don't EVER let anyone tell you that you
 aren't perfect just as you are.i won
 championships with short hair
 8 year-old girl disqualified from soccer game because she
 Mili Hernandez loves soccer and her short haircut. She helped lead her girls
 soccer team to the finals of a girls tournament this weekend. They were suddenly
 wowt.com
 RETWEETS LIKES
 3,049 10,032
 3:36 PM -5 Jun 2017

 Michael McCann
 @McCannSportsLaw
 Follow
 Despite seeing Mili Hernandez's health
 insurance card that proved her gender,
 tournament officials disagreed. Good luck
 with that in court.
 Sports Illustrated @Slnow
 An 8-year-old girl and her entire team were banned from a Nebraska soccer
 tournament because she 'looks like a boy' on.si.com/2saLBqP
 RETWEETS LIKES
 1,110 2,087
 3:45 PM-5 Jun 2017

 Chicago Red Stars
 @chicagoredstars
 Follow
 Hey Mili
 You've inspired all of us! Come join us here in
 Chicago for a game. Your jersey is waiting for
 you
 See you soon!
 TOYOTA PARK
 RETWEETS LIKES
 636
 4,349
 5:52 AM - 6 Jun 2017
lagonegirl:





Super fucked up! wtf is wrong with these people?  #IamWithMili!




What is every little girl supposed to have long hair in a ponytail? So happy to see all of the support going her way.



                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save