🔥 Popular | Latest

zombeesknees: johannathemad: AU where everything is exactly the same except Adam never turns into a beast and just needs to learn some manners #i think it’s be a whole other level of amazing if the enchantresses curse made him APPEAR like a beast to everyone except him  #so he’s not actually transformed - but everyone sees him as though he is  #bc that’d be so amazingly messed up that he’d *think* he was fine when he looked at himself  #but everyone’s reactions to him (horror/fear/disgust) were still A Thing  #and that only changed with his behaviour  #so as long as he behaved selfishly and horribly he’d be seen/reacted to that way  #but the more effort he put into changing his own actions the illusion would soften  #but directly proportional to his behaviour  #idk i love the idea of people maintaining their own curses though their own actions  #all the best curses are self-sustaining by the cursee  #(also this is a GREAT translation of the glen keane underbite facial expressions!) : FANART YTHE MAD FANART BY THE MAD FAN ART BY%"MAD FANART BY ₩ 1 MAD FAN ART BY₩ MAD zombeesknees: johannathemad: AU where everything is exactly the same except Adam never turns into a beast and just needs to learn some manners #i think it’s be a whole other level of amazing if the enchantresses curse made him APPEAR like a beast to everyone except him  #so he’s not actually transformed - but everyone sees him as though he is  #bc that’d be so amazingly messed up that he’d *think* he was fine when he looked at himself  #but everyone’s reactions to him (horror/fear/disgust) were still A Thing  #and that only changed with his behaviour  #so as long as he behaved selfishly and horribly he’d be seen/reacted to that way  #but the more effort he put into changing his own actions the illusion would soften  #but directly proportional to his behaviour  #idk i love the idea of people maintaining their own curses though their own actions  #all the best curses are self-sustaining by the cursee  #(also this is a GREAT translation of the glen keane underbite facial expressions!)

zombeesknees: johannathemad: AU where everything is exactly the same except Adam never turns into a beast and just needs to learn some...

Save
Important info for our SOLD OUT show this Saturday at Glen Helen Amphitheater (No tickets will be available at the box office!): . . ARRIVE EARLY - Parking lots will open at 9am & we’re expecting a full house (45,000 fans). . . FREE PARK & RIDE - Starting at 9am, the Fontana Auto Club Speedway will offer a free Park & Ride shuttle to the venue. At the Speedway, you can also enter for a chance to win a signed SOAD guitar (winner notified Monday, October 15). The first 500 fans to arrive will each receive a $10 Food & Non-Alcoholic Beverage voucher to use at the show. Swipe up in our story to RSVP for your Park & Ride passes + view the Official Guitar Giveaway rules. . . CARPOOL-RIDESHARE - This will lighten traffic & save you time locating friends. In addition, the first 500 fans to arrive will each receive a $10 Food & Non-Alcoholic Beverage voucher to use at the show. Head over to our Carpool SOAD Giveaway booth in the general parking lot to retrieve your voucher. . REGIONAL SHUTTLE - For those who don’t live near the venue, we’ve partnered with FestDrive to provide direct coach options from all over Southern California, all fully air-conditioned with restrooms. Relax & enjoy a hassle-free ride to & from the venue. Swipe up in our story to get your FestDrive Shuttle pass. . . STAY & CHILL OUT AFTER THE SHOW - We’ll have free coffee (from Serj Tankian’s own @kavatcoffee - www.kavatcoffee.com), donuts,and we'll be screening This Is Spinal Tap on a 50' movie screen down by the lake if you want to hang out while the parking lots clear. . Full info on allowable items at entry, venue rules & more can be found by searching Glen Helen Amphitheater on the Live Nation site!: SYSTEM OFA DOWN ncubus WITH AI THE DRIVE IN CLUTCH PALLBEARER SKELETONWITCH BUY TICA ETMAS OFFICE Important info for our SOLD OUT show this Saturday at Glen Helen Amphitheater (No tickets will be available at the box office!): . . ARRIVE EARLY - Parking lots will open at 9am & we’re expecting a full house (45,000 fans). . . FREE PARK & RIDE - Starting at 9am, the Fontana Auto Club Speedway will offer a free Park & Ride shuttle to the venue. At the Speedway, you can also enter for a chance to win a signed SOAD guitar (winner notified Monday, October 15). The first 500 fans to arrive will each receive a $10 Food & Non-Alcoholic Beverage voucher to use at the show. Swipe up in our story to RSVP for your Park & Ride passes + view the Official Guitar Giveaway rules. . . CARPOOL-RIDESHARE - This will lighten traffic & save you time locating friends. In addition, the first 500 fans to arrive will each receive a $10 Food & Non-Alcoholic Beverage voucher to use at the show. Head over to our Carpool SOAD Giveaway booth in the general parking lot to retrieve your voucher. . REGIONAL SHUTTLE - For those who don’t live near the venue, we’ve partnered with FestDrive to provide direct coach options from all over Southern California, all fully air-conditioned with restrooms. Relax & enjoy a hassle-free ride to & from the venue. Swipe up in our story to get your FestDrive Shuttle pass. . . STAY & CHILL OUT AFTER THE SHOW - We’ll have free coffee (from Serj Tankian’s own @kavatcoffee - www.kavatcoffee.com), donuts,and we'll be screening This Is Spinal Tap on a 50' movie screen down by the lake if you want to hang out while the parking lots clear. . Full info on allowable items at entry, venue rules & more can be found by searching Glen Helen Amphitheater on the Live Nation site!

Important info for our SOLD OUT show this Saturday at Glen Helen Amphitheater (No tickets will be available at the box office!): . . ARRI...

Save
<p><a href="http://guywithastick.tumblr.com/post/173191183912/play-stupid-games-win-stupid-prizes" class="tumblr_blog">guywithastick</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Play stupid games win stupid prizes </p></blockquote> <p>“BuT wHy Do YoU nEeD aN aR-15???”</p>: RESIDENTS OPEN FIRE WITH AR-15, 9MM HANDGUN AND TURN THE TIDE ON 7 INVASION SUSPECTS f SHARE 64 EMAIL g+ SHARE TWEET Baker County Sheriffs Office by AWR HAWKINS 19 Apr 2018 73 Two residents in Glen St. Mary, Florida, turned the tide on seven home invasion suspects by opening fire with an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun One of the alleged suspects was killed, another hospitalized, and a third was treated and released to police News4Jax reports the incident occurred around 4 a.m. Sunday when the suspects kicked in the door, claiming to be from the sheriffs office. Three residents were at home at the time, and two responded by opening fire. The resident with the AR-15 estimates he fired 30 rounds by himself. Two suspects immediately "crumpled to the floor with multiple gunshot wounds." The residents then "retreated to another part of the home" and called 911. One suspect, Corey Lauramore, died of gunshot wounds to his head and an unidentified 16-year-old was hospitalized in unknown condition. Officers found "a heavy amount of dried blood caked on the front steps of the home, a bloodstained mask with a bullet hole through it and a 380 caliber handgun lying nearby." Authorities believe a total of seven individuals went to the trailer Sunday morning. The five charged with home invasion are 24-year-old William Lauramore, 24-year-old Joseph Albino, 20-year-old Zachary Bell, 19-year-old Christian Watkins, and 15-year-old Cayden Lauramore. <p><a href="http://guywithastick.tumblr.com/post/173191183912/play-stupid-games-win-stupid-prizes" class="tumblr_blog">guywithastick</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Play stupid games win stupid prizes </p></blockquote> <p>“BuT wHy Do YoU nEeD aN aR-15???”</p>
Save
To everyone who is questioning their life, what they should do, or what people may say about the decisions that you make.... I say this! My life is full of ups and downs. I have people who love me. People who hate me. People that wish I would just go away, and even those who threaten to kill me. People hate what they don’t understand or what forces them to look outside their own world. People also hate the truth and normally argue it with emotion.... Trust me when I say this! Never be afraid to take YOUR stand. Never be afraid to live YOUR life. Never be afraid of possibly hurting other people simply because they don’t understand YOU. Never be afraid of your enemies.....because people who push against the grain will ALWAYS have enemies. Never be afraid to fail, get back up, fail, get back up.....over and over again. Most of all......and I do mean most of all BELIEVE in yourself! Because maybe.....just maybe you’re RIGHT! Always remember.... “You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill RANT ON! -Graham🇺🇸 USA veteran life freedom: E UNTIL THEY ARE FORGOTTEN + MEN DO NOT DIE THEY 三三REMEMBER BENGHAZI ★SEPT -11-2012 ★三三 - I. CHRISTOPNER STEVENS GLEN R. DONERTY TYRONE S. wDoDS SERN P. SMITH To everyone who is questioning their life, what they should do, or what people may say about the decisions that you make.... I say this! My life is full of ups and downs. I have people who love me. People who hate me. People that wish I would just go away, and even those who threaten to kill me. People hate what they don’t understand or what forces them to look outside their own world. People also hate the truth and normally argue it with emotion.... Trust me when I say this! Never be afraid to take YOUR stand. Never be afraid to live YOUR life. Never be afraid of possibly hurting other people simply because they don’t understand YOU. Never be afraid of your enemies.....because people who push against the grain will ALWAYS have enemies. Never be afraid to fail, get back up, fail, get back up.....over and over again. Most of all......and I do mean most of all BELIEVE in yourself! Because maybe.....just maybe you’re RIGHT! Always remember.... “You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill RANT ON! -Graham🇺🇸 USA veteran life freedom

To everyone who is questioning their life, what they should do, or what people may say about the decisions that you make.... I say this!...

Save
<p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://bushmeat.tumblr.com/" title="bushmeat">bushmeat</a> said:</p><blockquote><p>When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253</a></p></blockquote><p>If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study, well, I would have a shitload of nickels.</p><p>Since my previous source’s website is currently down–<a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/142352613032/that-red-guy-montypla-weaselwonderworld">which I’ve used in the past</a> to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this <a href="https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa654.pdf">other great explanation</a> by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks:</p><blockquote><p><i> The debate over how to reform America’s health care sector often involves comparisons between the United States and other countries, and with good reason. Looking at other countries can help us learn which policies, if any, to emulate, and which to avoid. </i></p><p><i>There have been many attempts at international health care system comparisons.Among the most influential are the World Health Report 2000 published by the World Health Organization, several studies published by the Commonwealth Fund, and individual measures such as infant mortality and “mortality amenable to health care.” Generally in these studies, the United States performs poorly in comparison to Europe, Australia, and Japan. Therefore, scholars often use the studies to argue for adding even more government regulations to our already highly regulated health care system. </i></p><p><i>However, these studies suffer from several problems. First, they often rely on unadjusted aggregate data—such as life expectancy, or mortality from heart disease—that can be affected by many non–health care factors, including nutrition, exercise, and even crime rates. Second,they often use process measures, such as how many patients have received a pap smear or mammogram in the past three years. Process measures tell us what doctors do, but provide only an indirect measure of doctors’ productivity. Third, some of these studies inappropriately incorporate their own biases about financing in their statistics, which makes market-driven health systems appear worse even if their outcomes are similar or better. </i></p><p><i>An additional limitation of these studies is the omission of any measure of innovation. None of the best-known studies factor in the contribution of various countries to the advances that have come to characterize the current practice of health care in the developed world. </i></p><p><i>Every single health care test or treatment must be invented at some point. We would be living in a different world today were it not for the remarkable genius and hard work of health care inventors in the past, as well as investments from government health agencies and pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The health care issues commonly considered most important today—controlling costs and covering the uninsured— arguably should be regarded as secondary to innovation, inasmuch as a treatment must first be invented before its costs can be reduced and its use extended to everyone. </i><br/></p></blockquote><p>Furthermore, from another Glen Whitman <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf">article</a>:</p><blockquote><p><i> Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares. <br/></i></p><p><i> The WHO health care rankings result from an index of health-related statistics. As with any index, it is important to consider how it was constructed, as the construction affects the results. </i><br/></p><p><i> There is good reason to account for the quality of care received by a country’s worst-off or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution factors do not do that.Instead, they measure relative differences in quality, without regard to the absolute level of quality. To account for the quality of care received by the worst-off, the index could include a factor that measures health among the poor, or a health care system’s responsiveness to the poor. This would, in essence, give greater weight to the well-being of the worst off.  Alternatively, a separate health performance index could be constructed for poor households or members of disadvantaged minorities. These approaches would surely have problems of their own, but they would at least be focused on the absolute level of health care quality, which should be the paramount concern. <br/></i></p><p><i> The WHO rankings, by purporting to measure the efficacy of health care systems, implicitly take all differences in health outcomes not explained by spending or literacy and attribute them entirely to health care system performance. Nothing else, from tobacco use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into account. </i></p><p><i>To some extent, the exclusion of other variables is simply the result of inadequacies in the data. It is difficult to get information on all relevant factors, and even more difficult to account for their expected effects on health. But some factors are deliberately excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of paternalistic assumptions about the proper role of health systems. An earlier paper laying out the WHO methodological framework asserts, “Problems such as tobacco consumption, diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be included in an assessment of health system performance.” </i></p><p><i>In other words, the WHO approach holds health systems responsible not just for treating lung cancer, but for preventing smoking in the first place; not just for treating heart disease, but for getting people to exercise and lay off the fatty foods. <br/></i></p><p><i> Second, the WHO approach fails to consider people’s willingness to trade off health against other values. Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports, and so on. The WHO approach, rather than taking the public’s preferences as given, deems some preferences better than others (and then praises or blames the health system for them). </i></p><p><i>A superior (though still imperfect) approach would take people’s health-related behavior as given, and then ask which health systems do the best job of dealing with whatever health conditions arise.<br/></i></p></blockquote><p>In other words, its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine.  </p><p>Despite all of it’s flaws, which are usually thanks to government market intervention, the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita.  It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us.  </p><p>You’re welcome.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b97a460c917c68f3900de0bc46e50c59/tumblr_inline_owpcxquafE1r1jtxd_540.gif" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"/></figure></blockquote>: ITS EASY TO FORGET THAT FOR DECADES THE U.S. HAD A HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT WAS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD. WE HAD THE FINEST DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS, PATIENTS RECEIVED HIGH QUALITY, AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE, AND THOUSANDS OF PRIVATELY FUNDED CHARITIES PROVIDED HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE PO0 RON PAUL TURNING POINT USA <p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://bushmeat.tumblr.com/" title="bushmeat">bushmeat</a> said:</p><blockquote><p>When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253</a></p></blockquote><p>If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study, well, I would have a shitload of nickels.</p><p>Since my previous source’s website is currently down–<a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/142352613032/that-red-guy-montypla-weaselwonderworld">which I’ve used in the past</a> to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this <a href="https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa654.pdf">other great explanation</a> by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks:</p><blockquote><p><i> The debate over how to reform America’s health care sector often involves comparisons between the United States and other countries, and with good reason. Looking at other countries can help us learn which policies, if any, to emulate, and which to avoid. </i></p><p><i>There have been many attempts at international health care system comparisons.Among the most influential are the World Health Report 2000 published by the World Health Organization, several studies published by the Commonwealth Fund, and individual measures such as infant mortality and “mortality amenable to health care.” Generally in these studies, the United States performs poorly in comparison to Europe, Australia, and Japan. Therefore, scholars often use the studies to argue for adding even more government regulations to our already highly regulated health care system. </i></p><p><i>However, these studies suffer from several problems. First, they often rely on unadjusted aggregate data—such as life expectancy, or mortality from heart disease—that can be affected by many non–health care factors, including nutrition, exercise, and even crime rates. Second,they often use process measures, such as how many patients have received a pap smear or mammogram in the past three years. Process measures tell us what doctors do, but provide only an indirect measure of doctors’ productivity. Third, some of these studies inappropriately incorporate their own biases about financing in their statistics, which makes market-driven health systems appear worse even if their outcomes are similar or better. </i></p><p><i>An additional limitation of these studies is the omission of any measure of innovation. None of the best-known studies factor in the contribution of various countries to the advances that have come to characterize the current practice of health care in the developed world. </i></p><p><i>Every single health care test or treatment must be invented at some point. We would be living in a different world today were it not for the remarkable genius and hard work of health care inventors in the past, as well as investments from government health agencies and pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The health care issues commonly considered most important today—controlling costs and covering the uninsured— arguably should be regarded as secondary to innovation, inasmuch as a treatment must first be invented before its costs can be reduced and its use extended to everyone. </i><br/></p></blockquote><p>Furthermore, from another Glen Whitman <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf">article</a>:</p><blockquote><p><i> Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares. <br/></i></p><p><i> The WHO health care rankings result from an index of health-related statistics. As with any index, it is important to consider how it was constructed, as the construction affects the results. </i><br/></p><p><i> There is good reason to account for the quality of care received by a country’s worst-off or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution factors do not do that.Instead, they measure relative differences in quality, without regard to the absolute level of quality. To account for the quality of care received by the worst-off, the index could include a factor that measures health among the poor, or a health care system’s responsiveness to the poor. This would, in essence, give greater weight to the well-being of the worst off.  Alternatively, a separate health performance index could be constructed for poor households or members of disadvantaged minorities. These approaches would surely have problems of their own, but they would at least be focused on the absolute level of health care quality, which should be the paramount concern. <br/></i></p><p><i> The WHO rankings, by purporting to measure the efficacy of health care systems, implicitly take all differences in health outcomes not explained by spending or literacy and attribute them entirely to health care system performance. Nothing else, from tobacco use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into account. </i></p><p><i>To some extent, the exclusion of other variables is simply the result of inadequacies in the data. It is difficult to get information on all relevant factors, and even more difficult to account for their expected effects on health. But some factors are deliberately excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of paternalistic assumptions about the proper role of health systems. An earlier paper laying out the WHO methodological framework asserts, “Problems such as tobacco consumption, diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be included in an assessment of health system performance.” </i></p><p><i>In other words, the WHO approach holds health systems responsible not just for treating lung cancer, but for preventing smoking in the first place; not just for treating heart disease, but for getting people to exercise and lay off the fatty foods. <br/></i></p><p><i> Second, the WHO approach fails to consider people’s willingness to trade off health against other values. Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports, and so on. The WHO approach, rather than taking the public’s preferences as given, deems some preferences better than others (and then praises or blames the health system for them). </i></p><p><i>A superior (though still imperfect) approach would take people’s health-related behavior as given, and then ask which health systems do the best job of dealing with whatever health conditions arise.<br/></i></p></blockquote><p>In other words, its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine.  </p><p>Despite all of it’s flaws, which are usually thanks to government market intervention, the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita.  It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us.  </p><p>You’re welcome.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b97a460c917c68f3900de0bc46e50c59/tumblr_inline_owpcxquafE1r1jtxd_540.gif" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"/></figure></blockquote>
Save