🔥 Popular | Latest

why-yes-i-am-an-adult: squirreltastic: skeepeep: This is what billionaires can do with their unlawful amount of money “ Hansjörg Wyss, a billionaire and conservationist, wrote Wednesday in a New York Times op-ed that he will donate the money over the next 10 years through his Wyss Foundation. Lands and waters are best conserved when they become public national parks, wildlife refuges, or marine reserves, Wyss wrote. He aims to help conserve 30% of the Earth in a natural state by 2030.”   “ Wyss previously helped protect wild species on roughly 40 million acres of land and ocean after donating more than $450 million across Africa, South America, North America, and Europe. Wyss is also one of several billionaires to sign the Giving Pledge, a commitment to give away at least half of one’s wealth to charity. “ it just boggles my mind that so many people have ungodly amounts of money and absolutely none of them think of doing things like this, it should be the obvious choice. Imagine having the power in your hands to literally save the world like a real-life superhero and instead just deciding to buy a mansion made of gold or some other useless nonsense. : A Swiss billionaire has donated $1 billion to save the Earth. ladbible.com/news/inspirati.. @a.valid username that was very cash money of vou why-yes-i-am-an-adult: squirreltastic: skeepeep: This is what billionaires can do with their unlawful amount of money “ Hansjörg Wyss, a billionaire and conservationist, wrote Wednesday in a New York Times op-ed that he will donate the money over the next 10 years through his Wyss Foundation. Lands and waters are best conserved when they become public national parks, wildlife refuges, or marine reserves, Wyss wrote. He aims to help conserve 30% of the Earth in a natural state by 2030.”   “ Wyss previously helped protect wild species on roughly 40 million acres of land and ocean after donating more than $450 million across Africa, South America, North America, and Europe. Wyss is also one of several billionaires to sign the Giving Pledge, a commitment to give away at least half of one’s wealth to charity. “ it just boggles my mind that so many people have ungodly amounts of money and absolutely none of them think of doing things like this, it should be the obvious choice. Imagine having the power in your hands to literally save the world like a real-life superhero and instead just deciding to buy a mansion made of gold or some other useless nonsense.

why-yes-i-am-an-adult: squirreltastic: skeepeep: This is what billionaires can do with their unlawful amount of money “ Hansjörg Wyss,...

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. W…wait 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. W…wait 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
why-yes-i-am-an-adult: squirreltastic: skeepeep: This is what billionaires can do with their unlawful amount of money “ Hansjörg Wyss, a billionaire and conservationist, wrote Wednesday in a New York Times op-ed that he will donate the money over the next 10 years through his Wyss Foundation. Lands and waters are best conserved when they become public national parks, wildlife refuges, or marine reserves, Wyss wrote. He aims to help conserve 30% of the Earth in a natural state by 2030.”   “ Wyss previously helped protect wild species on roughly 40 million acres of land and ocean after donating more than $450 million across Africa, South America, North America, and Europe. Wyss is also one of several billionaires to sign the Giving Pledge, a commitment to give away at least half of one’s wealth to charity. “ it just boggles my mind that so many people have ungodly amounts of money and absolutely none of them think of doing things like this, it should be the obvious choice. Imagine having the power in your hands to literally save the world like a real-life superhero and instead just deciding to buy a mansion made of gold or some other useless nonsense. : A Swiss billionaire has donated $1 billion to save the Earth. ladbible.com/news/inspirati.. @a.valid username that was very cash money of vou why-yes-i-am-an-adult: squirreltastic: skeepeep: This is what billionaires can do with their unlawful amount of money “ Hansjörg Wyss, a billionaire and conservationist, wrote Wednesday in a New York Times op-ed that he will donate the money over the next 10 years through his Wyss Foundation. Lands and waters are best conserved when they become public national parks, wildlife refuges, or marine reserves, Wyss wrote. He aims to help conserve 30% of the Earth in a natural state by 2030.”   “ Wyss previously helped protect wild species on roughly 40 million acres of land and ocean after donating more than $450 million across Africa, South America, North America, and Europe. Wyss is also one of several billionaires to sign the Giving Pledge, a commitment to give away at least half of one’s wealth to charity. “ it just boggles my mind that so many people have ungodly amounts of money and absolutely none of them think of doing things like this, it should be the obvious choice. Imagine having the power in your hands to literally save the world like a real-life superhero and instead just deciding to buy a mansion made of gold or some other useless nonsense.

why-yes-i-am-an-adult: squirreltastic: skeepeep: This is what billionaires can do with their unlawful amount of money “ Hansjörg Wyss,...

Save
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. W…wait 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. : 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 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. W…wait 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.

tyse-has-unpopular-opinions: juxtapoesition: oistrong: I’m all for fighting for marriage equality in the LGBT community. But we’re so...

Save
femestella: Once a respected publication full of integrity, the New York Times has become blinded in the time of Trump. What can only be described as a pitiful attempt to appeal to a wider audience, the NYT has ended up publishing op-ed after op-ed that are directly insulting and demeaning to women. They have published at least three in the last six months that have each caused an uproar and yet they don’t seem to care one bit. The NY Times is clearly uninterested in addressing any of these issues. While each time an outrage broke out over an article, the author was the one to apologize, not the publication. It was clear that the NY Times had lost their way when it came to reporting on Trump, but now it’s become clear that they’ve lost their way. Period. Read more: http://bit.ly/2BDu13d : NOT ASKING FOR IT NO MATTER WHAT !! femestella: Once a respected publication full of integrity, the New York Times has become blinded in the time of Trump. What can only be described as a pitiful attempt to appeal to a wider audience, the NYT has ended up publishing op-ed after op-ed that are directly insulting and demeaning to women. They have published at least three in the last six months that have each caused an uproar and yet they don’t seem to care one bit. The NY Times is clearly uninterested in addressing any of these issues. While each time an outrage broke out over an article, the author was the one to apologize, not the publication. It was clear that the NY Times had lost their way when it came to reporting on Trump, but now it’s become clear that they’ve lost their way. Period. Read more: http://bit.ly/2BDu13d

femestella: Once a respected publication full of integrity, the New York Times has become blinded in the time of Trump. What can only be...

Save
Once a respected publication full of integrity, the New York Times has become blinded in the time of Trump.What can only be described as a pitiful attempt to appeal to a wider audience, the NYT has ended up publishing op-ed after op-ed that are directly insulting and demeaning to women. They have published at least three in the last six months that have each caused an uproar and yet they don’t seem to care one bit.The NY Times is clearly uninterested in addressing any of these issues. While each time an outrage broke out over an article, the author was the one to apologize, not the publication. It was clear that the NY Times had lost their way when it came to reporting on Trump, but now it’s become clear that they’ve lost their way. Period.Read more: http://bit.ly/2BDu13d: NOT ASKING FOR IT NO MATTER WHAT !! Once a respected publication full of integrity, the New York Times has become blinded in the time of Trump.What can only be described as a pitiful attempt to appeal to a wider audience, the NYT has ended up publishing op-ed after op-ed that are directly insulting and demeaning to women. They have published at least three in the last six months that have each caused an uproar and yet they don’t seem to care one bit.The NY Times is clearly uninterested in addressing any of these issues. While each time an outrage broke out over an article, the author was the one to apologize, not the publication. It was clear that the NY Times had lost their way when it came to reporting on Trump, but now it’s become clear that they’ve lost their way. Period.Read more: http://bit.ly/2BDu13d

Once a respected publication full of integrity, the New York Times has become blinded in the time of Trump.What can only be described as...

Save
redmensch: thegestianpoet: anarchapella: redmensch: nothing better to start your day off like an op-ed in the nytimes about banning jews Burn down the nyt also @ everyone in the comments taking pains to say this “isn’t really what the article says/is a satirical title”: even if that was true, there is no ethical line of reasoning that would result in it being okay to publish something with a title like this in an environment where nazisim is literally on the rise. language like this being presented without clarity on purpose is almost even more evil for the nyt to be doing, in a way, because it implies the fear that seeing such a headline can and does generate is of secondary importance to getting a curious click on a shitty op-ed THANK YOU! people think i believe the nytimes is calling for jews to be banned because satire is hard to understand, no, the point is that at a moment when more people actually do believe jews should be banned than at any time in the past several decades, perhaps the Bastions of the #Resistance should not be throwing around “ban Jews” in their hidelines to grab attention?: The New York Times Opinion Section Here's a thought experiment, writes Bret Stephens: Would the United States have been better off if it had banned Jewish immigration sometime in the late 19th century? Opinion | A Modest Immigration Proposal: Barn Jews nytimes.com redmensch: thegestianpoet: anarchapella: redmensch: nothing better to start your day off like an op-ed in the nytimes about banning jews Burn down the nyt also @ everyone in the comments taking pains to say this “isn’t really what the article says/is a satirical title”: even if that was true, there is no ethical line of reasoning that would result in it being okay to publish something with a title like this in an environment where nazisim is literally on the rise. language like this being presented without clarity on purpose is almost even more evil for the nyt to be doing, in a way, because it implies the fear that seeing such a headline can and does generate is of secondary importance to getting a curious click on a shitty op-ed THANK YOU! people think i believe the nytimes is calling for jews to be banned because satire is hard to understand, no, the point is that at a moment when more people actually do believe jews should be banned than at any time in the past several decades, perhaps the Bastions of the #Resistance should not be throwing around “ban Jews” in their hidelines to grab attention?
Save