Primal Flame of Chaos.

anatomicalart:

peacake:

necnill:

theprosefool:

He’s yummy but I’m mostly just reblogging because LOOK AT THAT SKILL

DAT SHOULDER LIFT.

why isn’t this an Olympic sport yet?

Who could ask for a better 360° reference

(Source: romy7, via beachfox)

I gave fair warning

Well a while back I gave warning I would record five minutes of myself performing my odd habit of singing randomness unless convinced otherwise. I was not. So if you’re willing to put up with my silliness, and horrendous voice for about five minutes…. you were warned.

anglosexual:

larwrence:

facts about other movies

"the first disney princess to be crowned quee—"

image

"the first disney princess to be crown—"

image

"the first dis—"

image

let’s try that again

image

I do believe they either mean Kidagakash isn’t counted because in the movie Atlantis was an Empire making her an Empress or her crowning scene wasn’t shown. Beyond those two technicalities though the try again is correct.

(via shubbro)

moshtoflames:

alwayssmilecuzyoucan:

afangirlstreehouse:

hheath541:

Apple download - https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/aspire-news/id733163167?mt=8
Android download - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.collectiveray.aspire

I’m sorry - not my usual stuff - but this is incredibly important. Please share around. It could save someone’s life.

I DON’T CARE IF THIS DOESN’T SUIT YOUR BLOG TYPE IF YOU DON’T REBLOG THIS I’M JUDGING YOU 

im sorry but this is so important

moshtoflames:

alwayssmilecuzyoucan:

afangirlstreehouse:

hheath541:

Apple download - https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/aspire-news/id733163167?mt=8

Android download - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.collectiveray.aspire

I’m sorry - not my usual stuff - but this is incredibly important. Please share around. It could save someone’s life.

I DON’T CARE IF THIS DOESN’T SUIT YOUR BLOG TYPE IF YOU DON’T REBLOG THIS I’M JUDGING YOU 

im sorry but this is so important

(via raises-the-dead)

raises-the-dead:

atopfourthwall:

obscuruslupa:

marzgurl:

halloweenjackconnell:

halloweenjackconnell:

This, everyone, is Danny Lopez, aka “DannyWiiU”, “DannySNES”, “dannydsi”, and a bunch of other names involving Nintendo consoles. He’s a creep whose Twitter feed consists ENTIRELY of asking women to burp for him and make videos of them burping. Plus trying to get 15-year old actress Joey King to unblock him from Instagram and Vine. Make of THAT what you will.

Recently, he threatened to rape Lindsay Ellis, rape all female producers for Channel Awesome/Chez Apocalypse/TGWTG, and kill her boyfriend (ToddInTheShadows) and their dog Kali. He is currently under investigation by the NYPD for these threats, and Lindsay has blocked him on Twitter.

Danny is not very clever, since he thinks that someone blocking him means he can continue to make these threats. He is mistaken. I’ve screencapped these for the attention of lindsayetumbls, partly because I don’t know how to submit them to her, but also as a signal boost. If you see him make any threats to anyone, screencap them, post them to Lindsay, and move on. These are all being used in a case against him.

Thank you.

Oh! But wait! He hasn’t stopped there!

image

image

image

image

image

I have to assume at this point he’s doing it out of spite. Regardless, at this point, we treat this as an actual legitimate threat. Updating this so @lindsayetumbls has more material, but if obscuruslupa, marzgurl, nashscribblings, atopfourthwall, kylekallgren, or any other TGWTG producer can reblog this, it would be greatly appreciated.

Updated: new threats made against Kaylyn Dicksion, aka Marzgurl.

I have my own personal screenshots that I’ve kept and sent to Lindsay so that she can actually do something legal with them, but basically yes, he has also threatened to rape me and kill my fiance, Josh. So, you know, just to further show that it’s a pretty serious issue.

If you see this person around, don’t engage him, don’t give him any attention. Screen cap if you need to and block him, and that’s all need be said about him.

Do not, I repeat DO. NOT. ENGAGE. HIM.

Screencaps. Send them to Lindsay. Block him.

Bring this fucker down.
thepeoplesrecord:

The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’April 16, 2014
Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.
This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.
To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.
Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.
Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.
The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.
However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.
People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.
One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.
It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.
Source

thepeoplesrecord:

The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’
April 16, 2014

Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.

This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.

To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.

Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.

Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.

The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.

However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.

People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.

One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.

It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.

Source

(via ouijubell)

austriea:

man you know what I want? a superhero series where they have powers that 100% contradict their personalities. a fishermans daughter who lives by the sea, swims every day, learns that she can control fire. a boy who’s mortified of heights but realizes he can use antigravity and hates it. someone who was bitten by a dog as a child, suffers extreme fear around animals, can now communicate with them. they’re all disgusted by their powers.

then it turns out that they got the powers for whatever reason because they’d hate them. Whatever gave them the powers couldn’t do so benevolently and so gave them an aspect of themselves that they’d hate. It’d be up to them to decide how and if they’d use their powers.

And possibly there was no other reason they got the powers other than the entity/event just did it.

(via chipmunkfanatic)

I want to know what this movie would have been like. Some actiony spy thriller where the villain had found the Sasquatch and made genetically modded clone army?

(Source: outofcontextarthur, via voiceactresskurutta)