Anxiety – Page 477 – Effects of Anxiety

What The Dress Colour You See Says About You

A highly scientific* analysis. *Not scientific at all.

1. You’ve seen the dress. You’ve ended friendships. You’ve found out what science has to say. But here’s what it REALLY says about you…

(According to three BuzzFeed Australia writers who are making this shit up because WHAT DOES LIFE EVEN MEAN ANYMORE WE WILL NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN???!?!?!??!!)

2. If you see blue and black:

Jenna: You see things for what they are. You’re not easily deceived and haven’t got time for bullshit. You’re no-nonsense and probably smarter than everyone else, lbr.

Stephanie: You’re a big fan of: 1) being right, 2) the Backstreet Boys, 3) being in the company of the greats, i.e., Mindy Kaling, Tinashe, Taylor Swift, Demi Lovato, and a gazillion other people who are correct.

Brad: If you see blue and black you are, on top of being a genius, also correct. You are to the point, stoic, and understanding. You have no time for the frivolous nature of “gold and white” lovers. The world is a real place, and you see things the way they *really* are.

View this image ›

Twitter: @_Snape_

4. If you see white and gold:

Jenna: You’re imaginative and creative. You’re not bound by “reality” and know there’s more to things than meets the eye.

Stephanie: You believe it’s true, but you are probably tripping balls.

Brad: You’re wrong about a lot of things, but your headstrong nature sees you often convince people otherwise. For you, it’s all about attitude.

View this image ›

Twitter: @HungerGamesDWTC

6. If you see blue and gold:

Jenna: IDK WTF is wrong with you? You should probably see a doctor about that.

Stephanie: This is a glamorous colour combination, and that is your approach to life. You see things the way you want to and that’s A-OK.

Brad: You like to take the good with the good, and won’t take bad news for an answer. You spend your days with a smile on your face. You’re definitely a *morning person*.

View this image ›

Paramount / Via Brad Esposito / BuzzFeed

8. If you see blue and bronze:

Jenna: You’re a natural diplomat, and try to see both sides of a problem before making a decision. In other words, you’re a fence-sitter.

Stephanie: TBH, you’re probably right and you understand the difference between gold and bronze, which is a virtue. You also know that this dress wouldn’t even make bronze in the fashion Olympics, because it sucks.

Brad: You take your time with things. Often, you’ll stare at a tree for hours on end, just thinking about its point in the universe. Is it a tree? What makes it a tree? If you stop calling it a tree, is it still a tree?

View this image ›

Twitter: @kyleisperfect

10. If you see white and black:

Jenna: You’re a dog.

Stephanie: Get off Instagram for two seconds and look at an unfiltered version of the dress pls.

Brad: You’re wrong. Just wrong. And you should go see a doctor.

View this image ›

Twitter: @court_with_a_K

12. If you see blue and brown:

Jenna: You like eating ice cream and being sad.

Stephanie: You’re incorrect. Seek help XOXO.

Brad: Congratulations, you’re sad. Cheer up a little bit, because blue and brown is a colour combo that has worked literally three times.

13. If you see white and brown:

Jenna: You’re a dog.

Stephanie: Sorry about your life choices that have led you to this point.

Brad: You grew up reading comic books, pondering the world, and wishing you had superpowers. You don’t have superpowers.

View this image ›

Disney

15. If you have seen it change colours:

Jenna: The dress put a spell on you and now it owns your soul.

Stephanie: If it changed colours, you legit just need to get your eyes tested. Colours don’t change.

Brad: You’re not afraid to experiment and try new things.

16. If you saw literally any other combination:

Jenna: You just had to be different, didn’t you?!?!

Stephanie: You’re a loner who sees the world in a different light than everyone else. This is probably because you’re wearing ’90s colour-tinted lenses or something.

Brad: You’re one of “those” people that just *has* to be different.

Progressive Caucus Chair: Netanyahu Speech To Congress An “Insult”

“Him insulting the presidency and siding with the Republicans and coming in to give that talk to a joint session, I think it smacks of politics.”

[soundcloud url=”http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/190486211″]

w.soundcloud.com

Progressive Caucus co-chairman Rep. Raul Grijalva Monday called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned address to a joint session of Congress an “insult.”

The Democrat from Arizona has previously said he will not attend the speech.

“Him insulting the presidency and siding with the Republicans and coming in to give that talk to a joint session, I think it smacks of politics,” Grijalva said on Sirius XM’s The Agenda in a radio interview. “It smacks of convenience, his election is a week away in Israel. And I for one am not going to contribute to that insult. There’s a protocol and Mr. Boehner is not in charge of foreign policy for this nation. The president is in charge of that and whether you like Obama or not, that’s the process.”

Grijalva said “it’s up to every individual” to decide if they wanted to attend the speech.

“You’ve had colleagues like John Lewis, Mr. Conyers…I’ve heard of other names but I don’t want to use them because, uh, at least those two are public say, â€˜I’m not attending.’ And I that’s an individual choice each member should make.”

“Personally, I’m not attending, for myself, and that’s not a Progressive Caucus position or are we whipping them to do that,” he added. “I think each member has to. I’ve felt the prime minister’s intrusion into 2012, in practically endorsing Romney in that election was again an interference in the internal politics of a nation.”

The congressman cited the protocol followed by the Pope to set up an address to Congress later this year as evidence Netanyhu was breaking protocol by speaking to Congress without the president’s approval.

“If it’s good enough for the pope it should be good enough for the prime minister.”

correction

This article originally gave the wrong state Grijalva represents in Congress. BF_STATIC.timequeue.push(function () { document.getElementById(“update_article_correction_time_4942738”).innerHTML = UI.dateFormat.get_formatted_date(‘2015-02-10 21:02:03 -0500’, ‘update’); });

Cleaver: Romney shouldn’t criticize Obama in front of a black audience

http://twitter.com/#!/secupp/status/223072324876910594

Today’s lesson in race card logic comes to us courtesy of Congressional Black Caucus chairman Emanuel Cleaver. Here’s how he reacted to Romney’s criticism of Obamacare while delivering a speech at the annual NAACP convention:

Rep Cleaver (D-MO) MSNBC: booing Romney on healthcare “inappropriate but predictable” & “he should never have gone there in the first place”

— Greg Giroux (@greggiroux) July 11, 2012

Video via The Washington Examiner:

Such is life under Obama’s post-racial presidency. Apparently a white candidate must never “go there” when speaking to a black audience about a black opponent’s policies. It’s okay to talk about Obamacare, just not to “this audience.”

Would Rep. Cleaver would prefer that Romney lie? Does he think black Americans need to be pandered to and spoon-fed liberal pablum instead of hearing what Romney’s candidacy is really about?

https://twitter.com/PollyCarbo/status/223075322516611073

Nothing racist about that. No siree.

Shorter Rep. Cleaver: Obama should not be criticized in front of the American people because of his skin color.

— joe warner (@jwarner180) July 11, 2012

Conservatives on Twitter tried to puzzle out how Rep. Cleaver’s logic might apply to other situations.

So I guess President Obama shouldn't criticize Romney in front a white audience in Ohio, right Rep. Cleaver? #StuckOnStupid

— Seth (@dcseth) July 11, 2012

According to Cleaver's logic, Obama shouldn't criticize Palin while speaking before women.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) July 11, 2012

Rep. Cleaver must also believe that Obama can never criticize Romney in front of white voters. Right?

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) July 11, 2012

Obama shouldn't criticize obsesity in front of fat people.

— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) July 11, 2012

Can Obama criticize Romney in front of white audience? @secupp: Cleaver: Romney should not have criticized Obama in front of black audience.

— Brad Boll (@acoltfan) July 11, 2012

This tweet just might blow Rep. Cleaver’s mind.

Rep. Cleaver shouldn't criticize Romney criticizing Obama in front of a black audience in front of a white audience.

— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) July 11, 2012

Hey, Rep. Cleaver, we’ve got news for you:

@BenHowe Anybody who says the president shouldn't be criticized is obviously not well versed in history or the Constitution.

— This Will Kill You (@stephenkruiser) July 11, 2012

April 2014 Lunar Eclipse

#IAm1A: ‘Journalism is an act, not a members-only country club’ [video]

http://twitter.com/#!/FranklinCenter/status/395937068809195520

The Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity is taking action against an attempt to give the government power to decide who is and isn’t considered a “journalist”:

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee led by Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham have attached an amendment to Senate Bill 987, which would give the Department of Justice power to determine who qualifies for protection as a journalist under the First Amendment.

Here at the Franklin Center, we believe in the power of a free press. We already have a law to protect the press from government meddling in our newsgathering efforts and excluding Americans from the reporting process. It’s called the First Amendment.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong with the government deciding who is and isn’t a “journalist”? We thought the government worked for the people, not the other way around.

http://twitter.com/#!/912inMA/status/395961998254419969

Video from the Franklin Center:

For more information on how to take action against this latest attack on free speech, go to IAm1A.com.

My thoughts when I saw this earlier

Picard Wtf

We Managed To Make It To Top 15! Many Thanks Men!

I managed to get To Top 15! Many thanks Dudes!

Its Finally Over

Feminist nonsense: Laura Bush has ‘never done anything for women’

http://twitter.com/#!/TeriChristoph/status/215110418945941507

In September, the board of Sewall-Belmont House plans to honor former first lady Laura Bush with the Alice award, a prize named after suffragette Alice Paul. Celebrating the accomplishments of a Republican woman is, of course, an almost unspeakable horror to the feminist Left.

Led by NOW co-founder Sonia Pressman Fuentes, 22 self-appointed arbiters of what’s Good for Women™ have their feminist panties twisted into bunches, and boy are they chafing.

“When I read that the award was going to be given to Laura Bush, I felt as if I’d had a sudden onset of Alzheimer’s,” she told Yeas & Nays. “I couldn’t believe my eyes.”

Hey, that’s how we felt when President Obama won the Nobel Prize. Only, y’know, he didn’t do anything to deserve it.

Fuentes told the Washington Examiner this is not a partisan issue.

I’m not complaining that she’s a Republican. I’m complaining that she’s never done anything for women to get this award.

Really? If it’s not a partisan complaint, why does the protest letter include this:

To give it to a non-feminist Republican figurehead, at a time when the Republican Party is doing its utmost to demolish women’s hard-fought rights, reflects a stunning lapse of judgment.

Ah, the Republican patriarchy’s ol’ War on Women. Will it never end?

You need more than a vagina to be a feminist. #LauraBush needs to do more for #WomensRights… http://t.co/djPXxwNR

— One Million Vaginas (@OneMillionVjj) June 18, 2012

Award available. Victims only. Inquire within.

@irritatedwoman so completely liberal to put partisan politics ahead of true leadership and progress. It's disgusting. God bless Laura Bush.

— Unrepresented (@jwfrisch) June 19, 2012

Even the former first lady’s support for legally available abortion isn’t sufficient to admit her to the sisterhood. Why? As always, because Booooosh!

https://twitter.com/arabyialatina/status/214839967258648577

While femme-agogues raged in a collective tantrum and scrambled to offer “palatable” left-wing alternatives like Sen. Barbara Mikulski and Eleanor Smeal, the conservative Twitterverse easily reeled off the many reasons to honor Bush’s work on behalf of women.

She’s “never done anything for women”? Try again, lefties.

NOW doesn't think Laura Bush did anything for women http://t.co/Dn5huNCi she only brought attn to Afghani women suffering @ hands of taliban

— Mary Margaret (@marymhbamafan) June 19, 2012

So the NOW prez doesn't think helping those with breast cancer or heart disease is helping women? What does she mean? http://t.co/dEAe986V

— John Tackes (@MoJohnT) June 19, 2012

She PAC co-chair Teri Christoph launched the #StandWithLaura hashtag to push back against the Left’s insulting, demeaning attacks on the former first lady.

Laura Bush championed education and literacy issues for all children. I #StandWithLaura.