could've been worse
birdsphere:

comelyinsanity:

birdturdnerd:

batsaflyin:

Uh. He was not the voice of shrek.

yeah he was

Are we gonna ignore the fact that he was supposedly 130 years old?

this man is dead how dare you

birdsphere:

comelyinsanity:

birdturdnerd:

batsaflyin:

Uh. He was not the voice of shrek.

yeah he was

Are we gonna ignore the fact that he was supposedly 130 years old?

this man is dead how dare you

haaaaaaaaave-you-met-ted:


j-willikers:

wicked-mint-leaves:

kateevangelistaauthor:

This is SO cool that I just had to share.

you clever fuckers

my teacher used this today

W+H+I+S+K+E+Y23+8+9+19+11+5+25 = 100%

haaaaaaaaave-you-met-ted:

j-willikers:

wicked-mint-leaves:

kateevangelistaauthor:

This is SO cool that I just had to share.

you clever fuckers

my teacher used this today

W+H+I+S+K+E+Y
23+8+9+19+11+5+25 = 100%

image

foreveralone-lyguy:

oh my god

foreveralone-lyguy:

oh my god

andrewismusic:

thehpalliance:

If you use YouTube, you need to know this.
You’ve heard all these rumblings about Net Neutrality over the past several months. Let’s get real: this is about controlling online video. It is estimated that by 2017, video content will account for 80-90% of all global Internet traffic.
This isn’t just about not being able to binge-watch a series on Netflix. It’s about the future of online video as we know it.
Whether your YouTube channel is home to daily vlogs, short films, or just that one video from when the cinnamon challenge seemed like a good idea, you’re a video creator. Your content and comments help shape this community. Let’s keep it that way.
Net Neutrality means that your YouTube videos reach people at the same speed as clips from last night’s episode of the Tonight Show. It means a level playing field for video creators looking to reach an audience. But new Net Neutrality rules could mess that up.
Here’s the deal: Telecommunications companies already charge us to access the Internet through our homes and our phones. New FCC rules could allow them to also charge content providers (like YouTube, Netflix, and even PBS) for access to our eyeballs. It could create a fast lane for Jimmy Fallon’s clips, and slow lane for your YouTube videos.
It is really important that the FCC understands that online video creators care about Net Neutrality. Even if you’ve only ever uploaded ONE VIDEO, you are a creator and you have a voice.
If you can, please add your channel to our petition. We’ll deliver this to the FCC in September and demonstrate that the online video community cares about this issue. 
Sign the petition, then spread the word.

yo - sign it

andrewismusic:

thehpalliance:

If you use YouTube, you need to know this.

You’ve heard all these rumblings about Net Neutrality over the past several months. Let’s get real: this is about controlling online video. It is estimated that by 2017, video content will account for 80-90% of all global Internet traffic.

This isn’t just about not being able to binge-watch a series on Netflix. It’s about the future of online video as we know it.

Whether your YouTube channel is home to daily vlogs, short films, or just that one video from when the cinnamon challenge seemed like a good idea, you’re a video creator. Your content and comments help shape this community. Let’s keep it that way.

Net Neutrality means that your YouTube videos reach people at the same speed as clips from last night’s episode of the Tonight Show. It means a level playing field for video creators looking to reach an audience. But new Net Neutrality rules could mess that up.

Here’s the deal: Telecommunications companies already charge us to access the Internet through our homes and our phones. New FCC rules could allow them to also charge content providers (like YouTube, Netflix, and even PBS) for access to our eyeballs. It could create a fast lane for Jimmy Fallon’s clips, and slow lane for your YouTube videos.

It is really important that the FCC understands that online video creators care about Net Neutrality. Even if you’ve only ever uploaded ONE VIDEO, you are a creator and you have a voice.

If you can, please add your channel to our petition. We’ll deliver this to the FCC in September and demonstrate that the online video community cares about this issue.

Sign the petition, then spread the word.

yo - sign it

kitten-jesus:

trotskay:

went to an American restaurant today!!!! ‘ello mate!!!!!! put forks in my hair to show my love for these Westerners’ food!!! Haha!!!!! Ha!!!! Ha!!! Ha!!! Ha  !

That sentence needs more exclamation marks

thatfunnyblog:

If I can’t bring the spoon to my face
THEN I’LL BRING MY FACE TO THE SPOON

thatfunnyblog:

If I can’t bring the spoon to my face


THEN I’LL BRING MY FACE TO THE SPOON

skypestripper:

skypestripper:

math.. more like

image

image

stilettoheart:

roserosetyler:

vixyish:

the-uncensored-she:

Tell me again why a women’s liberation movement is no longer needed.

Dear “I don’t need feminism” crowd…

“The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday stood by its ruling that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant because he found her too attractive and worried he would try to start an affair. Coming to the same conclusion as it did in December, the all-male court found that bosses can fire employees they see as threats to their marriages, even if the subordinates have not engaged in flirtatious or other inappropriate behavior. The court said such firings do not count as illegal sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender." [x]

how is this not a bigger issue
h o w

stilettoheart:

roserosetyler:

vixyish:

the-uncensored-she:

Tell me again why a women’s liberation movement is no longer needed.

Dear “I don’t need feminism” crowd…

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday stood by its ruling that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant because he found her too attractive and worried he would try to start an affair. Coming to the same conclusion as it did in December, the all-male court found that bosses can fire employees they see as threats to their marriages, even if the subordinates have not engaged in flirtatious or other inappropriate behavior. The court said such firings do not count as illegal sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender." [x]

how is this not a bigger issue

h o w