This looks a whole lot like Love Garden in Lawrence, Kansas
(Source: thebirthofcool-, via heyblaine28)
"A game at the new George W. Bush library raises the question: Could a president benefit from crowdsourcing? It will be fascinating to see — over time — how members of the audience agree or disagree with Bush’s historic decisions in this game-show approach to the presidency."
How About You Be The Decider by Linton Weeks (via npr)
Easy answer: an emphatic NO.
Crowd sourcing for political ideas/policy would be like trying to have a serious political discussion on Facebook.
(via npr)
OH GODS NEW DAFT PUNK THIS HAS BEEN WHAT MY LIFE HAS BEEN LEADING UP TO.
Yes.
CAN’T. FUCKING. WAIT.
(via fyspringfield)
(Source: maxlapierre, via heyblaine28)
*MY OPINION*
There is a lot of controversy about same sex marriage today. As for the supreme court are taking up this issue. Don’t get me wrong, I greatly respect gay/ lesbian/ bi-sexual people, and I would treat them the same way I would treat anyone I would encounter. BUT I do not support their decisions on same sex marriage. There are several instances throughout scripture where God forbids unions with same sex couples. (e.i. “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a women, both of them have done what is destestable.” -Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13.
“Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves due penalty for their error.” -Romans 1:27.
“That is why a MAN leaves his father and mother and is united to his WIFE and they become one flesh.” -Genesis 2:24.)
I myself live according to scripture and I believe that same sex marriage is wrong. I stand up for what I believe in. I STAND UP FOR ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. I STAND FOR TRUTH.
a book written in bronze age palestine by illiterate peasants is still being taken literally and negatively influencing lives of millions
hopefully people grow out of this soon
^bingo
In the US the law actually dictates the morality of the state, and that is one reason the First Amendment was written; to make sure that one groups vision of morality doesn’t trample the same rights of another group. As long as you are a law abiding citizen (in the eyes of the state) you are/should be afforded the exact same rights as any other law abiding citizen. As long as you abide by the law you are free to believe in whatever vision of morality you want but that can’t infringe on the rights of another because their vision of morality is different (assuming the other person is law abiding in the eyes of the state).
In short form, your right to believe in a specific religion does not give you the authority to deny equal privilege just because you don’t agree with someone else’s lifestyle.
I’m terrible at this tumblr thing.
(Source: kanndennliebesynthiesein, via pitchfork)
