Obama on sensitivity in colleges
![Obama on sensitivity in colleges. source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOBRPuUMnJY&feature=youtu.be&t=44m36s. the HAVE ll GUEST‘ SPEAKER mums TIN] made an imagur. Here we see a tumblrina waiting to get home and complain to the internet that the president of the United States oppressed and triggered her tonight. Last pic,](http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Obama+on+sensitivity+in+colleges_fa0c18_5690480.png "Obama on sensitivity in colleges")
![Obama on sensitivity in colleges. source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOBRPuUMnJY&feature=youtu.be&t=44m36s. the HAVE ll GUEST‘ SPEAKER mums TIN] made an imagur. Here we see a tumblrina waiting to get home and complain to the internet that the president of the United States oppressed and triggered her tonight. Last pic,](http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Obama_aaf916_5690480.png "Obama on sensitivity in colleges")
![Obama on sensitivity in colleges. source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOBRPuUMnJY&feature=youtu.be&t=44m36s. the HAVE ll GUEST‘ SPEAKER mums TIN] made an imagur. Here we see a tumblrina waiting to get home and complain to the internet that the president of the United States oppressed and triggered her tonight. Last pic,](http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Obama_67b74d_5690480.png "Obama on sensitivity in colleges")
![Obama on sensitivity in colleges. source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOBRPuUMnJY&feature=youtu.be&t=44m36s. the HAVE ll GUEST‘ SPEAKER mums TIN] made an imagur. Here we see a tumblrina waiting to get home and complain to the internet that the president of the United States oppressed and triggered her tonight. Last pic,](http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Obama_459b20_5690480.png "Obama on sensitivity in colleges")
![Obama on sensitivity in colleges. source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOBRPuUMnJY&feature=youtu.be&t=44m36s. the HAVE ll GUEST‘ SPEAKER mums TIN] made an imagur. Here we see a tumblrina waiting to get home and complain to the internet that the president of the United States oppressed and triggered her tonight. Last pic,](http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Obama_cff6dc_5690480.png "Obama on sensitivity in colleges")
the HAVE ll GUEST‘
SPEAKER mums TIN]
made
an imagur
SPEAKER mums TIN]
made
an imagur
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
159 comments displayed.
#15
-
dudewitshirt (09/21/2015) [-]
And if you get stumped in the argument it doesn't mean you're an idiot.
Maybe you need to do more research on your stance or maybe the other stance makes more sense and your opponent has just now helped you realize that
We need to realize that just because we were proven wrong doesn't make us an idiot. What makes us an idiot is continuing to fight a battle that you know you've already lost.
Take some time to chew on the facts and decide if you should continue to hold the same view or if you need to more research
Maybe you need to do more research on your stance or maybe the other stance makes more sense and your opponent has just now helped you realize that
We need to realize that just because we were proven wrong doesn't make us an idiot. What makes us an idiot is continuing to fight a battle that you know you've already lost.
Take some time to chew on the facts and decide if you should continue to hold the same view or if you need to more research
#219 to #15
-
thegrimpoe (09/21/2015) [-] thats true but it also means you have an overall weaker arguement and conviction. For example in the debates Trump really had nothing new to add, he just brought up one or two prepared examples. Rand Paul had a straw man arguemnet going but overall he had his partly lines and he knew his position and his defense
#272 to #270
-
thegrimpoe (09/27/2015) [-] i meant convincing others that your convictions are right and should be accepted as the right way to solve an issue
#276 to #15
-
anonoon (10/05/2015) [-]
God damn. This post eases my jimmies.
I originally hate debating because of fear of looking like an idiot. Considering back in high school, you'd get laughed at no matter what you do; I shouldn't have cared.
Now I'm kind of older, and unwilling to take retarded ******** anymore, it made me more wanting to talk to others and understanding their points of view. The problem with me is; being opinionated without truly understanding what I know.
But thanks for the clarification.
I originally hate debating because of fear of looking like an idiot. Considering back in high school, you'd get laughed at no matter what you do; I shouldn't have cared.
Now I'm kind of older, and unwilling to take retarded ******** anymore, it made me more wanting to talk to others and understanding their points of view. The problem with me is; being opinionated without truly understanding what I know.
But thanks for the clarification.
#184 to #15
-
LarsGoes (09/21/2015) [-]
i've seen a tedtalk from a guy that said the more arguments he has, the more arguments he "loses", and then explains that argueing is not about getting the other person to believe your standpoint but (for each side) to learn more about the topic and the different views.
#150 to #15
-
severepwner ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] I hate it when the person that's right does end up winning the argument, but he's a complete cunt even when you admit you're wrong.
#57 to #15
-
hudis (09/21/2015) [-] I think that's a lesson sites like funnyjunk could learn a lot from. Maybe then the discussions on this site would actually work reasonably well without constantly escalating into heated conflicts with both sides refusing to back down and eventually resorting to calling each other autistic.
#271 to #57
-
anon (09/27/2015) [-]
The thing is, if you hit a wall with your argument you can research and come back to finish the conversation later. Lack of information is not a problem with internet arguments. Calling the other parson a name usually means that the argument is already over. Name calling pretty much just means you can't come up with a real counter, and you loose.
#34
-
pebar ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] a university professor was fired for saying basically that
www.thefire.org/cases/marquette-university-faculty-member-facing-loss-of-tenure-for-opinions-on-blog/
y'all have no idea how bad it really is
www.thefire.org/cases/marquette-university-faculty-member-facing-loss-of-tenure-for-opinions-on-blog/
y'all have no idea how bad it really is
#165 to #34
-
heartlessrobot (09/21/2015) [-] So, why not make laws against punishing people for speaking out like that?
#170 to #169
-
heartlessrobot (09/21/2015) [-] The constitution applies to government, not to private businesses and non-government.
#198 to #197
-
heartlessrobot (09/21/2015) [-] Ah. Then I stand corrected, the colleges have no business punishing freedom of speech.
#215 to #170
-
pebar ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] public universities are government and are bound by the constitution
private universities are bound by contract. If a uni claims to support free speech, and students come under that assumption, and then unis don't honor their claims, then they can be sued for violating their contract.
private universities that don't claim free speech, usually religious colleges, can do whatever they want.
private universities are bound by contract. If a uni claims to support free speech, and students come under that assumption, and then unis don't honor their claims, then they can be sued for violating their contract.
private universities that don't claim free speech, usually religious colleges, can do whatever they want.
#224 to #34
-
Shiny ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] Because universities have some kind of grey area of special legal jurisdiction, which started when they claimed to need "more freedom of association" to kick out the damned reds during the several pathetic scares of the twentieth century.
You reap what you sow!
You reap what you sow!
#28
-
cobrafan (09/21/2015) [-] I may not agree with some of our President's politics, but damn! He hit the nail right on the head this time!
#11
-
misterfail (09/20/2015) [-] Here we see a tumblrina waiting to get home and complain to the internet that the president of the United States oppressed and triggered her tonight.
Last pic, right side.
Last pic, right side.
#60
-
triggerlitch (09/21/2015) [-] then the title xi diversity administrator came up to the stage a said that any one that was triggered by the president's speech could cry it out with coloring books and cat videos in the safe[ brain washing room ] space
I hate my countries colleges I want and need to go but they likely kick me out if I sneezed in the wrong spot does not help I'm white and not gay sorry truth shrugs
![then the title xi diversity administrator came up to the stage a said that any one that was triggered by the president's speech could cry it out with coloring books and cat videos in the safe[ brain washing room ] space
I hate my countries colleges I want and need to go but they likely kick me out if I sneezed in the wrong spot does not help I'm white and not gay sorry truth shrugs](http://2static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Then+the+title+xi+diversity+administrator+came+up+to+the+_37a1cbde99a9588840d2e42f50eea543.png)
I hate my countries colleges I want and need to go but they likely kick me out if I sneezed in the wrong spot does not help I'm white and not gay sorry truth shrugs
#3
-
cloakndagger ONLINE (09/20/2015) [-] Huh. I'm agreeing with someone Obama is saying. Time to build an underground bunker to live out the rest of my days in. The world's ending.
#196 to #3
-
emptysuperman (09/21/2015) [-] Sounds like you're the opposite; a conservative that blocks out liberal dialog. I'm sure there's lots of things Obama says that you would agree with. I'm pretty left and have agreed with somethings that even G. Bush and Trump have done/said.
#43 to #3
-
AnomynousUser ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] He's a decent person. He just fell for the wrong political and economic ideas. Just like Bernie Sanders - seems like a nice enough guy; I'm just not going to support more socialists.
inb4 people assume I'm voting for Trump even though I can't stump him, no matter how hard I try
inb4 people assume I'm voting for Trump even though I can't stump him, no matter how hard I try
#121 to #43
-
SylverSlayer (09/21/2015) [-] idk bro i live in canada and socialism is working out pretty well despite having a complete d-bag of a PM
#267 to #179
-
economicfreedom (09/22/2015) [-] although, there is a thing called "the second fundamental theorem of welfare economics" that does imply that pseudo-socialism is possible from an economic point of view as long as it maintains private property, free trade, and minimal regulations.
#266 to #179
-
economicfreedom (09/22/2015) [-] not really, it only proves that the US is less economically free than people think
Hong Kong, arguably the closest economy to unrestrained capitalism, is still ranked 1, even though it's been having government problems lately
Hong Kong, arguably the closest economy to unrestrained capitalism, is still ranked 1, even though it's been having government problems lately
#199 to #167
-
lean (09/21/2015) [-] >>#179, Yeah, we have dropped 3 places since 2009. Things like increased use of eminent domain, restrictions on businesses as well as federal spending and quantitative easing devaluing the dollar are contributions. Mr. Obama's Dodd-frank act to "protect the consumer" failed to do so, did not end too big to fail, and placed restrictive burdens on start ups and small banks, inhibiting growth. You know how many banks no longer offer free checking without meeting certain criteria- that is because of this bill. It gave a bunch of oversight to federal regulatory commissions on practices that typically are guided by open market. If that isn't a socialist practice, idk what is. These rules in essence prevent large scale corporations from financial crisis by setting a process by which they asses investment risk and inhibit growth/ start up of smaller companies who have to jump through the same hoops without the financial bankroll.
#128 to #43
-
OsamaBinLadenz (09/21/2015) [-] What's your reasoning against Sanders' socialism? Not looking to start an argument like some, but I'm just genuinely curious because I haven't really had a chance to ask anyone who wasn't being a douchebag about it.
Personally, I'm against traditional socialism, so when I heard about his platform, I wanted to do some research. I was pretty impressed, actually. Democratic socialism in the U.S. seems like it would be a good change, because democratic socialism is more like Scandnivian countries, and I they are pretty well regarded, so I think if Sanders became president and made those changes, we wouldn't be so much of a laughing stock anymore.
I'd like to hear your input, though. It'd probably better shape my own opinion to hear an opposing one.
Personally, I'm against traditional socialism, so when I heard about his platform, I wanted to do some research. I was pretty impressed, actually. Democratic socialism in the U.S. seems like it would be a good change, because democratic socialism is more like Scandnivian countries, and I they are pretty well regarded, so I think if Sanders became president and made those changes, we wouldn't be so much of a laughing stock anymore.
I'd like to hear your input, though. It'd probably better shape my own opinion to hear an opposing one.
#166 to #158
-
elenalkarnur ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] Obama is a socialist only along race and sex lines. Other than that, he's corporatist as **** .
#275 to #274
-
elenalkarnur ONLINE (09/27/2015) [-] It means he's for government programs and policies that end up transferring wealth from disproportionately white and male taxpayers to disproportionately black/non-white and female tax consumers / welfare recipients / government employees.
For example, the "Obamacare" is not socialist as in across-the-board socialist. It is corporatist because healthcare industry lobbyist defined its terms and had the president sign it. It's corporatist because it uses the government to force citizens to get healthcare whether they want to or not. This is guaranteed and artificial demand for the private healthcare industry's services. It's corporatism.
But it is also socialist along sex lines, because it forbids heath insurance companies from charging different premiums to men and women (but only when the premium would be more for women), even though women for example get expensive procedures such as abortion that men do not get by design. Health insurance, of course, can't do magic and offer that service to women for free. This means that the insurance premium for men will have to be jacked up to cover the costs of what women get (e.g. abortions). IOW, men are being forced to pay for women (who they do not have sex with) and subsidize their promiscuity and extra-marital sex.
Other examples include WIC, Section 8 (I think) housing, all the single mother aids and benefits, taxpayer-funded contraception and abortion, school assistance... All these benefits disproportionately go to women. In fact, they nearly exclusively go to women.
But they are all paid for by taxpayers which are disproportionately male and white.
The net result is whites and males disproportionately put more in to the system, while they disproportionately get less out of it. And blacks/non-whites and women disproportionately put too little in the system while they disproportionately get too much out of the system.
An example of socialism along race lines is when Obama passed laws to have long an unemplyed person can stay on welfare and receive other government benefits. The "reforms" effectively prolonged that period indefinitely. In short, taxpayers, which are disproportionately white, now are forced to pay to welfare recipients, which are disproportionately black, to sit on their asses (and bitch about racism and discrimination against black people).
Previously, unemployment benefits acted as a temporary safety net for a few short months while you looked for another job. It wasn't indefinite and it shouldn't be.
For example, the "Obamacare" is not socialist as in across-the-board socialist. It is corporatist because healthcare industry lobbyist defined its terms and had the president sign it. It's corporatist because it uses the government to force citizens to get healthcare whether they want to or not. This is guaranteed and artificial demand for the private healthcare industry's services. It's corporatism.
But it is also socialist along sex lines, because it forbids heath insurance companies from charging different premiums to men and women (but only when the premium would be more for women), even though women for example get expensive procedures such as abortion that men do not get by design. Health insurance, of course, can't do magic and offer that service to women for free. This means that the insurance premium for men will have to be jacked up to cover the costs of what women get (e.g. abortions). IOW, men are being forced to pay for women (who they do not have sex with) and subsidize their promiscuity and extra-marital sex.
Other examples include WIC, Section 8 (I think) housing, all the single mother aids and benefits, taxpayer-funded contraception and abortion, school assistance... All these benefits disproportionately go to women. In fact, they nearly exclusively go to women.
But they are all paid for by taxpayers which are disproportionately male and white.
The net result is whites and males disproportionately put more in to the system, while they disproportionately get less out of it. And blacks/non-whites and women disproportionately put too little in the system while they disproportionately get too much out of the system.
An example of socialism along race lines is when Obama passed laws to have long an unemplyed person can stay on welfare and receive other government benefits. The "reforms" effectively prolonged that period indefinitely. In short, taxpayers, which are disproportionately white, now are forced to pay to welfare recipients, which are disproportionately black, to sit on their asses (and bitch about racism and discrimination against black people).
Previously, unemployment benefits acted as a temporary safety net for a few short months while you looked for another job. It wasn't indefinite and it shouldn't be.
#228 to #158
-
Shiny ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] Actually, both of those are socialist. An idea can be properly and improperly implemented; Pinochet was a capitalist, after all, and so was Franco, but these don't have bearing on better capitalist nations.
Communism is the supposed goal of a transitory socialist state, but Stalin pretty much went his own route of industrialized gulag ******** .
Communism is the supposed goal of a transitory socialist state, but Stalin pretty much went his own route of industrialized gulag ******** .
#73 to #43
-
failtolawl (09/21/2015) [-] Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's wrong. It sounds like you are being exactly what the president is speaking against.
#75 to #73
-
AnomynousUser ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean there's anything wrong with what I said. Am I not allowed to vote the ways I want to now..? I even said they seem like decent people.
#99 to #76
-
italianfrosttroll (09/21/2015) [-] He never said the president should shut up or mind his privilege though. Maybe you should go read the content.
#77 to #76
-
AnomynousUser ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] Yes. In my view, it was the wrong ideas. Just because you disagree on what's right and wrong doesn't mean it's wrong.
#107 to #77
-
kurtislloydb (09/21/2015) [-] The way I see it, we all want the same outcome, but we all have different ideas on how to get it. There are some issues that are better handled liberally, while there are others that would be best solved through more conservative methods. Two sides of the same coin, neither side is 100% right or wrong. We just need to find a balance.
#113 to #107
-
anon (09/21/2015) [-]
If we didn't have the bipartisan liberal/conservative system, and instead had individuals who ran for their own beliefs, not the beliefs that will give them the most votes, we'd be in a better place. Too many people adhere so strongly to their party that they won't accept any avenues of thought that differ.
Personally, I think anyone who has purely conservative, or purely liberal, ideology is a detriment to society.
Personally, I think anyone who has purely conservative, or purely liberal, ideology is a detriment to society.
#115 to #113
-
kurtislloydb (09/21/2015) [-] Also, most people aren't purely one way or the other, fortunately. It's just an appeal to the masses.
#114 to #113
-
kurtislloydb (09/21/2015) [-] I agree with you wholeheartedly, unfortunately, dissolving the two-party system right now is a little naive. Our generation or our children's generation might be able to do it, but right now, we have to work with what we got.
#263 to #43
-
nosensephenom ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]
It would be a shame if we had more socialist-type policies like, I don't know, police or firefighters. That'd be crazy.
#264 to #263
-
AnomynousUser ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] I believe in a government that provides police and fire departments, military, arguably roads, things like the FDA, and that's pretty much it. Very minimalistic.
#148 to #3
-
keatontheghostfox (09/21/2015) [-] Obama seems to be a great guy but not a good president.
#189 to #148
-
mopeye (09/21/2015) [-] Don't know why you're getting thumbed down for this. Obama is a pretty good guy. He just wants to help people. Unfortunately he has no idea how to actually do that effectively and has resorted to just printing and handing out money. His intentions are good but his methods suck and to be a good president you have to be good at both.
#244 to #189
-
greyhoundfd (09/21/2015) [-] The issue mainly lies in congress. Congress itself is supposed to be the legislating body, but due to campaign finance issues and an overall focus on "What the doners want" versus "What the people want", it's almost impossible to get anything through anymore. The original ACA was ******* fantastic, before it was declawed and defanged by Congress, and openly destroyed by the news media who didn't like it. This is really what has been happening with the presidency for the last two decades or so Incidentally, I originally wrote decade singular, because I thought that that would go back to the mid 90's. It's so hard to believe that it's been 7 years since Bush left office . People wonder why Obama has had to resort to Executive Orders, and it's because the Congress is so ******* corrupt that there is literally no other way to get the legislation wanted and needed by the country into effect.
#242 to #148
-
postingloudly 
ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] YOU HIVE MINDED AUTISTS SEE RED AND ATTACK LIKE BULLS I SWEAR, I THUMBED YOU UP BUD
#202 to #171
-
detroitshanker (09/21/2015) [-]
You may not have heard the most recent news. Davie boii Cambo put his nuts in a pig's mouth Allegedly I'll just say its true anyway, **** the police.
#85 to #44
-
captainrattrap (09/21/2015) [-] I dunno, Obama's pretty moderate for a two-party legislator.
#59 to #55
-
cloakndagger ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] This is true. I guess I'm just so used to not agreeing with him that it surprises me when something he says is agreeable. It had to happen sooner or later.
#6 to #4
-
cloakndagger ONLINE (09/20/2015) [-] You mean gayer than saying someone instead of something? You know, that bugs me more than it should, considering it will probably take this comment for some people to even notice the mistake right away.
#42
-
hoodini (09/21/2015) [-] **hoodini used "*roll picture*"**
**hoodini rolled image**And now, we can honestly say, Thanks Obama.
**hoodini rolled image**And now, we can honestly say, Thanks Obama.
#16
-
ldnelson (09/21/2015) [-] Remember classical liberalism that was predicated on personal freedoms and individual liberty?
#116 to #16
-
satoshimiwa ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-]
When I was on high school, we were taught that "liberals" were those that wanted economic laissez-faire and to limit the power of the government to influence our daily lives. It's funny how now "liberal" means basically the opposite.
#122 to #116
-
thatguyontheright (09/21/2015) [-] well that is what Liberalism actually means. Libertarians are supposed to be hardcore Liberals as the root word of Liberal and Libertarian is liberty. Conservatism is dedication to law and control.
So in the US, Conservatives are Liberal, and Liberals are Conservative...all by definition. This may be because both ideals switched parties in the early 20th century. Democrats used to be the conservative party, and Republicans were liberals.
Around prohibition, such things began to change as the GOP began to support Prohibition and the Democratic party opposed it, causing a shift, the liberals who did not support prohibition moved to the democratic party, and the cons who supported it moved to the GOP.
Now a days, it's all the same. The only legit politicians are the independents.
So in the US, Conservatives are Liberal, and Liberals are Conservative...all by definition. This may be because both ideals switched parties in the early 20th century. Democrats used to be the conservative party, and Republicans were liberals.
Around prohibition, such things began to change as the GOP began to support Prohibition and the Democratic party opposed it, causing a shift, the liberals who did not support prohibition moved to the democratic party, and the cons who supported it moved to the GOP.
Now a days, it's all the same. The only legit politicians are the independents.
#192 to #116
-
christmouth (09/21/2015) [-] That's what it actually means, but Americans have changed the definition.
#124 to #32
-
thatguyontheright (09/21/2015) [-] I've talked to some people who feverently say we need to abolish the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which says that a hospital must treat someone even if they can't pay.
While this action won't be the government barring the poor from hospitals, it would be the hospitals themselves doing it.
While this action won't be the government barring the poor from hospitals, it would be the hospitals themselves doing it.
#188 to #124
-
economicfreedom (09/21/2015) [-] 
not forcing someone to provide things for you is not the same as forcibly preventing you from having something
#256 to #188
-
thatguyontheright (09/21/2015) [-] These days, I imagine you'd be forced to bring a tax form, latest check stub, etc before the doctor would see you if EMTaALA was repealed.
#236 to #230
-
containlettersonly (09/21/2015) [-] The costs aren't high due to not enough regulation
#239 to #236
-
taniv (09/21/2015) [-] Canada's health care uses the government as the negotiator between consumer and product and uses contracts to regulate the price and quality; our Health Care costs are lower per capita as a result. You should look up our system, it prevents companies from charging outrageous amounts because they have to compete with each other for a region wide contract instead of charging a desperate individual out the ass.
#187 to #178
-
economicfreedom (09/21/2015) [-] like communist China, right
arguably the single largest polluter on the planet
don't trust government to be so efficient
arguably the single largest polluter on the planet
don't trust government to be so efficient
#223 to #187
-
failtolawl (09/21/2015) [-] you say communist china like it doesn't have some of the most economically free places in the world.
So much so that explosions from zero regulation start killing people
well done great example.
So much so that explosions from zero regulation start killing people
well done great example.
#62 to #16
-
epicactual (09/21/2015) [-] Thats what I value the most, I just don't call myself a liberal anymore because of the stigma
#105 to #101
-
Shadow Guardian (09/21/2015) [-] It really does, but it depends on the context. Thomas Hobbes was real keen on a big, federalized government because people are too psychotic to trust to rule themselves. He said that the natural state of humanity is absolute, unlimited freedom. Freedom to kill, rape, and destroy without consequence. Life was "nasty, brutish, and short." So human beings created society by sacrificing the freaky parts of freedom for the stability of a government.
#185 to #105
-
economicfreedom (09/21/2015) [-] for the last hundred years, government has been the most unstable part of the economy
just because anarchy is bad, that doesn't justify the extent that many people want government
just because anarchy is bad, that doesn't justify the extent that many people want government
#103 to #101
-
failtolawl (09/21/2015) [-] It does. But the best example is our constitution. As far as International trade goes, the WTO.
Anarchy doesn't really allow freedom to happen, as people can take advantage of others against their will.
Anarchy doesn't really allow freedom to happen, as people can take advantage of others against their will.
#68 to #16
-
vorarephilia 
(09/21/2015) [-] I'm of the despotic party myself. I want total government control over everyone and everything except me.
#72 to #16
-
mrselfdestruct (09/21/2015) [-] I hate liberals because I want to drink alcohol in peace
I hate conservatives because I want to smoke pot in peace
Therefore, I love Libertarians
I hate conservatives because I want to smoke pot in peace
Therefore, I love Libertarians
#24 to #16
-
anon (09/21/2015) [-]
Smoking shouldn't be on that list. Unlike every single other thing, there is literally nothing about smoking that could even remotely be considered a positive. Except that it assuages your addiction, which is quite frankly absolutely pathetic. It is harmful to the smoker and everyone around them. You don't get to have freedom of choice when it involves things that can do very real physical harm to others around you who have NOT made that choice.
#21
-
krasnogvardiech (09/21/2015) [-] It's goddamn embarassing that any group of people need to be told this by their leaders.
#10
-
captaingrif (09/20/2015) [-] **captaingrif used "*roll picture*"**
**captaingrif rolled image** If you listen closely you can hear the sounds of people being triggered
**captaingrif rolled image** If you listen closely you can hear the sounds of people being triggered
#14 to #8
-
needsauceadmisblan (09/21/2015) [-] they are their highschool-college and they know they will be seen on tv.behind the president.
#41
-
wyrddarcnyzz (09/21/2015) [-] No matter what you think about his politics, you gotta admit, the guy still gives really good speeches. Fairly sure it's one of the bigger reasons he's in office.
#36
-
tck (09/21/2015) [-]
I'm... at a loss for words. Never expected to hear an opinion I agree with from Obama.
#20
-
anon (09/21/2015) [-]
Even though he heavily helped create this Politically Correct monster over the years. I guess the SJWs finally got to far out there for him and now he doesn't like what he helped make.
#2
-
anon (09/20/2015) [-]
Oh wow, this is probably the smartest thing I've ever heard from Obama in his entire 8 years as president.
#146
-
elenalkarnur ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] Oh so when FJ has been saying the same thing for ages, we're edgelords, ********* and we should "go back to /pol/", but when a black president says it, suddenly all the liberals on here don't have a problem with it.
#221 to #146
-
gotohemp (09/21/2015) [-] can't remember any one specifically calling themselves a liberal followed by supporting censorship, or for that matter anybody on funnyjunk supporting that. Don't know where you got that idea from
do ya mean the SJW 'progressives'?, since this falls under them very heavily
do ya mean the SJW 'progressives'?, since this falls under them very heavily
#181 to #146
-
thebrownbomber (09/21/2015) [-] well yeah, we're just a bunch of circlejerkers who give virtual thumbs up to dank may-mays and he's the president
#119
-
darcabyss ONLINE (09/21/2015) [-] **darcabyss used "*roll picture*"**
**darcabyss rolled image** So, fun story time from a friend of mine.
She goes to a university about half an hour away from where she lives, and is taking psychology classes. For one assignment, the class was required to survey students about how much they knew about mental disorders and the like. Apparently, most students were very interested, but one teacher, another psych teacher no less, got really pissy about the surveys, saying they were offensive and intrusive to other students. Nevermind that this entire survey was done exclusively in the psych building, and if students weren't interested, they were allowed to walk away with no trouble.
Meanwhile, a bunch of random students had posted photos of dead babies and aborted fetuses in hallways, yelling a bunch of pro-life/anti-abortion **** and pestering students. Pretty much all over campus. Ask them to be quiet, and they shriek about freedom of speech.
College isn't what I expected it to be. And random image as thanks for reading this.
**darcabyss rolled image** So, fun story time from a friend of mine.
She goes to a university about half an hour away from where she lives, and is taking psychology classes. For one assignment, the class was required to survey students about how much they knew about mental disorders and the like. Apparently, most students were very interested, but one teacher, another psych teacher no less, got really pissy about the surveys, saying they were offensive and intrusive to other students. Nevermind that this entire survey was done exclusively in the psych building, and if students weren't interested, they were allowed to walk away with no trouble.
Meanwhile, a bunch of random students had posted photos of dead babies and aborted fetuses in hallways, yelling a bunch of pro-life/anti-abortion **** and pestering students. Pretty much all over campus. Ask them to be quiet, and they shriek about freedom of speech.
College isn't what I expected it to be. And random image as thanks for reading this.
#136 to #119
-
herecomesjohnny (09/21/2015) [-] shrieking about freedom of speech is the fjer way anyway
#163 to #119
-
heartlessrobot (09/21/2015) [-] Tell them anti-abortion is anti-choice and is fascism.
