Sick of politics yet?. Well, too bad!.. Knock Knock-Who's There? Worthless stoners, increased gas prices, economy, and no jobs Sick of politics yet? Well too bad! Knock Knock-Who's There? Worthless stoners increased gas prices economy and no jobs
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (184)
[ 184 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
90 comments displayed.
#45 - xmegustax
Reply +46
(11/09/2012) [-]
Knock Knock-Who's There?

Worthless stoners, increased gas prices, ****** economy, and no jobs
#81 to #45 - smellyboner
Reply +13
(11/09/2012) [-]
yes increased gas prices are the presidents fault
#91 to #81 - wtfareu
Reply -1
(11/09/2012) [-]
there's a tax on it so the government does control it just not the president
#107 to #91 - hazardpay
Reply +2
(11/09/2012) [-]
Or it's just supply and demand, or if what you say is true then when did the president control the government? i believe its the other way around, to an extent at least
#115 to #107 - wtfareu
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
it is partially supply and demand but the government still makes a lot money
#92 to #91 - smellyboner
Reply +1
(11/09/2012) [-]
yeah the tax is a few cents. you do know we import most of our oil right..
#93 to #92 - wtfareu
Reply +1
(11/09/2012) [-]
#95 to #93 - smellyboner
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
so you think it's a good idea to lower prices on a non renewable source of energy?
#106 to #95 - wtfareu
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
I think its good to keep it low so people can afford more in general however that could also lead to a gas crisis both points have ups and downs
#98 - lloydminster
Reply +31
(11/09/2012) [-]
I thought there was only two states that legalized weed and it had nothing to do with Obama.
#118 to #98 - negr
Reply -8
(11/09/2012) [-]
or maybe op is a super troll and you guys dont realize
#110 to #98 - augustusxxiv
Reply +5
(11/09/2012) [-]
You would be correct in that assumption, sir.
#111 to #98 - thepenname
Reply +5
(11/09/2012) [-]
YUUUUUP! Those same state initiatives still could have passed even if Romney won.
#117 to #98 - Childofindigo
Reply +6
(11/09/2012) [-]
Somehow, the Democratic party convinced everyone that putting Romney in office would end gay marriage, set women's rights back 50 years, and block weed legalization.
#168 to #117 - mcqwark ONLINE
Reply +1
(11/09/2012) [-]
I had no idea about the whole Romney taking away women's rights thing was about not too long ago and I thought they meant he was taking away their right to vote or get jobs or some **** but no... It was about abortion. And it was also false info. Romney wanted to give the states a choice if they wanted it or not like how America use to be but no... Liberals think that's unfair.
#90 - snaresinger
Reply +24
(11/09/2012) [-]
It's funny because all of those were voter-initiated propositions, and none of them had anything to do with the President. God damn it OP, stop doing this ****.
It's funny because all of those were voter-initiated propositions, and none of them had anything to do with the President. God damn it OP, stop doing this ****.
#116 to #90 - joocles
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
whats the original text: i thought someone is having fun, or someone is drinking my beer, but they don't sound right]
#142 to #116 - anon
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
lol what's worse; the text change he used in the gif, or OP's tainted stink on impressionable people that will believe Obama stands for these propositions?
#174 to #90 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
>Abortion
>gay marriage
>Things Mitt Romney wanted to abolish when he became president
>Hurp
>I'm not even a democrat.
#195 to #174 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Still has nothing to do with the propositions.
#196 to #195 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Do I really have to explain this to you? Go back and read the original post.
#200 to #196 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Yes, you do have to explain it, because what you said has nothing to do with the fact that Barack Obama had nothing to do with the propositions.
#202 to #200 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Neither did this post.
#203 to #202 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Besides the direct juxtaposition of Barack Obama and the results of several propositions? No, absolutely nothing. Now stop changing the subject.
#207 to #203 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
*pats the top of your head*
#209 to #207 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Here's a good .gif for you!   
   
To be honest, you seem to be some arrogant high school child who takes politics to be some sort of joke, and you irrationally defend the political side your parents side with. Even though I'm not attacking Obama, you feel compelled to attempt to demean my viewpoint-however, you've done a terrible job of it. And "patting me on the head" just makes you come off as a high school sophomore. It's time to stop attempting to talk politics over the internet until you have a few years under your belt.
Here's a good .gif for you!

To be honest, you seem to be some arrogant high school child who takes politics to be some sort of joke, and you irrationally defend the political side your parents side with. Even though I'm not attacking Obama, you feel compelled to attempt to demean my viewpoint-however, you've done a terrible job of it. And "patting me on the head" just makes you come off as a high school sophomore. It's time to stop attempting to talk politics over the internet until you have a few years under your belt.
#212 to #209 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
I'm 20 year's old, in my third year of college. My mom is a republican, my dad's a democrat. I'm independent and voted for Jill Stein.

This isn't even about politics right now though. I'm trying to explain how short-sighted you're being. You insist that the post is about the propositions that were passed so the post doesn't make sense. I'm telling you that it's referring to the president's stances on the 3 mentioned issues which actually makes sense.

I'm really unsure how stupid you are right now so I'm going to explain this several different ways.

No one mentioned ANYTHING about the propositions
"gay rights, womens rights ... and some weed"
Those are things that Obama supports. It's not about the propositions that were passed, but what he supports that Romney opposed.

>No propositions
>Presidents Stances on those issues
>Now the post makes actual sense
#213 to #212 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
So... Obama has a stance on marijuana in the context of politics? If you can show me where you learned that, I will concede the argument.
#218 to #213 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
“My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain. But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.”

“I don’t think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using … medical marijuana. With all the things we’ve got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn’t be a high priority.”

That's where he stands. Also, before you say it, yes, medical marijuana counts as "weed".
#219 to #218 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
THE CITATION. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN, THE CITATION. IF YOU ARE INDEED IN YOUR THIRD YEAR OF COLLEGE, THEN YOU HAVE DOUBTLESS DONE UNCOUNTABLE RESEARCH PAPERS. GIVE IT TO ME APA STYLE BABY.
#220 to #219 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
I'm a computer animation and interactive media major. I haven't done a single research paper. Honestly, you have google, copy paste search man.

Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States, stated the following in a Mar. 22, 2008 interview with Editorial Page Editor Gary Nelson, published in The Mail Tribune:

"When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else. My attitude is that if it's an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.
#223 to #220 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
I don't buy that ********. I'm a music major and I do research papers that have nothing to do with my major, and some that do. You seem unfamiliar with the concept of "general education" courses. Quite the hole in your story.

It's not my job to do the research. If you want to debate, it's your job to cite your sources. If you don't have the source, then how do you have such a precise quote?

And finally, my final point: I've already had a debate with OP over this subject, so I know from context what he was talking about. Nothing you say really beats insider info. Good day.
#225 to #223 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Art History: No research papers, just midterm and final exams based on what we learned in class.
Math: No research papers, just midterm and final exams based on what we learned in class.
Science: No research papers, just midterm and final exams based on what we learned in class.
Psychology: No research papers, just midterm and final exams based on what we learned in class.
English: Just had to write two short stories based off personal experience
English short story class: Had to write a final paper discussing two stories we read in class comparing their themes and symbolism
Current English class: Thesis on the evolution of the word "gender' due next week.

Not all colleges work the same. Go figure.

Either way, there was a different way to look at the post that actually did make sense. That's all I was trying to point out.
#208 to #207 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Are you still going on about this? Really? I stopped replying for a reason, because your replies completely deviated from the topic and you stopped making sense. There is nothing to be said further. Good day to you, sir/madame.
#210 to #208 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
You said the post was about the propositions so they make no sense.

The post does make sense though if you don't assume it's about the propositions, but Obama's stances on the issues.

You're not a very bright fellow now are ya?
#211 to #210 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Congratulations on making a lick of sense! I'm very proud of you. Next time you might not want to resort to an ad hominem logical fallacy though- makes you sound completely childish. You'll eventually learn that when you come to the big boys table for talking politics. For right now though, I guess we're stuck with your itty-bitty cutie powitickeeeeees! Yaaaaaaay! But let's address your actual (terrible excuse for an) argument. The post was obviously about the propositions- there is a little thing in the adult world called "implication," and you would do well to learn how to recognize it. I can prove it, too! President Obama's platform has nothing to do with marijuana. The only reason OP would have included that is because he was referring to the recently passed (note: by the voters) legislation.

Next time, make sure you're not completely clueless about things such as logic, debate, rhetoric, current events, and politics before you try to argue with someone, hmm? Until you graduate high school and actually learn a thing or two about the world, nobody wants to hear the drivel that comes from your mind.
#214 to #211 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
I'm not even arguing with you. I'm just pointing out why you're wrong.

Why did I have to tell you two times to understand this? Comment #210 is just #204 reworded.

Obviously the only problem here is that you're reading into implications that don't make any sense.

Obama's is an advocate of looser laws regarding marijuana while Romney platform mentions the criminalization of all marijuana and the abolishment of the use of medical marijuana nation wide.

Comment #174: I tell you that it's about the candidate's stances on the issues. Romney's stance was to abolish gay marriage and abortions through constitutional amendments which opposes Obama's stances on those issues

#196: Is this really not obvious?

#202: It's not about the propositions.

#204: It's about the stances

#210: It's about the stances

#212: It's about the stances

I feel like I'm talking to a little kid.
#217 to #214 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Also, I don't believe that you are twenty. Surely you would have taken a Psych class where you learned what an "argument" is. You are presenting an argument, and so am I. I never said we were "arguing" in the colloquial sense of the word.
#221 to #217 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Argument:
An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".

I'm not telling you that you're wrong. I'm just trying to explain to you that there's more than one way to look at the post you complained about.

under the implications you assumed, then you're right. Obama had no play in the results of the propositions that were passed.
#215 to #214 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Tell me where you got the info that he has a stance on marijuana.

Why do I have to ask you two times for you to understand this?

I obviously typed that and sent it before I got your reply. Have some common sense. I feel like I'm talking to a little kid.
#222 to #215 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
I researched the candidates before I voted.
You asked twice because I was replying to two different comments at the same time.
At least our sentiments to one another is mutual.
#224 to #222 - snaresinger
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
You can't recognize when I'm quoting you to make fun of you? Sheesh.
#226 to #224 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
I was being literal on purpose.
#204 to #203 - graphically
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Who said the direct juxtaposition had to be between Obama and the results of several propositions? Wouldn't it make much more sense if it was a reference to where he stands on those three issues? Seeing how if he wasn't elected, we would have Romney, who stated he wanted to stomp out gay marriage, women's right to have an abortion, and the decriminalization of medical and recreational marijuana with constitutional amendments.
#57 - captainwow
Reply +15
(11/09/2012) [-]
gay rights? Legal weed? Don't recall him doing either of those things his first four years. What makes you think he'll do them now? Also, the two states that have established these already did it of their own accord. And what exactly does he mean by Women's Rights? Are we going to legalize women and let them marry or something?

One last thing. He didn't kill Osama. A Navy Seal did.
#58 to #57 - lolollo
Reply -8
(11/09/2012) [-]
Beeeeeecause they just happened you sheltered ignoramus?
#59 to #58 - captainwow
Reply +2
(11/09/2012) [-]
I'd reread my comment if I were you.
#61 to #59 - lolollo
Reply -8
(11/09/2012) [-]
So you contradicted yourself.

OK.
#64 to #61 - captainwow
Reply +3
(11/09/2012) [-]
Are young going to make a point and have a discussion with me, or just try to point out flaws that aren't there? I said " the two states that have established these already did it of their own accord."

1) Meaning yes, I know they just happened.
2) It's not a contradiction, I'm saying THEY DID IT THEMSELVES.
#197 to #64 - lolollo
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Then what was the point of you saying "What makes you think he'll do them now?" when a) the "them" in question were already done, and b) you were just going to admit that later on in the comment?
#198 to #197 - captainwow
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Yeah I'm not gonna even bother reading whatever dribble you're writing this time.
#199 to #198 - lolollo
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
So you don't even know. At least admit it when you say **** you don't mean to say.
#60 to #57 - anon
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Romney was kind of against women, but it's not like he would have sent them to concentration camps or some ****.
But Obama DID give the orders for the raid on Osama's mansion. You have to admit he made a good choice.
#68 to #60 - captainwow
Reply +3
(11/09/2012) [-]
I don't see how Romney was against women. In fact, I think he got more of their vote than Obama. That's not to say I liked Romney as a politican.

Also, I don't like how everyone gives Obama full credit. Yes, it was a smart move, but there were years of searching and intelligence-gathering before he was even in office. They make it sound like he did everything on his own.
#70 to #60 - timerce
Reply +1
(11/09/2012) [-]
he also gave the order to kill a 16 year old american citizen with a drone just because he had the wrong dad though there was no evidence of the son ever doing anything wrong
#78 to #70 - knuckleheaded
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
source or it didn't happen.
#80 to #78 - timerce
Reply +3
(11/09/2012) [-]
google Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and research it for your self. dont try the argument "well his dad is a terrorist" because we let the bin laden family off for what their son/brother did
#97 to #80 - knuckleheaded
Reply -2
(11/09/2012) [-]
1. Don't assume what arguments I plan on using, it's unbecoming of you.
2. Two officials stated that the intended target was Ibrahim al-Banna, the supposed senior operative in the Arabian Peninsula.
Seems like you might've benefited from some research yourself. I'll concede that some unmentioned officials tried to pawn him off as in his mid 20's, but if you want to sit there and claim it was a deliberate strike, go ahead. I'll just sit here without a tin foil hat.
#74 to #57 - anon
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
All of this.

I never understood how people claim Obama gave gays rights. He's not a state legislator.
#104 to #57 - anon
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Hitler didn't kill the Jews. The Nazis did.
#112 to #57 - bgbba
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Well, in regards to the gay rights, he simply didn't enforce the dreaded DOMA. So he did actually do something, but not doing anything, if that makes sense. As for the weed thing, I cannot stand his continued support of the drug was. That's one thing that I REALLY dislike about his policies.
#114 to #112 - captainwow
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
It boggles my mind how people give him credit for absolutely everything. I wasn't in favor of Health Care Reform, but at least he tried to push it through. Well, he tired, then gave up, and hasn't done anything with it since.

He hasn't shown any inkling of interest in giving gays rights. He never said anything about legalizing weed. I didn't agree with Romney on a lot of social issues, but it didn't seem like we were getting them from Obama, either.
#206 to #114 - bgbba
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Oh I agree about the weed, absolutely. In regards to gay marriage, it seems to be happening without federal help. Frankly, if it goes state by state then we don't have the eternal butthurt from the states that didn't want it in the first place. If you ask me, everything social should be state by state. The government should only guarentee basic liberties, such as civil rights. One could argue that gay marriage is a civil right, which I would agree with, but I'd rather that my state have it and the one that doesn't want it don't, that way there's less resentment. And yes, I support gay marriage all the way. It is true though that Obama has backed out on many promises like the drug war, and that pisses me off.
#163 to #57 - spacelubber
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Hold on... We hold Kennedy responsible for the Boy of Pigs Invasion failure. Why is it suddenly wrong to allow the leader to take responsibility when something good happens?
#63 - Aejax
Reply +14
(11/09/2012) [-]
We're fighting a war we can't afford, Iran's trolling the world, and our economy is falling right out of the sky

BUT AT LEAST WE CAN TOKE, AND **** EACH OTHER IN THE ASS, THE WAY DOWN
#8 - shashashadow
Reply +14
(11/08/2012) [-]
except Obama said he wasn't going to push gay rights in an interview he did with MTV
#11 - upunkpunk
Reply -2
(11/08/2012) [-]
Obama isn't going to push for any of those things....
#12 to #11 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply +1
(11/08/2012) [-]
I tried to enlarge your picture.

It didn't work.
#14 to #12 - upunkpunk
Reply +12
(11/08/2012) [-]
#96 - gonzocos
Reply +10
(11/09/2012) [-]
Dear reader of this comment, please turn back now. The following comments are a republican jerk circle who can't appreciate a joke. Read at your own risk.
#120 to #96 - communistrobot
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Thanks for the warning!
Thanks for the warning!
#105 to #96 - yourbaus
Reply +6
(11/09/2012) [-]
lol fak u im going in
#99 to #96 - drewbridge
Reply +9
(11/09/2012) [-]
I'd agree with you, but Obama literally had nothing to do with a single one of the things that its implying he did. It would've happened with anyone.
#119 to #99 - negr
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
thats the point. all the republicans are mentioning it and talking negatively of obama. op is troll
#149 to #119 - wyldek
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
Oh ****, someone called me out on being an idiot. It's cool tho, ill just pretend to be a troll. That way, I'm not the idiot, I'm the guy that fooled everyone! HOW CLEVER OF ME
#2 - anon
Reply 0
(11/08/2012) [-]
He doesn't care about women's rights, he pays them less on his staff and on his campaign. If he's Christian (as he claims) he doesn't care about gay rights.
Just more lies from the pathological lier (per several shrinks)
#3 to #2 - tredbear
Reply +1
(11/08/2012) [-]
STFU!
#5 to #2 - remsaman
Reply +6
(11/08/2012) [-]
>implying every single christian doesnt care about gay rights.
#7 to #2 - slyve [OP]
Reply +8
(11/08/2012) [-]
Just because you are a Christians doesn't mean you have to be a homophobic asshole at the same time.
#10 to #2 - deaththekidxx **User deleted account**
+10
has deleted their comment [-]
#23 to #10 - deathhardiv
Reply +8
(11/08/2012) [-]
"My Pastor is homosexual"
#25 to #23 - deaththekidxx **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#26 to #25 - deathhardiv
Reply +1
(11/08/2012) [-]
How you became that bad of a ***********
#30 to #26 - deaththekidxx **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#32 to #30 - deathhardiv
Reply -3
(11/08/2012) [-]
"also I suggest you work on your grammar before the grammar nazis tear you a new one "

Firstly, that made no ******* sense
Secondly, your grammar is worse than mine

Also, I doubt a Pastor would be a homosexual
They've usually read the Bible

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: for it is abomination." -Leviticus 22:18
#41 to #32 - deaththekidxx **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#187 to #41 - deathhardiv
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
"And even if you don't buy that argument Jesus said to love everyone equally no matter what and as rusty as I may be at my bible I don't think there was any point he said "Except gay people" "   
   
I think you might be partially blind.   
   
""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: for it is abomination." -Leviticus 22:18 "   
   
Also, you can't tear someone a new grammar. It makes no sense.
"And even if you don't buy that argument Jesus said to love everyone equally no matter what and as rusty as I may be at my bible I don't think there was any point he said "Except gay people" "

I think you might be partially blind.

""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: for it is abomination." -Leviticus 22:18 "

Also, you can't tear someone a new grammar. It makes no sense.
#50 to #41 - Faz
Reply 0
(11/09/2012) [-]
I don't know how people can say "The bible has been changed so much that its intentional message may have been lost" Yet will still be Christians. It makes literally no sense at all, you are supposed to believe 100% of what the bible tell you or you aren't Christian.

Also being Bisexual goes against what the bible says therefor your actions are in the eye of God immoral and a sin.

It really pisses me off that people continue to be religious all the while never ******* following their religion.
#102 to #10 - Pompano
Reply +1
(11/09/2012) [-]
You're right, all the stuff about Christians being anti-gay came out of thin air. Liberals just pulled that out of their asses. Just one quick question, where can I find this world where most major Christian churches approve of gay marriage?
#138 - ThaGame
Reply +9
(11/09/2012) [-]
obama did not legalize weed. it was a state decision or something.