Harvard has an endowment of over $53 Billion.

I’ve heard Harvard described as “a hedge fund with a University attached for tax purposes.”

I think David Hogg proves that to be true.

He’s consistently wrong about everything he says on social media.

He was invited to attend Harvard based entirely on his politics and Harvard has done nothing to correct his ignorance.

A university worthy of being ranked the number one school in the nation should probably endeavor to educate its students better.

But Harvard clearly doesn’t care.

Its students are merely a shield to protect its endowment from the IRS.

In return, the students get a piece of paper they they can wave around and say “this means I’m better than you.”

As such, if I ever got elected, I will take great pleasure is seizing Harvard’s endowment and use it to pay for vocational training for every kid who attends a vocational community college.

When Harvard complains, I will hold up David Hogg’s tweets and say “if you really were a college, you’d at least do the minimum to educate one of your most high profile students in basic civics, since you didn’t, you clearly are not a school.”



Spread the love

By J. Kb

4 thoughts on “David Hogg is my justification for seizing Harvard’s endowment”
  1. Hogg is not necessarily wrong on this one. (Cue the hate…) OK, let me explain.

    First of all, the right to defend yourself does not conflict in any way with the right to not get shot. In fact, they are kind of… the same right.

    Next the 2nd is not about guns, it is about the inalienable right of an individual to protect themselves against threats, both personal and political.

    David Hogg’s right to self defense against threats is absolute. That includes the right to not get shot.

    What is the problem here is his assumption that owning or carrying a gun makes you a murderer. That is the argument that ruins Harvard’s standing as an ivy league school. How can a Harvard student for the last several years still be that clueless about such a fundamental concept?

  2. David Hogg: The second amendment is not an absolute right. None of our rights are.

    We have a right to not be shot.

    It’s amazing, Hogg is technically correct on both counts, but doesn’t even realize why, let alone see the irony.

    First, he says, “None of our rights are [absolute].” And in the very next sentence, “We have a right to not be shot.”

    We all know the “right to not be shot” is mostly imaginary as written, and is entirely dependent on the right to defend oneself.

    However, that “right” is also not absolute. As with any right, there are exceptions.

    For examples, just as your right to free speech doesn’t apply if you intentionally cause actual harm with it (inciting a panic or riot, or libel/slander/defamation, etc.), your “right to not be shot” no longer applies if you try to murder someone, if you try to rape someone, if you break into someone’s home while they’re there, etc. In all those cases, your victim’s right to defend themselves supersedes your “right to not be shot”.

    Or, put another way, “If you don’t want to risk being shot, don’t go attacking people who might be armed.” (Pro-tip: That’s all people.)

    Hogg may as well be claiming the “right to not be ridiculed,” to which I’d respond, “If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t go saying stupid s#!+ on Twitter.”

    1. “If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t go saying stupid s#!+ on Twitter.”

      Unfortunately, idiots like Hogg would claim they have every right to say or do whatever they want without repercussions. But, then hold you to a standard they are unwilling to accept themselves.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.