Upload
Login or register

Deeticky

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:6/26/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8820
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2399 total,  2750 ,  351
Comment Thumbs: 8913 total,  10070 ,  1157
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 61% (61/100)
Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 287 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:111304
Times Content Favorited:163 times
Total Comments Made:2563
FJ Points:1048
Favorite Tags: lol (8) | troll (5) | chan (3) | Four (3) | anonymous (2) | black (2) | Christianity (2) | comic (2) | forever (2) | murder (2)

  • Views: 74146
    Thumbs Up 1658 Thumbs Down 165 Total: +1493
    Comments: 153
    Favorites: 97
    Uploaded: 09/26/12
    Ivy Stahp. Ivy Stahp.
  • Views: 13169
    Thumbs Up 335 Thumbs Down 33 Total: +302
    Comments: 14
    Favorites: 6
    Uploaded: 10/16/12
    AMURICA! AMURICA!
  • Views: 5296
    Thumbs Up 118 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +115
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 12
    Uploaded: 03/01/11
    4chan on Barney 4chan on Barney
  • Views: 4015
    Thumbs Up 101 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +95
    Comments: 8
    Favorites: 20
    Uploaded: 02/15/11
    Forever Friends Forever Friends
  • Views: 15167
    Thumbs Up 19 Thumbs Down 0 Total: +19
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 5
    Uploaded: 03/18/11
    4chan Pokemon Master 4chan Pokemon Master
  • Views: 2603
    Thumbs Up 24 Thumbs Down 12 Total: +12
    Comments: 6
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 08/20/12
    Good Quote. Good Quote.

latest user's comments

#285 - Tbh, the "feminists" that FJ is always hating on are… 06/18/2016 on Feminism on: The Draft 0
#106 - Jesus you guys, nobody wanted to "Ban" the Confedera… 06/15/2016 on Which flag should be banned? +10
#82 - I agree with you about Obama. I definitely do. However, I also… 06/13/2016 on Trump comp: RIP Hernie... 0
#141 - I know the justice system needs to be fixed, but to be fair, &… 06/11/2016 on Bad decisions were made +2
#140 - Comment deleted 06/11/2016 on Bad decisions were made 0
#139 - Watch the way he pivots and puts his whole body weight behind … 06/11/2016 on Bad decisions were made +4
#203 - I'm not making any assumptions about the thumb. There is a &qu… 06/05/2016 on 9yo MAGA banned 0
#195 - Do we want to play the thumb game? Or do we want to have a dis…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/04/2016 on 9yo MAGA banned 0
User avatar
#197 - kittysmoocher (06/04/2016) [-]
I would have a discussion if you can keep it informed. The right to peaceful assembly is a prohibition against government power in an effort to protect individual/minority (as in lesser numbers, not ethnicity/race) rights from government oppression. It is an idea, a philosophy, a "thing", it does not "do" anything. It did not create. Men did.
As for laws denying or allowing, there is such a thing as "disparate treatment" as opposed to "disparate impact". When laws, policies, or procedures have a discriminating effect, whether or not they are on their face discriminatory in nature, they ARE in fact discriminatory. About the only thing we seem to agree on so far is the apathy of the American voter.

Do you really want to pick this argument against someone with a law degree?

All that aside, you are assuming the thumb was from me.
User avatar
#203 - Deeticky (06/05/2016) [-]
I'm not making any assumptions about the thumb. There is a "votes" button that I can click that tells me who thumbed me (it's in the little white options thing to the right of "reply"). I can plainly see it was you. I really would rather not play the thumb game. Please remove the red thumb. I would expect somebody with a law degree to be more mature than that.

I'm working on a law degree myself. I actually agree with you that there is a difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact. Given that you have a law degree, then surely you know that in Constitutional Law, there is no one "perfect" way to interpret the Constitution, in fact, there are many interpretations (Plain meaning, original intent, living constitution, etc.). I'm not trying to make any arguments about what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the First Amendment. There is absolutely no way that we can know for sure.

However, what I am trying to say is that there is no way we can eliminate political parties without also infringing upon the people's right to assemble. Let's say that we outlawed both of the current parties. What would stop people from just forming new ones? Outlaw the formation of any and all parties? Wouldn't that be, in effect, outlawing the people's right to political assembly? I absolutely think there are problems with the current system, but also that they can only be solved from within the parties themselves. That's why I encourage people to get informed and become politically active.

#191 - See, the problem is that in order to get rid of those pesky po…  [+] (4 new replies) 06/04/2016 on 9yo MAGA banned -1
User avatar
#193 - kittysmoocher (06/04/2016) [-]
The right to peaceful assembly has absolutely nothing to do with putting a chokehold on who can run for an office.
User avatar
#195 - Deeticky (06/04/2016) [-]
Do we want to play the thumb game? Or do we want to have a discussion? We can keep the thumbs at 0 if you'd kindly go ahead and remove the red thumb.

Anyway, the right to assembly is exactly what created our political parties. It's what has created political parties in every other democratic government ever. Here's the thing: people have always realized that their voice has more power alongside the voices of others. That's what political parties do, they give people a platform to make their voice heard alongside others of similar beliefs. Also, there's absolutely no law saying that a candidate from neither of the big political parties cannot run for elected office. So it's not the political parties who have created a chokehold, it's the fact that Americans are too lazy to do their own research, and would rather just have a party tell them who to vote for. Again, if you want to change anything, join up with one of the parties and get on the platform committee, create resolutions, or run for office.
User avatar
#197 - kittysmoocher (06/04/2016) [-]
I would have a discussion if you can keep it informed. The right to peaceful assembly is a prohibition against government power in an effort to protect individual/minority (as in lesser numbers, not ethnicity/race) rights from government oppression. It is an idea, a philosophy, a "thing", it does not "do" anything. It did not create. Men did.
As for laws denying or allowing, there is such a thing as "disparate treatment" as opposed to "disparate impact". When laws, policies, or procedures have a discriminating effect, whether or not they are on their face discriminatory in nature, they ARE in fact discriminatory. About the only thing we seem to agree on so far is the apathy of the American voter.

Do you really want to pick this argument against someone with a law degree?

All that aside, you are assuming the thumb was from me.
User avatar
#203 - Deeticky (06/05/2016) [-]
I'm not making any assumptions about the thumb. There is a "votes" button that I can click that tells me who thumbed me (it's in the little white options thing to the right of "reply"). I can plainly see it was you. I really would rather not play the thumb game. Please remove the red thumb. I would expect somebody with a law degree to be more mature than that.

I'm working on a law degree myself. I actually agree with you that there is a difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact. Given that you have a law degree, then surely you know that in Constitutional Law, there is no one "perfect" way to interpret the Constitution, in fact, there are many interpretations (Plain meaning, original intent, living constitution, etc.). I'm not trying to make any arguments about what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the First Amendment. There is absolutely no way that we can know for sure.

However, what I am trying to say is that there is no way we can eliminate political parties without also infringing upon the people's right to assemble. Let's say that we outlawed both of the current parties. What would stop people from just forming new ones? Outlaw the formation of any and all parties? Wouldn't that be, in effect, outlawing the people's right to political assembly? I absolutely think there are problems with the current system, but also that they can only be solved from within the parties themselves. That's why I encourage people to get informed and become politically active.

#72 - That tribe never existed. It was just part of a Greek myth. 06/04/2016 on Baba Yetu Motherfuckers +3