Upload
Login or register

Deeticky

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:8/25/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#10659
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2399 total,  2750 ,  351
Comment Thumbs: 8941 total,  10100 ,  1159
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 89% (89/100)
Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 287 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:111613
Times Content Favorited:163 times
Total Comments Made:2575
FJ Points:1075
Favorite Tags: lol (8) | troll (5) | chan (3) | Four (3) | anonymous (2) | black (2) | Christianity (2) | comic (2) | forever (2) | murder (2)

latest user's comments

#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
#226 - Actually, each party has a party constitution that they must a… 05/17/2016 on Democracy is Dead 0
#135 - Sure, the Communists loved those parades, but so did the Fasci…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/25/2016 on /pol/ack asking the right... 0
#137 - spikefish (04/25/2016) [-]
Yeah, the Romans used to drag the leaders of conquered nations along the parade route in chains. The Soviets would invite Western dignitaries and have planes fly over, which would return to a base just outside Moscow, repaint them with different numbers, then fly them back over the observation stands to fool NATO observers into thinking that the Soviets had more planes than they actually did. Having the service members march is great, but the equipment show of force just comes off as over-compensating for something. Before the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the Taliban staged a parade in Kabul which included machine guns mounted on Toyota trucks. Pathetic.
#113 - The most important distinction between the two is that Trump h… 04/05/2016 on feminist utopia free of men 0
#205 - It's not about people's feelings getting hurt by words. It's a…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/02/2016 on Good for her 0
User avatar
#206 - navywannabe (04/03/2016) [-]
How does one person that is low man on the totem pole represent the company? I can see multiple people, but not just one person.
#204 - Well, slaves, for one thing, weren't given the rights present …  [+] (1 new reply) 04/02/2016 on Good for her 0
User avatar
#207 - navywannabe (04/03/2016) [-]
They did have the first ten amendments, otherwise they would have over thrown our government. If the Militia Men could bring down the greatest military in the world during that time, we could be brought down too. And to bring up voting is irrelevant. Not even the white man's voting is NOT protected by the Constitution.
The govener (Daton) has the most power, and says if the bill passes or not. Therefore the laws are mostly Democrats. Let's face it, he will pass the laws that only Democrats want. And Fraken brings state issues to a national level. That's in the job description as Senator. It helps get a new perspective.
#203 - No worries, man. I know there are a lot of assholes on this si… 04/02/2016 on Good for her 0
#79 - No, I would never reply with "lmao cherrypicking." I…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/02/2016 on Good for her +3
#82 - anon (04/02/2016) [-]
Okay, sorry for assuming you're an asshole first and foremost, it just happens to usually be correct on this site.
I don't think people should be able to randomly shout nigger everywhere they go or even on twitter, the problem is that's not what's happening. If someone was fired for shooting off the n bomb on twitter that's their own problem. But if there is not actual cause for you to be fired then it should be outright illegal, I think there is some form of recourse in suing them for a wrongful firing but it rarely actually works out. When people will cry racism en masse over little to nothing you can't have people losing everything because they're out there on patrol making sure no one disagrees with them online all day knowing full well they only have to shout racism enough times or loud enough to get what they want like a crying baby.
User avatar
#203 - Deeticky (04/02/2016) [-]
No worries, man. I know there are a lot of assholes on this site. Let's shift gears a little bit. Let's say you're right, and people do cry racism too much and it causes a lot of innocent people to lose jobs. What would have to be done to fix that?
#73 - Uses what tactics? Who is arrested for harassment? Of who? …  [+] (4 new replies) 04/02/2016 on Good for her +2
#76 - anon (04/02/2016) [-]
Look man I could post a thousand different stories if that's what you want, but chances are you're just gonna go "lmao cherrypicking" as if that matters to the people who are left with no job and likely losing what they already own because of it.

Pretending this isn't happening doesnt get anyone anywhere. Racism isn't okay but the thought police state we live in now isn't what people should be striving for. I'd take a black person getting called a nigger and having to ignore it like an adult over peoples lives being ruined for something that isn't anywhere close to the same thing.
User avatar
#79 - Deeticky (04/02/2016) [-]
No, I would never reply with "lmao cherrypicking." I always try to keep my conversations open, polite, academic, and fair. But here's the thing, man: It's an exaggeration to call our current climate a "thought police state." Private institutions are not legally governed by the First Amendment. Only the government is. That's why the government is not allowed to make any laws that say that you, as a private citizen, can't ever say the word "nigger". However, a business can choose to censor and punish people's speech pretty much any way they want, as they are not governed by the Constitution.

This has nothing to do with Liberals. It has everything to do with the relationship between law, government, and business. It's the way that this country has always operated. In fact, the Tea party has also cost a lot of moderate conservatives to lose their jobs because they weren't "conservative enough."
#82 - anon (04/02/2016) [-]
Okay, sorry for assuming you're an asshole first and foremost, it just happens to usually be correct on this site.
I don't think people should be able to randomly shout nigger everywhere they go or even on twitter, the problem is that's not what's happening. If someone was fired for shooting off the n bomb on twitter that's their own problem. But if there is not actual cause for you to be fired then it should be outright illegal, I think there is some form of recourse in suing them for a wrongful firing but it rarely actually works out. When people will cry racism en masse over little to nothing you can't have people losing everything because they're out there on patrol making sure no one disagrees with them online all day knowing full well they only have to shout racism enough times or loud enough to get what they want like a crying baby.
User avatar
#203 - Deeticky (04/02/2016) [-]
No worries, man. I know there are a lot of assholes on this site. Let's shift gears a little bit. Let's say you're right, and people do cry racism too much and it causes a lot of innocent people to lose jobs. What would have to be done to fix that?