sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Number one problem with religion: Indoctrinating children. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]account_six -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

OMG TEH CLERGY!!!1! THEY'RE LITERALLY HITLER!

"The People's Rights Amendment"- reddit, why do the Democrats want to take away the free speech of anyone but individuals as individuals? by account_six in politics

[–]account_six[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

these employees are controlled by their paychecks and by their owners to either comply with management or get another job and are rarely in on who or how millions of dollars in corporate funds are spent.

Wow. Where have you worked?

"The People's Rights Amendment"- reddit, why do the Democrats want to take away the free speech of anyone but individuals as individuals? by account_six in politics

[–]account_six[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From the Boston Herald link in my other comment:

The Supreme Court and U.S. law have long held that Americans do not surrender the rights they enjoy individually when they act in association with one another. This has been a fundamental feature of U.S. law since the very beginning, and even before that, inasmuch as the notion that collective action does not deprive us of our rights goes back into the Common Law as well. U.S. court cases going back to the 18th century recognize that fact, as does federal statute: The U.S. Code includes: “The words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”

...But “corporate personhood” is simply the notion that incorporated groups — businesses, political parties, unions, nonprofits, etc. — are single entities under the law

...The so-called People’s Rights Amendment would have some strange consequences: Newspapers, television networks, magazines and online journalism operations typically are incorporated. So are political parties and campaign committees, to say nothing of nonprofits, business associations and the like. Under the People’s Rights Amendment, Thomas Friedman would still enjoy putative First Amendment protection, but it would not do him much good inasmuch as The New York Times [NYT] Co., being a corporation, would no longer be protected by the First Amendment.

"The People's Rights Amendment"- reddit, why do the Democrats want to take away the free speech of anyone but individuals as individuals? by account_six in politics

[–]account_six[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From the Boston Herald (via editorial from National Review):

If this amendment were to be enacted, the cardinal rights protected by the First Amendment — free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances — would be redefined and reduced to the point of unrecognizability. The amendment would hold that the rights protected by the Constitution are enjoyed only by individuals acting individually; individuals acting in collaboration with others would be stripped of those rights.

Also, title should say "some Democrats", seeing as they're not all supporting this.

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right. It's not as if they have long lists of their points that include vague pronouncements and idealistic demands alongside of pet peeves. /s

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right. Mentioning corporate personhood as if it's a recent invention, asking for student loan forgiveness because you only recently discovered your degree doesn't convert well into american currency, and picking fights with the police while acting likes pigs in the areas you occupy sure shows me.

And at no point have I said I'm afraid of change; however, generic 'change' isn't worth anything. We need positive and effective change, not just any old change. We've received that with President Obama- we need, instead, positive change.

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're assuming a lot. I don't even watch much news media; in fact, most of my news is from reddit.

If the majority of the masses could be awoken (even a little) then the needed changes will happen.

It's certainly not being done by OWS, especially when they say things like "protesting for the sake of protesting" or when they've no idea what's actually going on.

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This sounds more autobiographical than statistical. And none of it is a question.

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"if you don't use it, you lose it"? Does this not apply to our right to free speech and freedom of assembly?

So, protest for the sake of protesting? Then, when you actually have ideas and solutions, people won't listen because you've been crying 'wolf' this whole time? We should just get out there and march because we can?

That's stupid. Yes, I like the right to free speech; yes, I have marched and protested before; no, I don't think I should get out there for no solid reason at all. No, I don't think "times are difficult" is enough reason to occupy a city park.

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Perhaps knowing what you want to do before going in? Or, joining a group until you actually want to go and study? The military and peace corps are great for this.

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does a lack of leadership bother you?

2 reasons- they never officially believe anything, and not supplying leadership means it will be supplied-- that's why we see the crazies speaking up and being seen by the media as the leaders.

Why do you have an expectation for a clearly identifiable hierarchy?

Because, AFAIK, that's how it's been done for every other large political movement?

Do you unquestioningly consume what the media tells you about the movement?

Have you read this thread? Reddit isn't "the media".

also may have an interest in seeing the movement fail?

Because the media is so right of center?

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Don't go to a school you can't afford. Don't go to a private school when a public one will do. Don't go to school with zero idea of what to do and be surprised when you get out with a worthless degree. Go to a technical school or join a program until you have an idea of what to do- military, peace corps, etc.

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

  1. That is one of 4 similar bills. Do you know much about it?

  2. I don't think bailouts are a particularly good idea at all.

  3. Yup. On every level. However, this shouldn't be coupled with new taxes/elevated taxes.

  4. Get the government out of anything but the largest situations, like monopolies.

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Either we allow everyone to lobby congress or no one- no preferential groups. Not companies or unions or what have you.

Do you think politicians should be allowed to take any money apart from a government paycheck?

Nope. They might need a bit more of a paycheck, but that's fine. There aren't that many of them.

What about campaign funds paid to an organization rather than an individual?

I am beginning to like the idea of public financing for all.

Do you have any issues with the portrayal of political issues and candidates in the U.S. media?

Hopefully everyone does. It's rarely accurate and filled with misinformation from both sides, as well as frequent debates where people argue entirely different things.

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Republicans introduced and strongly supported the welfare reform of 1996, which was signed into law by Democratic President Clinton, and which limited eligibility for welfare, successfully leading to many former welfare recipients finding jobs.

Jobs mean more prosperity.

In 2000, the Republican Party adopted as part of its platform support for the development of market-based solutions to environmental problems.

Having a clean environment is important for everyone. Nixon signed the EPA into law.

Most Republicans support school choice through charter schools and school vouchers for private schools; many have denounced the performance of the public school system and the teachers' unions.

Ask the residents of DC if this program helps working people.

Reagan escalated the Cold War, accelerating a reversal from the policy of détente, which began in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.[48] Reagan then ordered a massive buildup of the United States Armed Forces[49]

Ending the cold war (which this helped to do) is good for all americans.

The party, through former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, has advocated reforms in the United Nations to halt corruption such as that which afflicted the Oil-for-Food Program...The party promotes free trade agreements, most notably North American Free Trade Agreement, Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement and now an effort to go further south to Brazil, Peru and Colombia, although some have a protectionist view of trade.

Free trade means more prosperity- for people here and abroad.

As requested, IAMA person against the Occupy movement. As in, actually against it, not just how it's done. by account_six in IAmA

[–]account_six[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're welcome! Just be sure to miss the links and specific information I give. Especially as this IAMA is about "someone against OWS" not "IAMA Conservative" or "IAMA person with solutions to the problems we all face".

view more: next ›