We will get in
Jun. 1st, 2014 07:13 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Why conservatives are suddenly terrified of revolution
"Warren is quite correct: It is the rich who have made war against the 99 percent, not the other way around. They have dumped the tax burden onto the rest of us. They have shredded our social safety net and attacked our retirements. In their insatiable greed, they refuse even to consider raising the minimum wage for people who toil all day and can’t earn enough to feed their children. And they do everything in their power to block as many people from the polls as possible who might protest these conditions, while crushing the unions and any other countervailing forces that could fight to improve them.

The goal of this vicious war is to control all of the wealth and the government not just in the U.S., but the rest of the world, too, and to make sure the people are kept in a state of fear."
"Warren is quite correct: It is the rich who have made war against the 99 percent, not the other way around. They have dumped the tax burden onto the rest of us. They have shredded our social safety net and attacked our retirements. In their insatiable greed, they refuse even to consider raising the minimum wage for people who toil all day and can’t earn enough to feed their children. And they do everything in their power to block as many people from the polls as possible who might protest these conditions, while crushing the unions and any other countervailing forces that could fight to improve them.

The goal of this vicious war is to control all of the wealth and the government not just in the U.S., but the rest of the world, too, and to make sure the people are kept in a state of fear."
no subject
Date: 2014-06-04 01:40 am (UTC)How about you assume that you should not make an advance towards anyone without direct invitation to do so? That seems to work quite well for the majority of the population.
What are you, a Sith?
Yes. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Obviously there are very good reasons not to harass a woman on the bus in some stupid attempt to get a date, but you seem to be conflating persistence after being told no with asking the first time.
You seem to be unaware that there are many, many people who do not want to be asked the first time.
Are the people who go around and hang flyers for the local delivery restaurant on doornobs engaging in harassment?
Yes, which is why they're banned from my complex. If they're sighted doing that, security detains them and they're arrested for trespassing.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-04 01:49 am (UTC)And....thats all i have to say to your shitty ass attitude, you corporate fuck
no subject
Date: 2014-07-08 11:43 pm (UTC)Then don't whine if you suffer from not taking it. If someone offers you advice, you do not get to complain about the consequences of not taking it.
And....thats all i have to say to your shitty ass attitude, you corporate fuck
Does it truly bother you that there are plenty of people, myself included, who do not want to be approached and will not appreciate it?
*shrugs* Well, it ain't my problem.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-09 02:47 am (UTC)There are some exceptions, but by and large, places that do not permit door-to-door political (or religious) activity are behaving unconstitutionally.
But hey, you are obviously not really a member of the human group, so whatevs yo.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-09 02:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-09 03:09 am (UTC)Ayn Rand and her ilk are terrible.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-09 03:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-09 07:06 pm (UTC)First, the relevant case is actually Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2001). There is no Watchtower v Schuster.
Second, it was regarding an city ordinance that required a permit to go door-to-door for religious or political activity. The ordinance was found to be unconstitutional.
Third, SCOTUS has upheld "No Soliciting" signs as being applicable to door-to-door political and religious activity. Should a Jehovah's Witness violate the No Soliciting sign (or Private Property, or Stay Out, or whatnot) at my domicile, I am perfectly within my rights to hold them at gunpoint until the arrival of the authorities and to have them charged with trespassing. SCOTUS has not held that your right to canvass for poltiical/religious reasons trumps the wishes of owners of property.
But hey, you are obviously not really a member of the human group, so whatevs yo.
Oh no, I do not hold to the libertarian island theory. I am human; I live in a society. But there is no requirement that I have to receive contact from other members of society if I do not wish to have it. There is no law that compels me to accept your advances.