After a one sided conversation with and subsequent blocking by an old friend, I just had to vent.
To those it may concern,
The fact that we are Facebook “Friends” does not entitle you to post on my wall without discretion. That is doubly true if you decide to post derogatory things about myself or my acquaintances. Nor does it give you license to force me into endless circular “debates” of which you and I know there will never be an end. I know, you have nothing better to do than poke away at your Cheetoes encrusted keyboard and entertain yourself with your own banter but frankly, I can’t be bothered. Spare yourself the time and me the boredom.
What’s he on about?
It’s come to my attention via private message that some of you are discussing my apparent irreconcilable sadness of being, my malaise of discontent, that I’m surely circling life’s drain ala some giant Pirates of the Caribbean maelstrom while praying for the Kraken to end my misery as evidenced by the fact I’ve de-friended some and been de-friended by others. Trust me. Such is not the case. In fact, my life has been quite clearer of purpose and much less hectic now that I don’t feel the need to argue endless leftist talking points with people who choose not to place even a modicum of value in the US Constitution or consider it to be some living document ready and willing to be transformed to fit the leftist mold. Such folks do not deserve my attention except to keep watch on their evil agenda masquerading as social justice or wealth redistribution or free contraception or government health care or gun registration and confiscation. Simply put: I won’t play well with Communists, even if you’re in denial about that definition.
I am flattered, however, that some of those folks feel the need to discuss my apparent break from the fold. If I in fact have gone off your particular reservation, perhaps the point you should take from it is that I probably never belonged on that piece of land in the first place, or I possibly have had a change of heart about the way I look at the world in general and as such, now refuse to associate with those whose views are diametrically opposed to mine and I consider to be of ultimate detriment to the country and civil society. Or perhaps your version of a discussion is to lob smarmy remarks over the wall while hiding from the fray behind the coattails of another; a trait I find to be tediously childlike at best and disrespectfully dishonest at worst. I also find it interesting some folks find it necessary to come to the defense of said de-friended ass wipes without first asking for my side. After all, didn’t WE used to be friends? You can’t pick up the phone? My number hasn’t changed. Same old double standard is all I see. The rules can change in an instant because you make them up as you see fit. Well guess what, I quit playing your game. Sorry if you don’t like it. Just because we were once friends doesn’t force us to always be friends. In fact, it would do me and others a disservice if I continue to give a forum to those I adamantly disagree and especially those who choose to post false accusations on my wall or play cheerleader for those who do. And guess what, YOU wouldn’t either.
I’ve just about had it with Facebook trolls and bulletin board debates anyway. Either you’ve chosen a side by this point or you haven’t. Those in the latter are much more deserving of my time than the former and I can spot a pretender a mile away.
Isn’t that special. Guess they don’t read the Robot. Or maybe they do and don’t like what they see. Which leads to the conclusion:
FCC Hates Beautiful Women! Â Â Â Save Rule 5 from FCC!
Robert M. McDowell, writing for the Wall Street Journal has more:
Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government’s reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.
This is flat out unconstitutional. Once again, the Obama regime attempts to exert more control on free speech, internet access and beautiful girls. What is the world coming to?
The bailouts and takeovers were just the start of it all.
Obamacare’s death panels will decide who lives and dies according to some unknown standard of faceless nameless bureaucrats and pencil pushers who will have access to your credit, voting and video rental records.
We are supposed to be OK with a Ground Zero Mosque while they tell us to not celebrate Christmas.
Government has ruined the Gulf’s oil production and increased foreign access to the same waters.
The Food bill will put the FDA and the EPA in your backyard garden.
And to top it all off, after DADT is repealed, military recruitment will be decimated.
Why not just bow to our enemies and invite an attack? Oh. Yea, too late.
My friends, this lame duck congress and out of control administration are over the top with their sequestering of our rights and their undermining of our country and way of life. It’s insidious.Â The little nibbles and nips we have felt over the years were but a taste teaser leading to the gluttonous feast we experience and witness now.
We, the American People, must take the unprecedented step to issue a decree or petition of No Confidence in Obama and the Congress as it stands. (Is that possible? I don’t know. Couldn’t hurt to try it.)
Obama, Congress and all federal agencies must cease and desist all activity with regard to legislation and the drafting of new regulations until the new Congress is sworn in. And next year, if the new blood doesn’t turn the tide, woe be unto them, for the new decree will be a new election as soon as humanly possible, using paper ballots and a thorough ouster of all Senators and Representatives. Every last one. Start over. Clean slate. Restore and repair and repeal the amendments to the Constitution back to 1890 when the Communists began their treachery. McCarthy was right!
What else is there to do if we are to save the republic?
I know, I started off trying to be light-hearted about the net neutrality thing, but I can’t. I even made a new header and all attempting to get in the Christmas spirit. Believe me when I say, I know who wins in the long run. He is risen and shall come again. Jesus is the reason for the season. I know.
It just breaks my heart to see our country go down without so much as a whimper with these guys at the helm and a bunch of smarmy Liberal Progressives gloating over their “victory.” Victory over what? Common sense?
Please God forgive them. They know not what they do.
Iâ€™ve recently read several bloggers posting in what can only be described as another one of those â€œIâ€™m a Libertarian and anyone who criticizes Libertarians, no matter how stupid those Libertarians acted, is a big fat poopy headâ€ arguments. The funny thing was the topic wasnâ€™t even Libertarians in general. The topic was the California gay marriage ruling by some wacko homosexual activist judge.
There are a few points missing from your arguments. Iâ€™ll start with those.
1: James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.â€
The Federal Government is growing beyond our control. This is the leviathan we fight. Define it as that. Our problem is with the Federal Government, if you have a problem in your State, battle it in your State either now or after the fight to get the Federal Government reeled back in.
2: Madison continues: â€œThose which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.â€
Remember that line?
What part of numerous and indefinite donâ€™t you understand? Itâ€™s mighty convenient for someone to spout off about â€œThe Stateâ€ when â€œThe Statesâ€ might just be our knights in shining armor that begin the march away from Socialism and against the Federal encroachment that (can we agree?) the Federal Government Â has been pursuing.
3: Donâ€™t confuse 1 & 2 and donâ€™t paint them as equal. Over generalization doesnâ€™t suit you. Youâ€™re smarter than that, and besides, arenâ€™t we trying to restore some semblance of a Constitutional Republic?
I thought we were.
On the gay marriage issue: You know, the one that started the whole thing?
The California ruling by an openly homosexual and obviously activist judge struck down, for the SECOND time, a public vote (the very basis of our Constitutional Republic) against gay marriage. This is no small pittance of an issue but seems to be disregarded in all defenses of Libertarians for Gayness. Iâ€™ll state my views now and let the chips fall as they may.
Iâ€™m against â€œgay marriageâ€ and all that comes with it. Reason being is that it is nothing more than another attempt to legitimize and promote an abhorrent activity. The gays and lesbians have used this issue and others to infiltrate our school system with the indoctrination of our children along with Hollywood and the media and their incessant promotion of the â€œalternative lifestyleâ€ that if any of their parents had practiced, they would not be here to promote in the first place.
Let me state the freaking obvious for all of you who wish to quote me. There is an argument against homosexuality that stares you in the face each and every day. That argument is called anatomy and reproduction. Without the male and female sexes being different and shall we say, â€œaccommodatingâ€ by design, uniting to produce a another human being, or procreation, would not be possible, much to the chagrin of the leaders and activists in the gay and lesbian community who would like nothing more than to promote the homosexual lifestyle to our children as legitimate. Perhaps in the glorious future it will be possible for us lowly humans to reproduce asexually, but we canâ€™t right now, thank God. This is just one facet of the fight and you didnâ€™t even address it!
I don’t care what someone does in the privacy of their own home, but this issue to me is about our children and the leftâ€™s attempt to sell homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. It is not, in my mind, legitimate, I would rather let the child grow up to make up their own mind, not influenced by some pre-indoctrination from the schools or the government or the media in general. This stance is not so much anti-homosexual as it is pro-creation.
If someone continues to sidetrack these issues, your arguments will no longer hold water with me. I donâ€™t care what political bent you side yourself with, if you would support those who would promote a lifestyle that denies the very basics of human nature and design, then you are on the wrong side of the issue.
Likewise youâ€™d better subject yourself to the same scrutiny that you apply to others when you accuse some brother in the fight of using over generalizations and ad-homonym attacks against your particular ism.
You have done yourselves a disservice in my eyes. Maybe Iâ€™m the only one who holds that opinion, but I donâ€™t think so. I encourage you to re-read the entire exchange. The topic quickly went from a legitimate rant about an activist judge ruling against the will of the voters to some defense of Libertarianism in general, which was taken somewhat out of context with the discussion at hand.
Something was in the water that few days is all I know. The usually well reasoned folks Iâ€™ve come to respect had gone off and created some weird-ass feud as if we donâ€™t have an enemy already. Grow up people. Not everyone is impugning your particular point of view and no-one would know of your bias unless you opened your own blog and removed all doubt.
The funny thing to meÂ in reading the rebuttals was, like I said, the original bitch got thrown out of the kennel, roaming free in the woods to breed some more while some of the would-be handlers got caught in the pen, arguing about what type of dog food is best for the pack.
Iâ€™m an admitted newcomer to your particular blogging party, but Iâ€™m no idiot and I can call out inconsistency when I see it.
Police yourselves people, and remember whose side we are on and who and what it is we are fighting for.
And BTW, marriage hasnâ€™t always been sanctioned by religion, but it has nearly always been a legal contract and as a contract, if it is broken, bears legal consequences as to possessions and the rights of children etc. Who is going to preside over the separation and subsequent issues of ownership and custody if not the State or some local form of government?