A Liberal Called me a Troll

Hi

If you're a leftist or Liberal or Progressive or Socialist or Communist, stop reading now. Go outside and play or reach into someone's pocket to save a baby seal from global warming caused by Big Business. It's OK. You won't understand anyway.

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

When someone tells a joke about disabled minority dolphins who go to bed hungry, a conservative would say:

"You shouldn't say that."

A Liberal would say

"You should not be allowed to say that."

Source

Commenting on left-leaning hubs is like river-rafting on a mountain bike

... it's tough to get traction and you'd better wear a helmet.

Eventually the 'discussion' devolves into "your argument is stupid and I won't discuss it any more." Sadly, points do not get addressed, rather names get called. Recently a blindingly uninformed online article writer put down their crayon and called me a troll.

That probably insulted the troll community, but I can't speak for them because I am not 1/16th troll.

Anyway, I eloquently explained how Equal Protection Under the Law applied to marriage statutes in the United States. Short answer: it did. Every sentient human American citizen was subject to the same law with the same legal limitations on marriage. There were not different laws for various segments of society. Everyone enjoyed the same rights and privileges. Anyone with Google and a US Constitution could figure it out: I am only the messenger.

Obviously a segment of the citizenry felt put-upon by these generally applied marriage restrictions. One argument put forth by this segment suggested that Equal Protection was not extant. Just as obviously, this argument is specious. Facts are stubborn things, but facts are malleable things in the mind of a Liberal. Emotion trumps facts and emotion justifies name-calling until they get what they want.

The aforementioned liberal and his/her (sher? hier? I dunno) compatriots glommed onto emotion, citing unfair practices and government interference. People were unhappy in droves because they couldn't redefine marriage in their image. It sounds good because we all want smaller government, except when we don't.


Franken was elected to Congress by The Lizard People, who are evidently very Liberal.

Equal Protection is not Free Rein

Equal Protection Under the Law doesn't imply the right to do anything you wanna.

For example, I can legally ingest synthetic heroin, oxycodone, if I obtain a legal prescription for such and I fill that prescription at a licensed pharmacy and I honor the dosing instructions on the bottle. The law is very clear and complicated on these points and local police are always happy to provide details at the business end of a taser.

Everyone is equally protected by oxycodone statutes. The laws apply equally to everyone. You, as a contentious human, may disagree with how oxycodone is regulated, but none of us would suggest that some bizarre abrogation of Equal Protection has been committed.

Note to any Liberals trying to follow along: I'm not comparing marriage to taking oxycodone. I have participated in only one of the activities.

What will Liberals regulate next?

Liberals want to regulate:

  • School lunches, even those packed by parents
  • Salt intake
  • Swamps
  • Nuclear power
  • Coal power
  • Tanning booths
  • Cigarettes
  • Trans-fats
  • Toilet flushes
  • Birth Control
  • Suburbs
  • Electricity used by your dishwasher

Central Planning is all the rage, until it fiddles with who can marry whom. At that point smaller government is demanded.

More like a dwarf, perhaps a happy troll. Certainly I can self-identify if I please.
More like a dwarf, perhaps a happy troll. Certainly I can self-identify if I please. | Source

Let's be honest: can I marry my toaster?

Honesty is nice. Libs may not like the marriage law, but let's agree that their argument favors redefining what marriage is. Whining about fairness just sounds whiny. I respect the redefinition argument and I respect the Libs who voice it. Appealing to my unfairness gene accomplishes only to insult my intelligence.

Oops, marriage redefinition is a slippery slope down which Liberals cannot afford to slide their squishy bottoms. Accepting the concept of marriage redefinition opens doors to combinations of folks getting hitched that would scare off the casual liberal base. Hard-bitten leftists would not be deferred, but momentum would be lost.

And please don't tell me you are OK with any combination of any people getting married, 'cause you're not. You're really not.


It's none of my business, really?

Thoughtfully I provided HTML controls enabling you, dear reader, to offer comments. Up to you, it is, to turn off your Taylor Swift and type something at me. Read it, I will, and respond I probably will.

Delete you, I will, if profanity you use. Name-calling is perfectly acceptable and reported to HubPages you will not be. Name-calling is your way of telling me you're out of arguments. The NSA is watching anyway, so uploading you to HubPages Admins would be redundant anyway.

nicomp is

  • a troll
  • not a troll
  • an insult to trolls in general
  • a member of the protected Troll class
See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 32 comments

lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

We should try and find out who has been banned from here to find the real victims of censorship.....

You still free to comment on forums?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

@LoveMyChris , I have no idea if I can comment on forums. I will go try...

Yes, I was able to reply to a forum post. My reply was cogent and focused.

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/132055#post2752545


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 16 months ago

Apparently, we are no longer created equal. Marriage is definitely under attack, which is just another way of destabilizing our society, causing chaos and ultimately giving in to the great leader who will bring order to the day. The lunatics are out in full force. They control the media so most of the public will just get to hear and read what "they" want you to hear and read. One thing about liberals, they never want to be confused by the facts. Arguing with them is pointless and sickening. You are definitely not a troll.


tmbridgeland profile image

tmbridgeland 16 months ago from Small Town, Illinois

About 'alternative' families that liberals might object to. How about grandma marrying her grandchild? No problem with incest since granny is too old to bear. So, why not? This would allow families to keep their money inside the family and avoid death taxes, since spouses automatically inherit. Then, after granny passes away, the bereaved spouse can marry some very young family member, and the cycle starts over.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

@BreakfastPop, send your liberal friends over here so we can help them.

@tmbridgeland Good point -- wealth distribution is a hallmark of liberal principles... redefining marriage has inadvertently created a mechanism for perpetuating The Rich.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

Lovely. So you are not censored. And which right wing media has been fined off the air with Obama, like Howard Stern was with Bush?


Christopher Jay T profile image

Christopher Jay T 16 months ago from Fort Worth, TX

First of all you are the uninformed one. and you were trolling. you have a lot uf nerve trying to call me out in an article. I never once claimed to be liberal. the Minute someone has a different Ideology. you label them. I called you a troll because you were not stating any facts. Your comments were based only on your religious convictions.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

@LoveMyChris , you lost me with that question. Keep in mind that Stern is not a reporter. He is an entertainer, satirist, etc. He did attack the Bush administration regarding FCC rules but that was not part of a news report or news investigation. Stern was upset because his ox was being gored.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

@Christopher Jay T : thanks for stopping by and reinforcing my article. Your comments graciously illustrated all the points I discussed. Come back anytime and we will teach you up.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

Not what i heard. Powell was told to fine Stern because Focus on the Family, or some such group was writing to Bush all the time. Apparently, he owed the Conservative Christians his election, and the FCC fined Stern out of existance. With that, and my experience here, i know without a doubt that Conservatives are not for free speech, freebody, free anything they dont agree with. And they dont bother regulating, they just get rid of it.

Do you see that, too?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

@lovemychris : At that time Stern was using the public airwaves, a privilege that required adherence to some nebulously defined standards of 'good taste.'

Stern was not fined out of existence, although his employer was fined. The incident you mentioned provided impetus for him to move to satellite radio, allowing him to be as crude as he liked. On Sirius/XM Radio he uses his free speech rights extensively and the FCC is not empowered to bother him.

I don't consider Bush a Conservative: free prescriptions for seniors, auto industry bailouts, tax rebate checks in a ridiculous economic stimulus effort, deficit spending...


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

The standards were Conservative Christian, cause that's who ran the gvt. And he did not want to leave commercial radio, and when he did: that ended my ability to listen.

A big part of my enjoyment died because Cons could not just turn the dial. No, they had to remove the choice altogether.

This is why I can't take seriously anyone crying about "liberals".....who have they prevented you from listening to? What have they prevented you from doing?

A Liberal would say

"You should not be allowed to say that."

A Conservative would say

"You will not say that."


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

How come Fox and talk radio don't have those standards?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

lovemychris :

"How come Fox and talk radio don't have those standards?"

What standards? Fox is cable TV, which is regulated by the FCC much less than the public airwaves. Talk radio is not now and never has been as crude as Howard Stern. Remember that Air America, the leftist talk radio network, crashed and burned. It went broke.

Conservative talk radio survives for two reasons:

1. Conservatives love to be pandered to. Witness Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

2. Conservative thought stands up to logic and reason, liberal principles do not. Liberal thought is based on emotion and is easily deconstructed.

"This is why I can't take seriously anyone crying about "liberals".....who have they prevented you from listening to? What have they prevented you from doing?"

Browse to CollegeFix dot com and read how Liberal principles are being used to stifle free speech. Use Google to search for Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock explaining that they will not do shows on college campi any more.

I listed many things in the above article that liberals want to control, Centrally Plan, and regulate. Go back and take a look.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

That's not liberal--to control things. But I do know what you mean. My meaning of liberal is to live and let live. I don't know who these buttinsky's are, to tell you the truth.

And--if standards of "good taste" got Stern off commercial air: I don't see how in Hades any right wing is allowed there!

Personally, I think Howard pee'd off the real powers that be, which are fascist in nature.

People like Rush and Fox have zero decency, but have been riding the wave for a long time. Because they tickle the fascists. "Oh hohho, what a riot"

I wonder what Rush's listenership would be if people had to pay to hear him?

You see--when they dominate, and give you no choice.....one viewpoint is all you get to know.

And that is the point.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

lovemychris : A fascist favors nationalism, which has never been the argument of Limbaugh or Fox.

Howard definitely pee'd off the real powers that be and no one should be surprised by that. The content of his show was gross and crude -- people are obviously entertained by that but the FCC is responsible for the public airwaves. Stern isn't stupid -- don't think for a minute that he was caught by surprise.

Without question Limbaugh would have fewer listeners if people had to pay money to hear him.

Fox and Rush 'dominate' because people tune in, thereby causing sponsors to pay for commercials. It's simple economics. There are other viewpoints available: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Bill Maher, John Stewart, Huffington Post, to name a few.

I suggest that you read Sharyl Attkisson 's book, Stonewalled, to get a feel for how the left-wing presidential administration of Barack Hussein Obama operates.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

People tune in because it's the only thing available. And I'm speaking from x-perience.

And the FCC is supposed to serve me too...is it not?

Please tell me why something offensive to me is all over the place, but something offensive to Focus on Family gets removed???

Because they run the gubmint, that's why.

All this crying about"liberals" and Obama....

His FCC isn't killing Right Wing talk, but Bush's killed Stern.

Stonewalled?

How about you remember Kasich's Gavel.....

"We are in charge now, you don't HAVE a say!"

sorry--you make the rules, ya can't complain when people play by them.

and Sharyl?

The Daily Signal Sharyl????

No tanks.

btw: your use of Obama's middle name tells me all I need to know about you.

You hate Rahm Emmanuel, don't you?

You ever see him refereed to as Rahm Israel Emmanuel? Over and over and over?

Oh--there'd be a name for you then.

So...... just reverse it.

poor oppressed fascists...almost brings a tear to me eyes.


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 16 months ago

My liberal friends are beyond help!


drbj profile image

drbj 16 months ago from south Florida

Nicomp, m'dear, you are NOT a troll ... no matter what anyone says! Your response above is well stated. In most cases, less government is best government.


William Dugat profile image

William Dugat 16 months ago from Lufkin, Texas

BEAUTIFUL HUB. I'M LAUGHING SO HARD! NICELY DONE. Imagine, if us, everyone thought like, what the world would be like... Great, it would be.


Connie120 profile image

Connie120 16 months ago

I guess I missed the party, but I am sure you're not a troll. I've seen that false accusation many times in other places.

BTW, you summed up the situation perfectly in the first paragraph. Liberals always want to ban everything they don't like: Confederate flags, guns, collecting rainwater, etc. They like to take our hard-earned money and redistribute it, and then tell us what we can and can't do with the little bit they leave us.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

@Connie120 : remember they want to ban stuff because that is for our own good. We individuals don't know what's good for us. Central Planning will solve our ills.

They mean well but Libs have yet to realize they do not have the right to legislate away that which annoys. There is no Constitutional annotation guaranteeing the right to live your life without being offended.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

Sigh......exactly my point about Republicans.

Used the FCC to get rid of a man that annoyed the conservative Christian base which got them elected.

Legislating away the right to vote.

Legislating away the right to do as I see fit with my own body.

And I wonder.....if someone demanded we fly the Swastika at all state capitals, how vocal do you think conservatives would be against it? I'd say plenty.

No one holds the majority on "central planning". They all do it. Cons are just religious-based, so they wrap it in morality.

Morality, and favoring the rich.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

"Used the FCC to get rid of a man that annoyed the conservative Christian base which got them elected."

They didn't get rid of him. The FCC fined his employer. He chose to leave terrestrial radio for satellite radio.

"Legislating away the right to vote."

Urban myth perpetuated by Hilary.

"Legislating away the right to do as I see fit with my own body."

So silly that you must be joking.

"And I wonder.....if someone demanded we fly the Swastika at all state capitals, how vocal do you think conservatives would be against it? I'd say plenty."

I'd hope they'd be against it. We have enough real issues without bizarre hypotheticals to argue about.

"No one holds the majority on "central planning". They all do it. Cons are just religious-based, so they wrap it in morality."

Absolutely. They preach 'small government' and give us more bureaucracy.

"Morality, and favoring the rich."

Another urban myth:

Read about Lloyd Bentsen and the Oil Industry,

Read about Dianne Feinstein: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php...

'The rich' are where the money is. They all favor 'the rich.'


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

And WHY did Michael Powell fine the employer?

"In the wake of Clear Channel’s move, Stern has claimed that the broadcast giant, which has close ties to the Bush family and the Republican Party, kicked him off the air because he had been telling his 8 million weekly listeners to vote President Bush out of office."

http://www.salon.com/2004/03/19/fcc_9/

You can google all the new legislation Republicans put in relating to voting and abortion rights....denial is rampant, but it doesn't change the truth...I have to go work for peanuts now, so the big fat elephants can have more and more.

"Taxes...why only the Little People pay taxes!"--Leona Helmsley


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

""In the wake of Clear Channel’s move, Stern has claimed that the broadcast giant, which has close ties to the Bush family and the Republican Party, kicked him off the air because he had been telling his 8 million weekly listeners to vote President Bush out of office.""

Chris, I like you, but you have think critically. Howard Stern exists for one reason: to promote Howard Stern. He is an awesome showman. You and I already determined that the FCC did not 'kick' him off the air. He voluntarily left terrestrial radio because the FCC would not overlook his vulgar presentation. You may not like what happened but Stern brought it on himself and ultimately he got precisely what he wanted: more attention and more money.

"You can google all the new legislation Republicans put in relating to voting and abortion rights....denial is rampant, but it doesn't change the truth..."

I have. I understand, as you do not, that Republicans are not in the business of suppressing voting rights. Hillary continues to perpetuate that urban myth as she campaigns for President. Are you aware which party filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Regarding abortion, unborn babies have rights.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

No--he didn't want to leave commercial air...he knew he would lose a ton of audience...like me, who couldn't justify paying for radio. But, he wanted to speak without the Conservative thought police, and I don't blame him.

Don't like Bush? You hate the troops, and hate America

Don't like the 10 commandments? Move to Cuba

Can't say the C or D word, but CAN call the president of the United States a red-diaper doper baby and a Pot smoking philanderer in chief.

Cant talk about sex, but can scream to kill Muslims.

As the article stated: "a new day of language policing has dawned."

And we're still in it.

He didn't bring it on, Focus on the Family did. Apparently, Jesus never taught how to change a channel.

But no--everybody must be like them, or they can sit down and shut up.

Republicans admitted they were changing to the voting rules to help elect Republicans. They are suppressing Democratic voters only.

I was 4 in 64--but I believe it. And, when affirmative action came about, they only added women because they thought it would make even liberal men against it. Misogyny--what else is new?

Today--a fetus has rights, and women don't!

Thanks, Religios running gvt.

Keep you religion in church!


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

lovemychris : I love that you quoted Michael Savage to make one of your Liberal points. Well played.

Stern is playing you, sorry. He could put his entire show on the Interweb and it would cost you nothing to listen. There is no altruism there.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

I thought this hub was about liberals legislating away things that annoy?

I'm merely pointing out that conservatives do it all the time, do it worse, and have absolutely zero moral high ground.

It's not about Stern--it's about what was done to him, and why.

and who did it......the US gvt under a Conservative Christian administration. No liberals in sight.

oh----and no FCC is fining Weiner. tho he's as foul as they come.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

@LoveMyChris: Here are your Democrats in action: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421116/hilla...


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 16 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

Erm...I'm not for Clinton. I don't support Neo-Cons, of any persuasion. But she's not all Democrats. And--could that National Review author just speak English? He's too clever for his own good...lost me with all the hyperbole and what he assumes are cute little antidotes.

My Democrats are Kennedy and Obama. Notwithstanding the butts Obama has to kiss....I will always go for peace over war.

Kucinich: my hero

Kaptur: fearless speaker of truth

Grayson: Yes!

I actually really used to like "Maverick" McCain, too....what happened to him?

Nope--the right wing of the Democratic party (Blue Dogs) is not for me.

But it's nice, I guess that not everyone is in lockstep.

You need a name for your Rep's that don't follow the platform.....those who are "socially liberal". How about Purple Dogs?


nicomp profile image

nicomp 16 months ago from Ohio, USA Author

lovemychris : Reps that don't follow the platform are called Conservatives. Maybe Rand Paul, perhaps Ted Cruz. That's about it. McCain brought us McCain-Feingold a total disaster. The trouble with politicians is that they want to use politics to solve problems.

Try some PJ O'Rourke: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/they-hate-y... -- he doesn't particularly like either major party.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working