Category: Government

Wot, too soon?! Not soon enough in my book.

Here’s a list of her illustrious “legislative accomplishments”. Try to suppress your gag reflex:

• global warming
• fuel economy standards
• legal protection to forests
• violence against women act
• 1994 assault weapons ban
• legislation banning/limiting sales of firearms
• LGBTQ+ rights and the legalization of same-sex marriage
• helped shape “policy on criminal law, national security, immigration, civil rights and the courts,” according to her Senate office biography

Oh, and by the way, she was every bit the war pig as was her counterpart Crash McCain.

Please note that everything the hag worked for served to expand the role of government in controlling the lives of this nation’s citizens.

The despicable Chuckie Schumer and the quisling Thom Thillis were among the first to cry crocodile tears over her. And I’m sure Governor Hairspray will exceed himself in appointing a successor as soon as possible, given that the present situation could produce a 49-49 split in the Senate if Bullion Bob Menendez gets the boot. (Look for a black Chinese LGBTQIA+ illegal alien as the most likely candidate — you heard it here first.)

Adios, Feinswine. You’ve put your finger in your last bullet hole.

I used to be a contributor to and occasional editor on Wikipedia. But wokeism sickened the service early on, making it no longer reliable or valuable from my perspective.

I have had a love-hate relationship with Gab from its beginning. I admire Andrew Torba’s commitment to maintaining an open forum (as long as laws are not broken), regardless of how odious some topics may be to others.

On the positive side, to my knowledge, Gab is the only social media platform that has never self-censored nor succumbed to pressure and threats from any entity seeking to impose censorship for any reason.

On the negative side, because of its integrity, it allows a lot of content that is — again in my opinion only — neither credible nor valuable. This is content that I have to wade through despite being very careful about whom I follow.

All in all, Gab is one of only two social media that I still use. (I must confess that I still use Facebook because there are people with whom I want to keep in touch who reside there. I’m working on a strategy to rid myself of the hideous Zuck monster, but it’s proving hard for me to do.)

I was alerted to Wikipedia’s “description” of Gab and found it a remarkable example of pretzel logic. It manages in one paragraph to dismiss Gab’s assertion of free speech by listing examples of what is clearly as positive an attitude toward free speech as you can expect. Wikipedia leads off its attack as follows:

Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service known for its far-right userbase.[2][3][4][5] Widely described as a haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, antisemites, the alt-right, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories such as QAnon,[6][7] Gab has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media platforms and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms.[8][9][10] Founded in 2016 and launched publicly in May 2017,[3][11] Gab claims to promote free speech, individual liberty, the “free flow of information online”, and Christian values.[12][13][14][15] Researchers and journalists have characterized these assertions as an obfuscation of its extremist ecosystem.[13][16] Antisemitism is prominent in the site’s content and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary. Gab CEO Andrew Torba has promoted the white genocide conspiracy theory.[13][14][15][17] Gab is based in Pennsylvania.[18]

Researchers note that Gab has been “repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events”.

Wikipedia

As for the notion that “researchers” have allegedly noted, I’d have to see proof before condemning it. Gab has been involved in several cases where entities have attempted to throttle Gab by requesting that they remove controversial positions. Gab has repeatedly refused, stating that as long as it does not stray into criminal intent, it remains in the domain of free speech.

I continue to support Gab, even though I find little value to me in its content. I continue to support it because I think that their commitment to free speech deserves support, over and above its utilitarian value.

Prove me wrong.