Monday, August 18, 2014

A Song For Willis & I Address Some Lies From Willis' Blog Of Low Content

Actually, a song for Occupy Wall Street, which Willis hates, called "Save The Rich". But sung from the point of view of someone who believes our economy should be run for the benefit of the wealthy, as Willis does.

Written and performed by the comedy duo Garfunkel and Oates, which "is an American comedy-folk duo from Los Angeles, California, consisting of actress-songwriters Kate Micucci (Oates) and Riki Lindhome (Garfunkel). The band name is derived from "two famous rock-and-roll second bananas", Art Garfunkel and John Oates" (quoted from Wikipedia).

Kate Micucci's first major television exposure was her role as Stephanie Gooch in Scrubs, and later as Shelley in Raising Hope and Raj's girlfriend Lucy in The Big Bang Theory (also quoted from Wikipedia). Although I know her from Scrubs, I've never watched either of those other programs.

Note: No explanation as to WHO Willis Hart is, as he never explains who "wd" is when he writes his many posts slamming this hated individual. He knows his regular readers will know who "wd" is and eagerly join in bashing him (that is, me).

Video 1: Early Version (2:08).

Video 2: Official, more polished version (2:48).

Video 3: As performed with "Weird Al" Yankovic (3:02).

In regards to the "commentary" mentioned in my post - this is only one of many in which Willis bashes the hated "wd". The title of this "commentary"? "wd's Name if the Dude Was a Muslim?". The "body" of the commentary answers the question posed in the title... Answer? "Abdullard"... ha ha. Hilarious! (no, not really).

And I have not (and will not) author a 1000 word post in response (as one commenter claimed I would), I would, however, like to respond to a few of the accusations made by idiots in the comment thread...

Dennis Marks: He'll get his pony tail in a knot if he reads that, Will. (8/17/2014 AT 7:01pm).

Dennis Marks: ...when I (rightfully) accused WD of spamming, his response was to send 38 comments in which he focused on the phallus. And thanks to him, over Christmas, I learned far more about anal sex lube than I had ever known before (that past amount of knowledge being "none at all"). (8/18/2014 AT 5:04am).

First of all, I don't sport a ponytail, although I think Dennis might. And Dennis would have no idea even if I did, as there are no pictures of me online (and Dennis and I have never met). In regards to the second comment, this is in reply to Lester saying he thinks I might be "be a gay who hasn't left the closet". What is this, gay-bashing?

What Dennis claims is a lie. He WRONGLY accused me of spamming his blog. I submitted an ON TOPIC comment to his blog that he did not like. He deleted it and called me a spammer. In response I sent him some examples of what REAL spam looks like (male enhancement info). I did this as a joke, and because I was not happy about him deleting my comment and then lying about what it said (he described it as spam and "low-content" and called me a troll).

Funny, because that is what I thought about his post (on his now closed blog)... that it was "low content". In any case, it's one thing if Dennis does not want me to comment on his blog, but deleting comments and then lying about what was written? I admit that made me mad. So I played a little joke on him. Now he lies about the joke. The latest example being this bullshit about "anal sex lube". I never sent him a damn thing that mentioned this kind of lube. This is something Dennis imagined/lied about.

Although it does show where his mind is at. Dennis constantly is discussing things like "Weinergrams" and various gay-sex-related subjects. Which makes me think it is Dennis who is "a gay who hasn't left the closet".

OST #30. See also PPP #34.

Friday, August 8, 2014

Another Willis "Factoid" For The Fake History Books?

My reply to the following comment from Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, posted here due to me being banned from comment on his blog. A blog that, while I am not allowed to post replies to, is still a place where those who do comment there continue to talk about, and lie about, this blogger.

Willis Hart: wd is the least objective individual in all of recorded history. (8/7/2014 AT 4:42pm)

Wow! In ALL of recorded history, huh? Is that "fact" going to be recorded in the history books? Does not matter if it isn't, I suppose. Willis will just insist that it has been.

OST #29

Friday, August 1, 2014

On Willis Hart's Obliviousness In Regards To Societal Norms & How They Evolve

I've been reading this asshole's blog for awhile now, even though the jerk is too cowardly to publish any of my comments, explaining "I put a book over the comments section and when I see his jerk-off name I immediately click delete".

Fact is, that this yellow belly is too chicken to publish my comments is why I started this blog. So I could have a place to respond, when, after reading some of the Hartster's nonsense, I feel the need to talk back to his idiocy.

Today the idiocy in question is Willis' apparent obvious obliviousness when it comes to societal norms and the FACT that they evolve over time. Now, the Hartster has spent a LOT of time on his blog recently defending the Southern States and people of the South during the time of slavery and the Civil War era.

A lot of this defense relies on vilifying President Lincoln, a president who is frequently rated as one of America's best presidents. Now, I'm not going to address that issue with this commentary, except to say that President Lincoln is on record as being against slavery. That is a FACT.

The issue I want to focus on is Willis' ridiculous attempt to hold the inhabitants of the slavery free North to the societal norms of TODAY. The North being cast as the "good guys" is a "rewriting" of history that the Hartster won't stand for. They (the Northerners) were just as racist, says the straw-man-loving Willis.

And, make no mistake about it, but his "Northerners racist" argument is a strawman, because nobody has ever claimed that Northerners were "motivated primarily by racial justice" as the strawman-loving Willis claims. Of course they weren't, you dipshit. This is a TOTAL strawman. Yet the dissembling dummy actually claims that there is a Leftist conspiracy of (socialist?) scholars who are pushing this false narrative. (The Left engages in "partisan scholarship", he says).

But NOBODY ever claimed that the North was motivated by "racial justice", primarily, secondary or AT ALL. One of the more recent stoopids I read on the blog of Willis is that he is planning on publishing some comments from abolitionists of the time. I presume that some of them might have said some not-that-flattering things in regards to Black people.

As if this proves that the Civil War wasn't fought because of slavery. It does not. But Willis thinks he can apply the societal norms of today to the people who lived during this time period. They're all racists in his opinion because they CONFORMED to the societal norms of their time.

Today we know better. People are individuals and judging anyone by their "race" is completely idiotic, given the fact that there is no gene for race. Some of us have different skin colors and different cultures, but we are all human beings.

TODAY we know that. But the societal norms of today took time to form. Now, I'm not excusing the racism of the past. I am only stating the facts. Judging people of that era against the societal norms of today is ridiculous. As is claiming that being accepting of slavery (and allowing it) is less racist than not allowing it, which the Hartster is also doing on his blog.

Did President Lincoln view African Americans as inferior? Yes he did. Did a lot of Northerners share his views? Yes they did. Was ANYONE motivated to go to war with the South because they thought "racial justice" demanded the abolishment of slavery and because they thought negroes were the equal of Whites? I would guess that statement applied to VERY few Northerners.

But, despite this, was the Civil War still fought because of slavery? YES. Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens cited African slavery as the immediate cause of secession, as did the "declaration of causes" documents of several of the succeeding states.

What the societal norms of the time were does not change these facts, Willis, you lover of strawmen! Jeez... what a dope. I'd tell this guy to "open a history book", but now he no longer believes they all agree with him... but the reason for that is... a Leftist conspiracy has resulted in "partisan scholarship".

OST #28