Saturday, May 28, 2016

Government Passed Laws Should Only Be Suggestions & Absolutely Not Enforced Libertarian Sez

What explains this is the fact that Libertarians (such as Willis Hart) believe in Kingdom and hate democracy. The Liberty and Freedom they subscribe to depends on how much money a person has. The more money someone has, the more liberty and freedom they are deserving of. Everything being a commodity under their worldview (DSB #44).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Whenever You Go to Bottom of the Rabbit-Hole with Groups Like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, the Bernie Sanders Crowd, etc. and Ask These Folks How They're Going to Implement Their Agenda, They Always Have to Confess that it Will Only Be Obtained Through Coercion, Force, the Threat of Violence, and Violence Itself... Via the full force of the state, in other words. But relax, it's for our own good, they say. (5/27/2016 AT 4:34pm)

Willis Hart, like many on the Right, frame their hatred for democracy as a love of republicanism. Our country is a republic and not a democracy because our Founders recognized that the rights rich people needed to be protected from the masses. The danger being the rabble voting to steal from rich people so they can loaf (i.e. the "Makers vs Takers" meme).

This Randian argument says that "since the takers don't pay taxes - they just take government benefits - they are endlessly incentivized to support politicians who keep their Ponzi scheme going" (Makers, Takers, and YOYOs). This is a false/divisive meme that Hart subscribes to (strongly).

Willis Hart: ...people when given the choice will almost always vote for those who promise them the most while making others pay for it) and why the Founding Fathers created a Republic instead. (4/2/206 AT 3:21pm).

This despite the fact that we're talking about making investments that will be economically beneficial. The higher the level of education attained, the more the individual in question pays in taxes over their lifetime. Also, those with more education draw less from social support programs (How Taxpayers Benefit When Students Attain Higher Levels of Education). Which is why the proposals of Bernie Sanders (for free college) and Hillary Clinton (for debt free college) would more than pay for itself.

None-the-less Willis opposes free college.

Willis Hart: Oh, free college education now! Do you have ANY idea how expensive that would be? And do you even care? We'll pay for it by taxing the rich, right? (7/3/2011 AT 9:00pm)

His primary concern here (as it is ALWAYS) is how much the rich will pay in taxes. Which explains his anger at the Occupy Wall Street movement and "the Bernie Sanders Crowd". With Black Lives Matter, his outrage concerns cops who shoot unarmed suspects. Apparently be believes cops should should continue to be allowed to shoot Black people indiscriminately.

Bottom line, though, is that addressing these issue via LAWS is what the Hartster is objecting to in his rant. And, if people refuse to follow the law, he thinks nothing should be done? Should the authorities representing the State say "OK, it was really more of a suggestion"?

Of COURSE, if you're going to have laws (any laws), ultimately the threat of force is necessary to back them up. As a last resort, of course. There are other ways to persuade people to follow the rules. But, ultimately, if they refuse, then what choice is there but to back up those laws with force?

Is he saying he believes in Libertarian anarchism, or just the (democratic) passage of laws he disagrees with? In which case (if he doesn't believe there should be NO laws), then I say (if you go to the bottom of his rabbit hole) HE HAS TO CONFESS that the State powers he agrees with can only be enforced through coercion, force, the threat of violence, and violence itself.

But I doubt he will, as he is clearly an enormous hypocrite.

OST #147

Saturday, May 21, 2016

What To Do Regarding Black Rioters? Libertarian Racist Says "Shoot To Kill"

Personally, I file comments such as the following from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart under the heading of "racism".

Willis Hart: I still like the first Mayor Daley of Chicago 'cause when that dude said, "shoot to kill", he meant it. (5/24/2015 AT 9:04am)

Seriously, shoot to kill? Yeah, property destruction and theft via looting are crimes, but are they crimes worthy of an instant death penalty? Also, I suppose a defense of Hart's comments could be that he's a believer in law and order and the "shoot to kill order" would include White rioters (if any).

However, as far as such a sentiment (kill looters) goes, Willis' buddy Rusty Shackelford (in a very similar comment regarding killing rioters) makes his racism quite clear.

Rusty Shackelford: Fuck the tear gas... Fuck the rubber bullets... Fuck the bean bag's.... Load up with live ammo and chop about 100 of these animals down... this shit would end in a hurry... (4/27/2015 AT 7:06pm).

Perhaps you doubt that when Rusty uses the term "animals" he's talking about Black people? Even though this Rusty comment immediately follows two by Radical Redneck in which he writes "The negroes are revolting again *sigh*" and "We shoulda picked our own damn cotton *sigh*". Then Rusty's comment follows, but not for almost 3 hours latter. I know that if I wasn't referring to Black people as "animals" I'd sure as hell want to make that clear (especially following such an obviously racist pair of comments).

And, it was on this same blog ("Who's Your Daddy") that Shackelford (in another discussion thread) referred to Al Sharpon as a "spook" (and, as the dictionary says "when referring to a black person, the term spook dates back to the 1940s. It is used with disparaging intent and is perceived as highly insulting").

So I think we can confidently conclude that by "animals" Shackelford meant BLACK rioters. And, given the fact that the discussion (multiple discussions, actually) on Hart's blog about rioting ALL concerned LARGELY Black folks rioting (in response to police killings of Black males such as Michael Brown and Freddie Gray) that it's Black rioters who would be shot and killed under the policy that Willis obviously favors.

Which, like I said, I believe is motivated by racism. I mean, in the most recent commentary on Hart's blog he refers to The Swash Zone's Octopus as a demagogue and a race-hustler because (when Willis spoke in favor of racial profiling) Octopus said "racial profiling is the same as RACISM, and Will-the-Shill has demonstrated both". And, in response Les Carpenter of RNUSA said "comments such as ones addressed by Octopus in this comment thread do nothing to move the needed discussion forward and in fact works against improving dialogue on the issue".

This exchange taking place in a discussion concerning the murderer Dylann Roof. Willis attempting to argue that Roof's racist terrorist act was an "anecdote" and that there is no problem with racism in the US. Fact is (according to Hart) it's the Blacks who are the violent ones.

Which I believe explains why Willis thinks African Americans should be lethally targeted when they break the law. Because he agrees with his buddy Shackelford that the appropriate response is to "load up with live ammo and chop about 100 of these animals down".

Incidentally, I find Willis' admiration of Mayor Daley of Chicago not unsurprising.

In Chicago Mayor Daley's police were famous for their brutality. Mayor Daley, while he was a Democrat in name, was an autocrat in reality. An absolute authoritarian. (Thom Hartmann on the 5/20/2016 airing of his eponymous program).

This would be the Richard J. Daley who said (in regards to rioting that took place after Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination) "I said to him [police superintendent James B. Conlisk] very emphatically and very definitely that an order be issued by him immediately to shoot to kill any arsonist or anyone with a Molotov cocktail in his hand, because they're potential murderers, and to shoot to maim or cripple anyone looting".

Now, it might seem out of character for a Libertarian to admire an authoritarian, but I say no. Remember that the Libertarian Republican Randal Paul believes that people have a "right to discriminate", and (for that reason) he would have opposed Civil Rights Legislation (the part that says businesses must serve all customers). And, in a Time op-ed about Ferguson Randal said that in order for Black folks to escape poverty they need some "character reform".

From victim blaming (or "personal responsibility", in the view of Repubs and Libertarians) the road to harsh treatment for those who break the law is a natural progression. As exemplified by the Hartster's admiration for Mayor Daley and killing rioters. Black rioters, specifically. And, don't forget the Libertarian's strong belief that Black labor is not as valuable as White labor. This explains why they go on and on about getting rid of the minimum wage (for Black youths, specifically) because it will benefit the plutocrats (DSB #2).

Although Libertarianism is largely fraudulent, IMO. With their calls for "freedom" and "Liberty" what Libertarians are really referring to is freedom and liberty for the wealthy (DSB #44). Freedom from taxation (taxing rich people to fund government programs that benefit us all being "morally untenable" according to WTNPH) and the Liberty to exploit workers (by not having to pay a minimum wage and by being able to offshore labor to low wage countries... and not be hit with tariffs when importing goods manufactured in overseas sweatshops).

OST #146

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Willis Hart Animal Farm George Orwell Stupidity

This post concerns a question from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in the context of a discussion on Socialism (in which I stressed that I consider myself to be a democratic socialist and believe in a mixed economy). (This is a question he posed back when I wasn't banned from his blog).

Willis Hart: Pure socialism ALWAYS leads to a concentration of power in the state. Yeah, there might be an election here and there but the ruling elites always end up in power. Never read Animal Farm, huh? (1/2/2012 AT 7:28pm)

So, Animal Farm - the allegory by George Orwell (pen name of Eric Arthur Blair) - is a warning against the adoption of socialism, as it always leads to a concentration of power in the State? Apparently Willis believes so.

Given this "truth", George Orwell must have been a strong believer in capitalism, right?

Animal Farm is an allegorical and dystopian novella by George Orwell, first published in England on 17 August 1945. According to Orwell, the book reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on into the Stalin era in the Soviet Union. Orwell, a democratic socialist, was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscow-directed Stalinism... (Wikipedia/Animal Farm).

So, Orwell was actually writing from the viewpoint of a democratic socialist and criticizing the totalitarianism of Stalinism. Yet Willis thinks Animal Farm is a warning that socialism will inevitably to totalitarianism? No. He says it's "pure" socialism (under which the State owns the means of production) that "always leads to a concentration of power in the state".

Odd then that he'd quote Orwell, who actually did argue in favor of this flavor of socialism (the "pure" kind).

Socialism is usually defined as "common ownership of the means of production". Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does not mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it does mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer.

It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea etc. etc.) and always unemployment. ... In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. (Shopkeepers At War 2/19/1941).

My argument in this discussion was the the Soviet Union failed because it combined socialism and totalitarianism (the same as Orwell's)... and in response Willis asks if I've ever read Animal Farm?!

Eric Arthur Blair (6/25/1903 to 1/21/1950), who used the pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and outspoken support of democratic socialism. [According to Orwell] "a real Socialist is one who wishes – not merely conceives it as desirable, but actively wishes – to see tyranny overthrown". (Wikipedia/George Orwell).

So, when I said that I thought that totalitarianism is the reason the Soviet Union failed, more so than socialism, Willis said "the fact that you would even try and cushion it's [socialism's] culpability is disgusting".

If me defending democratic socialism is "disgusting", why would Willis cite a book written by a democratic socialist to make his point? The funny thing about this is, that if Orwell was still living, crossed paths with Willis Hart and began discussing Russia under Stalin... Willis might ask Orwell if he had ever read Animal Farm (provided Orwell didn't identify himself to Willis using his pen name). And then tell Orwell that he found his (Orwell's) defense of socialism to be disgusting.

BTW, although I consider myself a democratic socialist, I do NOT believe the State should own the means of production (as Orwell did). My opinion is that more of the means of production should be owned by the workers (employee owned co-operatives). An opinion regarding democratic socialism that is in agreement with Bernie Sanders' view.

"I don't believe government should own the means of production" Senator Sanders said at Georgetown University on 11/17/2015, "in attempt to widen the appeal of his brand of democratic socialism". In this speech Senator Sanders "tied himself to the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and called for far-reaching social programs to reduce income inequality" (articulated by FDR with his 2nd bill of rights).

OST #145

Sunday, May 15, 2016

More Willis Hart Transgender Bigotry (This Time A "Joke" About Michelle Obama Being Born Male)

According to the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart a "joke" about the first lady having been born male is something that should elicit lots of LOLs.

This attack against our First Lady (one that Willis previously acknowledged) is simply not funny.

Willis Hart: On the Increasingly Popular Conspiracy Theory that Michelle Obama Was Born a Fellow and Is Now a Tranny... This one is so far out there that even World Net Daily has given it a shitload of Pinocchios. (6/24/2015 AT 10:06pm).

So Willis' "joke" is that Democrats might be offended by his question of which bathroom Michelle Obama should use (or "triggered"), and not the fact that morons on the Right are suggesting Michelle Obama was born a man (these people being the OBVIOUS target, IMO). And, despite Willis previously acknowledging that the suggestion is "far out there", he still thinks Dems being "triggered" is the thing to laugh at.

Very similar to how he responded when "some transgender" (term WTNPH used) got offended by a Conservative who continually referred to Catilyn Jenner as "he" and Zoey Tur (AKA "some transgender") as "sir". What upset Willis was Tur getting mad at Shapiro (AKA some Conservative asshole) for using the wrong pronouns (as well as asking "why are we mainstreaming delusion"?) and threatening to send him home in an ambulance.

And he DIDN'T first say that Shapiro was being an asshole... but that threats of physical violence are unacceptable. And he didn't mention the controversial comment Tur made prior to threatening Shapiro.

Advocates for transgender rights have widely criticized Tur's public statements about trans women, the legitimacy of trans men, gender stereotypes and the sexuality of trans people. On Dr. Drew On Call in March 2015, she sparked controversy by saying that a transgender woman using a women's locker room at a Michigan Planet Fitness was a dangerous predator; she said that the trans woman was really going to the bathroom to "perv out on women". (Wikipedia/Zoey Tur/Controversy).

"Can you even begin to imagine if a conservative had done this to a liberal"? the stupid Hartster asked (presuming that Tur is a Liberal just because she's transgender). But from the comment above it sounds to me like she's Conservative (same as Catilyn Jenner).

In any case, he mentions NONE of that (Tur's ignorant comment about transgender women being "dangerous predators" nor Shapiro deliberately attempting to provoke her by using the wrong pronouns). Instead he focuses on the empty threat against the Conservative Shapiro. That's the major outrage in his mind. That "some transgender" (who he assumes is Liberal) can get away with threatening a Conservative (on the show of the Libertarian Drew Pinsky).

What a fucking moron. Also, the use of the term "some transgender" absolutely points to bigotry, IMO. Which is why the "joke" about Michelle Obama being transgendered also comes across as bigoted to me (because of his previous outrage re "some transgender" AKA Zoey Tur). I'm offended (not "triggered") by his belief that hate being directed at the first family is a humorous subject. (Note: see OST #140 for my prior take on the Hartster's bigotry re "some transgender).

BTW, I am NOT saying that threats of physical violence are acceptable (because they aren't), just that Hart's outrage is QUITE selective (directed at Liberals who most likely aren't Liberals while totally ignoring Conservative assholery/bigotry and at the same time exhibiting assholery/bigotry of his own).

OST #144

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Thoughts On Libertarian Blogger's Butt-Hurt Re Film Script 4 "Reagan Alzheimer's Comedy"

This commentary was prompted a post from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he speculated that a potential upcoming movie would prompt LOLs from yours truly. A post in which he expresses his hate for a progressive president while defending a Conservative one (hating on Progressives/defending Conservatives while laughably claiming to be "Moderate" being something he is a maestro at).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Hollywood Is Apparently Kicking Around the "Idea" of a Reagan Alzheimer's Comedy... Yeah, and if you get enough of these brain-dead progressive bloggers (Tao, Octopus, wd, etc.) to screen the thing, you won't even need a laugh-track. P.S. Of course the truly offensive part in my book is the fact that they would never do such a thing like to a liberal Democrat (even the loathsome ones like FDR) 'cause they're so in the tank for them. You gotta be even-handed. You gotta be. (5/10/2016 AT 5:28pm).

I have heard of this movie. It was supposed to star Will Ferrell, but he pulled out. Likely because the premise might be considered offensive by some. Not that Reagan wasn't suffering from Alzheimer's while president, because he likely was. Three years into his 1st term, according to his son Ron Reagan's book.

But there are people who think Reagan was a good president (for reasons that baffle me, given the fact that I consider him one of the absolute worst presidents. Unlike FDR, who was one the best). They likely would be upset and whine about such a project. Or even issue threats (Producer Adam McKay: "There were scary messages left at our office. Stuff like, How dare you say anything bad about Ronald Reagan, you better watch your back").

Also people who think that making a "comedy" based on someone suffering from a horrible disease would be in extremely bad taste. Me, I'm inclined to agree about such a film being in bad taste. But, heck, I'd be willing to give it a shot (not by watching, but by monitoring reviews before deciding if it might be something I'd like to see). Because, like I said, I think Reagan was a terrible president, and no, I do not think "you gotta be even-handed".

So, who knows if I would have LOLed as much as Willis speculates that I would. I'm thinking probably not, however, as I usually don't care for lowbrow comedies (which many of Will Ferrell's films are). In any case, I think Willis is totally full of shit with the implication that he is even-handed (despite him saying "you gotta be").

First, everyone has their biases. Second, the Hart's biases are more intense than the average persons. Take, for example, his hatred of the "loathsome" FDR. A president who was (and still is) quite popular.

FDR was the best-loved and most hated U.S. President of the 20th century. He was loved because, though patrician by birth, upbringing and style, he believed in and fought for plain people - for the "forgotten man" (and woman), for the "third of the nation, ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished". He was loved because he radiated personal charm, joy in his work, optimism for the future.

But he was hated too - hated because he called for change, and the changes he proposed reduced the power, status, income and self-esteem of those who profited most from the old order. (The 20 Most Influential Americans of All Time by Time Staff. 7/24/2012).

I acknowledge that FDR was responsible for some loathsome things. Things WTNPH discusses ad nausea on his blog (internment of Japanese Americans, bombing of Dresden); while NEVER discussing the "warts" of Republican presidents (or discussing them infrequently at least). And, even if he does, it's usually in the context of downplaying them (gwb's Iraq war was "ham-handed and ultimately tragic").

In any case, I think it's abundantly clear that Willis hates FDR so much because "the changes he proposed reduced the power, status, income and self-esteem of those who profited most from the old order". This has got to be the most loathsome thing that FDR did. At least in the mind of a wealth-worshiping Libertarian like Hart. Remember that FDR said "they are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred". Clearly that hatred persists to this day.

The oligarchs and wealth-worshipers (people like WTNPH) wish to ramp up the dismantling of FDR's New Deal because it's policies built the (now disappearing) Middle Class.

The creation of the world's largest middle class is the legacy of FDR, and explains his popularity (during his presidency and to this day).

It's not uncommon for presidents to leave office less popular than when they entered. In fact, very few achieve the opposite. Presidential approval rating polls go back to FDR's second term, and only two of the 13 presidents since then have left office with higher ratings than when they came in: FDR and WJC. ... [The most popular president, FDR, had an] approval rating when he left office [of] 70%. [His] average approval rating [was] 64%. (Presidential Approval Ratings Ranked From First To Worst Benzinga article, 11/22/2014).

Ronald Reagan comes in 5th place with an average approval rating of 52%, while Richard Nixon (whom WTNPH calls brilliant in a recent commentary) earns last place with a 25% approval rating (average 49%).

Note that Nixon's brilliance (as per WTNPH) concerned something Tricky Dick wrote in a book AFTER leaving the presidency regarding US democracy spreading. He said he was against it post-presidency, even though he acted contrary to that credo BIG TIME while president. Only "brilliant" if you think hypocrisy is a quality to be praised.

Or, if you don't want to term it "hypocrisy" but "evolving"? Surely Nixon evolved when it no longer mattered (whereas it would have mattered GREATLY) if he had reached the same conclusion before sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks. Or even while president, when he could have broken precedence by rejecting the idea that the US should spread democracy. Perhaps this precedence breaking would have made it harder for gwb to go to war in Iraq? (Who knows). But he didn't.

Anyway, the Reagan Alzheimer's movie will likely NOT be made now, so there will be no test screening during which my LOLing for a laugh track could be recorded. Nor the laughs of Tao and Octopus. As for the truly offensive part in the brain-diseased Hartster's book being the "fact" that they would never do such a thing to a liberal Democrat... I seriously do not give a crap that this movie was (or might still be) kicking around Hollywood causes Willis great "butt-hurt" (to use a Willisism).

Actually, that is the truly hilarious part, IMO. That this script "kicking around Hollywood" re a very bad Republican president causes Willis such enormous butt-hurt. As well as eliciting some totally unbelievable "gotta be even-handed" bullplop. Although, like I said, he's a maestro at it. Deluding himself into believing he's "Moderate", that is.

OST #143

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Willis Hart Unplugged From Reality Re Richard Nixon "Brilliant" Comments On US Democracy Spreading

Bullshit from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he gives undeserved kudos to Richard Nixon. Because Nixon wrote (in 1990) that the US shouldn't be waging war to "spread democracy", ignoring the fact that RMN was preznit while the US was involved in just such a war.

Willis Hart: Richard Nixon, Unplugged... "We should not make the mistake of trying to impose our system on nations that have neither the traditions nor the institutions to make democracy work". That is brilliant, as much as I hate to say it and, yes, the final score; Nixon 1 George W. Bush and Barack Obama 0. (5/5/2016 AT 4:25pm).

Richard Nixon (1/9/1913–4/22/1994) did write this, but it was AFTER he left the presidency (1969-1974) - in the 1990 book From the Arena (according to this source). However, during his campaign for the White House Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War for political gain. Then, after being elected, he escalated the war.

In 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings. Anna Chennault, one of Nixon's aides... was dispatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.

Eventually, Nixon won by just 1% of the popular vote. "Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968", says the BBC. (Nixon Prolonged Vietnam War for Political Gain—And Johnson Knew About It, Newly Unclassified Tapes Suggest).

Wikipedia notes that, "The U.S. government viewed its involvement in the war as a way to prevent... the spread of communism [whereas] The North Vietnamese government and the Viet Cong were fighting to reunify Vietnam [and] viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against forces from France and then America, and later against South Vietnam".

So, I think Vietnam could be classified as a war were we made "the mistake of trying to impose our system on nations that have neither the traditions nor the institutions to make democracy work". Granted, the war began under Lyndon Johnson, but Nixon prolonged it and escalated it! And, after sabotaging peace talks as a Republican potus hopeful, he then (as president) instituted a policy to end the war "through a program termed Vietnamization to expand, equip, and train South Vietnam's forces" (which failed).

Although this was after "the Cambodian Campaign [which] was a series of military operations conducted in eastern Cambodia during 1970 by the United States and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) during the Vietnam War". Also note that "these invasions were a result of the policy of President Richard Nixon".

So what Nixon wrote later (the Nixon via WTNPH quote) didn't comport with his actual actions. Still "brilliant", Willis? But me asking that question assumes that Willis is unaware of the Nixon administration policies during the Vietnam War. But I'm sure he IS aware. So... what explains the Hartster's "Nixon brilliant" bullshit?

Damned if I know. I'm going to just guess it has something to do with the fact that the dude is becoming more and more unplugged from reality (OST #141). Also the fact that he often acts as an apologist for Republicans. Here Nixon, but he's done the same regarding gwb (DSD #18).

Video: Newly-released recordings from the Oval Office show President Lyndon Johnson knew Richard Nixon tried derailing peace talks with Vietnam, an act for which he could have been charged with treason. Although (according to Willis Hart) Nixon's later hypocrisy was "brilliant" (1:45).

OST #142

Friday, May 6, 2016

Is Willis Hart Suffering From Cognitive Problems Due To A Permanent Anoxic Brain Injury?

The following from Information which is pertinent to a point I'm going to make regarding the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Adequate oxygen is vital for the brain. ... When oxygen levels are significantly low for four minutes or longer, brain cells begin to die and after five minutes permanent anoxic brain injury can occur. Anoxic brain injury which is also called cerebral hypoxia or hypoxic-anoxic injury (HAI) is a serious, life-threatening injury; it can cause cognitive problems and disabilities. (Anoxic Brain Injury).

There are many reasons I suspect Willis may be suffering from cognitive problems, but I am not the only one who thinks Mr. Hart has "apparently shed his ability to reason". This observation regarding the Hartster by a former commenter on his blog, as well as a "fellow" Libertarian Rational Nation.

"Shed his ability to reason" due to damage caused by an anoxic brain injury? The following commentary by Mr. Hart COULD explain how that might have occurred.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that I'd Still Waiting for John Oliver's 22 Minute Epic Diatribe Directed at Hillary Clinton (You Know, to Balance Out the Over-the-Top One that He Bludgeoned Trump with); One of the Biggest Piece of Shit Lawyers and Politicians Since Nixon... I can only hold my breath for so long, people. (5/4/2016 AT 5:25pm).

Hillary Clinton is "one of the biggest piece of shit lawyers and politicians since Nixon", huh? And yet Willis sez that, if you held a gun to his head, he'd vote for her over Donald Trump. Even though Hillary Clinton (Willis also sez) is going to be indicted, convicted and go to prison (for "crimes" she committed re her email server) BEFORE voting in November (OST #133).

(This commentary, btw, marks the 2nd time he's referred to Hillary Clinton using the phrase "piece of shit", whereas in the past the hypocrite took GREAT offense when a Lefty blogger referred to Sarah Palin as "classless piece of excrement". See OST #119).

But it is HIGHLY unlikely that HRC is going to be indicted. Also, I'd say the probability of a conviction and locking up behind bars of Clinton has about a zero percent chance of occurring. Zero, as in none. BTW, NONE of these assertions by Willis are a joke. Unlike the John Oliver "22 minute epic diatribe directed at Hillary Clinton" that Willis is holding his breath waiting for.

At least I THINK he's joking in regards to Oliver. I'm pretty sure that he knows there will never be such an episode of "Last Week Tonight". Although if not... if he is actually holding his breath? Although not continuously, as he'd be dead if that were the case. As opposed to authoring (on the average) 3 posts daily.

If he actually is holding his breath, then that could result in an anoxic brain injury. And it absolutely could explain why he's shed his ability to reason (cognitive problems).

There has to be some explanation as to why Willis would vote for Hillary over Donald if HRC is comparable (re piece of shitness) to Nixon. With all the Trump defending (this commentary not withstanding) the Hartster does on his blog, it's pretty clear he views the Trumpster as AT LEAST marginally better.

Trump is, after all (according to WTNPH) the "only Republican candidate who's making sense on Syria", "doesn't seem hellbent on a second cold war", "had the good sense to see that Bush's Iraq War was a turkey right from the get", was disgusted by the "bum's rush" the media is guilty of (in attacking the Donald), and has thought on multiple occasions "that maybe, just maybe, he isn't that bad".

Not that bad because all his racist, bigoted and misogynistic comments (SWTD #324) are actually only (in WTNPH's opinion) "impolitic statements".

Yeah, I think the majority of the country would not describe racism, bigotry and misogyny as "impolitic". But these kind of comments would not be considered unusual coming from an socially intolerant Conservative Trump-supporting blogger. Or perhaps someone suffering from cognitive problems due to a permanent anoxic brain injury caused by holding his breath for to long.

Video: As for Trump having "the good sense to see that Bush's Iraq War was a turkey right from the get", the Donald did say "I guess" when asked (in a 2002 Howard Stern Interview) if he supported the Iraq invasion. Which was at "the get" (RIGHT when the war was beginning). But Willis is apparently unaware of what Trump actually said at the time, instead believing Trump's lies about being against the war from the beginning (there is more than one WTNPH commentary praising DJT in this regard on his blog). But, given that Willis thinks that bush LYING us into the Iraq war was just "ham-handed and ultimately tragic", it's impossible to take what he says on this topic seriously. Especially given the fact that he believes the lying Trump and downplays the lies of gwb (OST #113)(2:41).

OST #141

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Willis Hart Transgender Bigotry? Looks Like It, Me Buck

This keeps getting worse and worse. As I reported with previous commentaries (OST #62, OST #63), the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, joined the War on Women by buying into the Right-wing lies about Planned Parenthood, which is that they are selling aborted baby parts, as opposed to doing something that is totally legal and medically VERY beneficial to society (providing fetal tissue for research that has saved many, many lives).

Well, the un-Libertarian ugliness continues with a commentary in which he bashes "some transgender". And lies (by omission) about what happened in order to spew hate against Progressives (whom he despises).

Willis Hart: On Some Transgender by the Name of Zoe Tur Grabbing Conservative Pundit, Ben Shapiro, by the Neck (on the Dr. Drew Show) and Threatening to "Send Him Home in an Ambulance"... Can you even begin to imagine if a conservative had done this to a liberal? They'd have been banished FOREVER, and with just cause. But not a liberal! No, sir. They can get away with anything because they are bulletproof (sanctimony, faux outrage, and self-righteousness being their version of kevlar, apparently). (8/4/2015 AT 4:27pm).

Zoey Tur (not Zoe) is a Liberal? I don't know. I tried to confirm what Zoey's politics are, but wasn't able to find a damn thing. So, while it would have been awesome to be able to say "Tur is a Republican, you moron, Willis!", I can't. Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative... the info just does not seem to be out there. Question is, how the hell does Willis know she's a Liberal?

Is he simply assuming that, because he's talking about "some transgender", that the transgendered person must be a Liberal? Because Liberals are friendly to the transgender community, while Conservatives are by-and-large hostile? Sounds logical, but remember that Catilyn Jenner is a Republican.

Frankly, I think that Zoey is a Liberal is something Willis is pulling out of his ass. So he can rail against Liberals (who he despises). However, even if Zoey is a Liberal, where the hell is Willis' proof that all Liberals are approving of threats of physical violence?

Also, given that Drew Pinsky is the host of the show, clearly he's the one who is letting the "liberal" Zoey Tur "get away with anything because they are bulletproof". HOWEVER, Pinsky's Wikipedia page notes that "politically, Pinsky has increasingly spoken of the tyranny of governmental overreach and the need for a Liberty Party. So the guy who is NOT doing the banishing (with just cause) is a Libertarian!

So, let's review: Nobody who appeared on the show is a Liberal (although Zoey Tur might be, but it isn't a given JUST BECAUSE she's transgender). Also, when was there any "sanctimony, faux outrage, or self-righteousness"? Hart doesn't point to any, he just asserts it. Even though the host (the ONLY person who could "banish") is a Libertarian! So how the hell are Liberals the guilty party here?

BTW (for the record), the threat by Zoey Tur to "send him home in an ambulance" came after REPEATED deliberate bigoted comments from Shapiro. Referring to Catilyn Jenner as "he", addressing Zoey Tur as "sir" and (in regards to the deliberate use of male pronouns) asking "why are we mainstreaming delusion"? All of this omitted from the Hartster's commentary (of course).

Yeah, if Zoey Tur were still a man instead of "some transgender" and this Shapiro ASS had disrespected him (in regards to some other issue)? I seriously doubt Willis would be as PO'd. Because it's culturally acceptable for a man to defend himself with threats of violence (or, a man can get away with it when a woman can't).

Which is why the Libertarian Hart being "socially tolerant" (which it says at the top of his blog) is not something I'm buying. Because the evidence shows otherwise. There's this reference to "some transgender", his aforementioned flip-flop on Planned Parenthood and his numerous arguments defending a business owner's "right" to discriminate against gay customers (by refusing to serve them).

Video: Exchange between Zoey Tur (broadcast reporter/helicopter pilot) and Ben Shapiro (editor-at-large of from the 7/16/2015 airing of Dr. Drew On Call.

OST #140