Libertarian Free Trading Buffoons On How To Turn A Huge Fortune Into An Even Larger One

Destroy American jobs via outsourcing to low-wage third-world countries. Then blame the workers whose jobs were outsourced for being unemployed. They didn't "skill up", improve their "human capital", etc. This criticism even though workers with skills have also lost their jobs. Many White collar jobs were lost when India "liberalized" their economy, which enabled the corporate plutocrats to eliminate skilled US positions (SWTD #221), for example.

But these Libertarian free trade advocating buffoons believe the fortunes of the world's plutocrats will go from being huge to even larger via the destruction of American jobs. Which they are correct about. The buffoonery is found in their short sightedness. Eventually the continual flow of jobs (blue and white collar) to low wage countries will decimate the middle class. We know this because it is already in the process of happening (America's Incredible Shrinking Middle Class).

It is due to intended stoogery (in that they actually WANT the plutocrats to grow even wealthier at the expense of everyone else) or unintended stoogery (in that these fools actually believe Libertarianism will benefit everyone) - that posts like the following are produced by indoctrinated chumps like Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: Socialist Buffoons on How to Amass a Small Fortune... Start with a large fortune and prune away at it. (6/25/2015 AT 4:11pm).

I presume the Hartster is referring to high taxation, such as in countries like Sweden. A democratic socialist nation Willis learns an incorrect lesson from. The dumb-dumb thinks that because Sweden dialed back the percentage of their GDP that is government spending, that somehow validates his Libertarian "free market" less government worldview. Further proof that Willis V. Hart is indeed a total moron? I think YES.

OST #84

Black Men Are Killing Each Other Over Half Eaten Hershey, 3 Musketeer & Snickers Candy Bars?

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has made this assertion on a number of occassions. Without ever providing any citations that would prove what he's saying is happening on a regular basis. Or ever.

Willis Hart: On the Removal of the Confederate Flag... So, does this (the banishing of an inanimate object) now mean that young black men are going to stop killing each other over foolishness (half-eaten Hershey bars, Air-Jordan Sneaks, a perceived dis, etc.)... (6/25/2015 AT 4:11pm).

To this claim I say WTF is Willis talking about? Perhaps he is referring to things that have actually occurred, but the way he tells it, Black people killing each other for stupid reasons is something that happens on a regular basis. I mean, he has referred to murders over half eaten candy bars (etc) more than once.

Willis Hart: On the "Black Lives Matter" Movement... Maybe it's just my crowd but I don't know a single white person who doesn't think that black lives matter just as much as Caucasian ones do. The folks who HAVEN'T gotten the message are young, black gang-bangers; Mookie, Ray Ray, Dre, Dog, etc. who continue to kill and maim each other over foolishness; half-eaten 3 Musketeer bars, a pair of Air Jordans, some big butted heifer, etc.. Those are the people who we most need to convince. (10/7/2015 AT 8:36pm).

Same claim a 3rd time, although the brand of candy bar is again different.

Willis Hart: On Black Lives Mattering... There's never been an argument from me. IN FACT, being that the black murder rate is fully 6 times that of whites (17.5 per 100,000 versus 2.6 per 100,000) with the perpetrators being 93% other black people, I'm actually quite insulted that this bullshit is being placed not just at my doorstep but the law enforcement community's, too... STOP BLOWING YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT (much of it over foolishness; half-eaten Snickers bars, Air Jordan sneaks, some big-butted heifer, a slight, etc.), PEOPLE. BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!!! (11/18/2015 AT 5:07pm).

So, these gangbangers (Mookie, Ray Ray, Dre, Dog, or some other stereotypical Black man's name) all have pretty serious sweet tooths, I gather. I mean, given the fact that they're killing each other on a regular basis over (differing brands of) chocolate bars. And they're always half-eaten too (which is quite odd, no?).

Perhaps this happened once, twice, multiple times even. But I have an incredibly hard time believing this kind of thing happens on a regular basis. Frankly I find the assertion (never with any citation) offensive as well as racist. It isn't as if a White person has never killed someone for "foolishness".

Yet it's "gangbangers" (a substitution for the n-word?) who have a monopoly on "foolishness" apparently. In Willis' mind, at least. And they REALLY like candy. Is this Willis' way of infantilizing African American men? And, if so, perhaps instead of "gangbanger" he really means "boy"?

OST #83

On The Fact That Willis Hart Considers Something A "Fact" If: A) He Reads It On A Conservative Website & B) It Confirms His Biases

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart's supposed facts (in this case) leading to a conclusion that supports his bias against "Black activists".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that a Shitload of Black Activists Are Presently Burning Up Twitter with Beefs Pertaining to the Level of Press Coverage that the Paris Terror Attacks Have Been Receiving and Are Alleging this Attention Is Somehow Taking Away Coverage from Their Grievances at the University of Missouri... So, a poop Swastika (that not one person thought to take a picture of) and some yahoo who may or may not have been affiliated with the University shouting out the n-word from a moving vehicle deserves the same level of coverage as 129 people being slaughtered (with hundreds more wounded)? Damn, huh? P.S. Whatever else that these spoiled brats (probably a lot of the same morons who booed Bernie Sanders) have learned at the "academy", perspective surely isn't one of them. (11/18/2015 AT 4:04pm).

My reaction to reading this is that YES, it does sound rather ridiculous if true. So I did a Google search and, as it turns out, a "shitload" of Conservative websites are reporting on this "story". Fox Nooz, The Daily Mail, The Washington Times, Breitbart and The Daily Caller (the first 5 results, all of which link to Conservervative sites) all claim that upset Mizzou protestors have tweeted about the attacks in Paris taking the focus away from their issue.

Mizzou, however, disputes that these tweets came from anyone associated with the University. (This story was the 6th result displayed when I did my Google search).

False Social Media Posts Regarding Attacks in Paris (11/14/2015) Social media posts expressing dismay that the tragedy in Paris is diverting media attention from events at the University of Missouri are being made by individuals from outside the Mizzou community in an attempt to create conflict. Our hearts go out to the citizens of Paris and all those affected by the tragic events of last night. While our community has faced difficulties over the past week, we express our sincere sympathy to those who have been affected by the events in Paris and remain committed to making Mizzou stronger and more inclusive.

Also, the Columbia Missourian, "a daily morning newspaper published in Columbia MO" that looked at the accounts behind these tweets and tried to find out who these people are, found that NONE of the tweeters could be linked to Mizzou.

Fact Check: No proof tweets about Paris attacks came from MU protesters (excerpt from a 11/19/2015 article by Katherine Knott) Our finding [is that] It's true that some people did tweet their dissatisfaction with the change in coverage. However, the tweets and commenters cited by the bloggers show no evidence of a connection to MU or the Concerned Student 1950 movement. Using the hashtag #Mizzou doesn't mean those people were camping on Carnahan Quadrangle or even present on campus. Meanwhile, leaders of the Concerned Student 1950 demonstrations and the Legion of Black Collegians have posted statements of sympathy and support for the victims of the Paris attacks, not statements of hate or anger. While it's impossible to prove beyond a doubt that those who complained about the redirected coverage have no connection to MU, we could find no evidence allowing us to independently verify that these individuals are, in fact, "Mizzou protesters".

There you have it. This makes much more sense than thinking any Mizzou protestor would tweet something in such incredibly bad taste... tweets that would absolutely guarantee their cause would get bad press. Which was obviously the goal of the fake tweeters.

Could it be that perspective, or "the faculty of seeing all the relevant data in a meaningful relationship", is something that Willis lacks? I say yes, given the relevant data, which is [1] tweets, and ONLY tweets, supposedly tweeted by Mizzou protestors which would obviously cause people to view them as HUGE a-holes, [2] statements of sympathy and support for the victims of the Paris attacks and not statements of hate or anger from confirmed Mizzou protestors and [3] the fact that only Conservative sources are reporting this.

Given these facts, perspective tells me that these tweets are probably not genuine and are from outsiders trying to create bad press for the Mizzou protesters. Find some of the actual protesters and get them on record saying that they're upset over the Paris attacks taking the focus off their cause and then I'll believe this story.

Unless that happens I'm not buying it. Unlike the Hartster, who clearly eagerly bought what he read from the Conservative websites that reported on these tweets... because it confirms his biases.

By the way, what's up with Willis' guess that the tweeters included "a lot of the same morons who booed Bernie Sanders" when he JUST referred to Senator Sanders (along with Senator Elizabeth Warren) as "two fucking imbeciles"? Why the hell would it offend him if anyone disrespected Sanders?

Image: This open space is located South of Jesse Hall. The Mel Carnahan Quadrangle was dedicated on 9/12/2003 to a former governor of Missouri and Honors his leadership in Public Service. The Carnahan Quad has emerged as the University's most significant new open space.

OST #82

According To Willis Hart 90 Percent Of Women Who Claim They Were Unable To Consent To Sex (& Were Therefore Raped) Actually Consented Then Just Regretted It Later

This is yet another example of misogyny from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart IMO.

Willis Hart: On President Obama Spouting that Thoroughly Discredited Claim that 1 out of Every 5 College-Aged Women Will Ultimately Be Raped... Do they simply not have a fact-checker at the White House? Yes, folks, there is a study from the CDC (and an older one by an activist named Mary Koss) which claims what the President is claiming, but it is seriously flawed (the main flaw being that they count all episodes of drunken sex in which the woman regrets it in the morning as "rape" and all episodes in which the man lies to the woman in an effort to get her in the sack as "sexual violence"). A much more accurate number (one that is considered the gold standard) is the one which comes from the Justice Department Crime Survey; 1 in 50 (still a troubling number but not the type that produces hysteria). Of course the $64,000 question is why in the hell did Obama use the bogus stat? Stupidity? More pandering? I'd kind of like to know. (11/16/2015 AT 4:16pm).

First of all, the CDC study (the one Willis refers to) has NOT been "thoroughly discredited" nor are it's stats "bogus". I looked into it and found that some Libertarian-types have concerns with how one of the questions was worded.

...the wording of the question measuring "incapacitated rape" (which accounted for nearly two-thirds of the CDC's estimate of rapes that occurred in the past year). Respondents were asked about sexual acts that happened when they were "drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent". This seems to imply that "unable to consent" is only one of the variables and to include situations in which a person is intoxicated - perhaps enough to have impaired judgment - but not incapacitated as the legal definition of rape requires. A CDC spokesperson told The New Republic that "being unable to consent is key to the CDC's definition of rape". Presumably, this is conveyed by the introduction to the question about alcohol and drug-enabled rape: "Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications". However, in a telephone survey, some people may focus only on the question itself and let the introduction slide by. Moreover, the introductory message ends with an advisory that may create more confusion: "Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault". Obviously, the intended point is that even if you got drunk, you're not to blame for being raped. But this vaguely phrased reminder could also be taken to mean that it's not your fault if you do something stupid while drunk or on drugs. At no point are respondents given any instructions that could result in fewer reports of alleged victimization: for instance, that they should not include instances in which they had voluntary sex while drunk but not incapacitated. (The CDC's Rape Numbers Are Misleading by Cathy Young, contributing editor for Reason Magazine. Time 9/17/2014).

Note the three words in RED. "May" (twice) and "could". Is this how the study was "thoroughly discredited"? By guessing how someone may or could interpret a question based on the wording? Obviously this is an absurd conclusion to reach. I say the wording might produce some false positives, but 90 freaking percent?

That's what the false positive rate would have to be if you say 1 in 5 is wrong and 1 in 50 is right. 1 in 5 would be the same as 20 out of 100, while 1 in 50 would be the same as 2 out of 100. Which would mean Willis is saying 18 out of 20 women are saying they were raped when they actually were drunk when they consented to sex (but later regretted it).

Which is a figure I'm not buying. The way the question is worded might produce some false positives, but no freaking way would it result in a 90 percent false positive rate. Yet this is EXACTLY what the Harster concludes.

That Justice Department Crime Survey, by the way refers to "forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force". But it doesn't say anything about no force being needed because the victim is drunk (or under the influence of drugs). Taking advantage of someone while they're too incapacitated to say NO is still rape in my book. Which explains why the CDC got higher numbers (I'm guessing).

The stats were obviously good enough for the president, and YES I think he has fact checkers, and NO I do not think he quoted the CDC stat due to either "stupidity" or "pandering". I'd say he used it because he felt the CDC stats were (questioning of question wording not withstanding) more accurate than the Justice Department Crime Survey figures... and I'm inclined to agree.

I'm certainly NOT inclined to believe that 90 percent of women who responded to the CDC survey misunderstood the question and answered that that they were unable to consent when they actually did consent (did "something stupid while drunk or on drugs"). Actually, there is no f*cking way I believe that. I am, however, inclined to believe the Harster buys that this is the case due to his (previously demonstrated) misogyny.

OST #81

Willis Hart Extreme Hypocrisy Re Him Daring Someone To Call Black Conservatives "Uncle Toms" To Their Faces While He Refers To Black Liberals As "Minstrels"

Another example of screaming hypocrisy from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he DARES (Progressives, presumably) to refer to two specific Black Conservatives (people I've never heard of) using a derogatory term.

On Angry Black Conservatives and Youtube Sensations, David Carroll and the Honorable Akwesi 100... I dare anybody to call these two, an "Uncle Tom", TO THEIR FACES (you know, as opposed to sitting anonymously behind some computer screen). (11/9/2015 AT 4:22pm).

I dare you, Willis, to walk up to each of the Black Progressives you've called "Minstrels" (from behind your computer screen) and call them minstrels TO THEIR FACES. I also dare you (in regards to the the Black Progressives you've referred to as "demagogues" from behind your computer screen) to use this term when in their presence... you fu*king hypocrite!

The Black "Minstrels" being Jesse Jackson, Touré Neblett, Marc Lamont Hill, Tariq Nasheed and Al Sharpton (who he also wanted to urinate on), and the Black demagogues being Charles Blow, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Marc Lamont Hill. (Yes, some of these people are on both lists).

The takeaway here is that the screaming hypocrite Willis Hart thinks it's just fine for him to refer to African American Progressives as minstrels and demagogues. That's just him telling it like it is, I guess. But if a Liberal refers to a Black Conservative as an "Uncle Tom"? Well, that's completely unacceptable.

Not that I would ever do this, mind you. Mostly because I have absolutely no idea who either of these creators of videos on YouTube are. Or care who they are. I looked them up and found their videos. Problem is, aside from me not giving a crap, the videos I found are all too long. My high speed satellite internet connection has a data cap that requires I be careful lest I go over it.

I did watch a part of one, but stopped it after the dude spoke for several minutes about his creating videos and videos he would create in the future (meta stuff) and wasn't getting to what he actually was going to say. I said "enough of this" and navigated away. I'll take Willis' word for it that these are two Black dudes who are Conservative. To which I say, SO WHAT? Yes, there are Black Conservatives... even though the majority of African Americans vote Democratic, SOME are Conservative Republicans.

I don't understand why they would be, but it is THEIR RIGHT to believe whatever the hell they want. I'm not going to use any (racially tinged) pejoratives to describe them. That is what the demagoguing hypocrite blogger Willis V. Hart does!

BTW, if someone were to call these two Black Conservatives "Uncle Tom" to their faces, what does he think would happen? That they'd get punched? Because Conservatives like the Harster (someone who claims he's anti-war) are actually inclined to resort to acts of physical violence to settle disputes?

Or does Willis think these two Conservative men would immediately get violent because they're Black? Because this is how the racially biased Hartster views Black people? That they're all violent animals who want to kill/assault White men and rape White women?

When they aren't killing each other, that is. In Willis' imagination African Americans (when they aren't perpertrating violent acts against Whitey) are either killing and maiming each other over "over foolishness [such as] half-eaten 3 Musketeer bars, a pair of Air Jordans, some big butted heifer, etc" or they [the mothers] are murdering their children (stuffing their dead bodies in freezers or throwing them off balconies).

OST #80