On OST (This Blog) Being A Site Where The Proprietor (A Slime That Feeds Off Others) Spends Hours Weaving Absurd BS (This, After Prowling Sites & Picking A Post)

This assessment of this blog (Oligarchic Stooge Talk or OST) being made on the blog of the Libertarian Willis Hart.

Rational Nation: Derve is who he is, slime feeding off others, and prowls sites, picks a post, and spends hours weaving absurd BS. I suppose you can classify him as you did. (11/15/2015 AT 9:02am). Willis Hart: "spends hours weaving absurd BS" - Nobody cuts to the chase like you do, Les. I love it. (3/22/2014 AT 7:19pm).

Of course he loves it. Something he probably would't love so much would be this recent comment by Rational Nation (if he read it).

Rational Nation: ...as for the links you provided. All I shall say is the particular individual responsible for the linked weblog vehemently disagrees with everything you believe in. He also fell off the cliff awhile back. But his good bud skackelford thinks he is very bright. (4/1/2016 AT 08:18:00 AM EDT).

The "particular individual" is none other than Willis Hart. Here Mr. Nation says WTNPH "fell off the cliff awhile back".

BTW, Mr. Nation did comment on OST for awhile (on a number of posts)... although he has not visited for some time (or not visited and commented, at least). Maybe he lost interest. Although he apparently had some interest in my "absurd BS" (AKA my "onslaught of absurdities"). For a while, anyway.

I took the interest to mean that Mr. Nation may have changed his mind regarding his prior harsh comments. I could be wrong on that, however. In any case, the harshness seems to presently be directed at Willis Hart. For good reason, IMO.

Anyway, it appears as though it's mutual; in that both of these fellows' opinions of each other have gone from favorable to not favorable.

Willis Hart: On the Never-Ending Insult-Ladened Pissing Contest Between the Doltish and Insufferable Radical Redneck and the Equally Doltish and Insufferable Rational Nation Over at Lisa's Blog... I was going to compare it to Romper Room but that would have been an insult to pre-schoolers everywhere. Immaturity on Barry Bonds dosage steroids is probably a more apt analogy. (3/30/2016 AT 5:17pm).

So Willis thinks his former buddy is "doltish" and "insufferable"... as well as immature? I have to say that, given the fact that these two were previously united in lobbing insults my way, this is a development that makes me chuckle.

OST #127

So, Just How Much Does The Hateaholic TOM Love Willis Hart?

The reason I ask is due to the fact that the hate-obsessed blogger TOM keeps submitting comments in which he expresses great offense that I'd dare to disagree with the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

For example, my last post received the following TOM comment (which I sent to the Spam folder).

TOM (The Omelet Man): Love it when you set up separate blogs to spread your hate for individuals. HATE BLOGS! Thanks for proving me correct, dip shit, butt fucking, fag boy.

TOM appears to be quite angry about the very existence of this blog. Which he mischaracterizes as a hate blog, btw. I have no hate at all for Willis. I do think most of his political views are nutty. However, given the fact that I've never met Willis, I'd have to say that I don't have enough information to form an opinion on him (only his online persona, which, yes, I do not care for. But the actual person? I've never met him).

I do have opinions of what he writes. And, because Willis banned me from his blog I can't comment there, I created this blog so I'd have a place to continue commenting. TOM (as well as others) might disagree/think it was dumb of me to create this blog, but it is NOT a "hate blog".

TOM, on the other hand, is obviously filled with hate. This isn't hard to deduce. Just take a look at his comments. Clearly he loathes gay people. His use of the "f" word to describe a gay man makes that VERY clear. I don't have anything against gay people. I simply happen to be straight (I also do not know where RN lives, so TOM's accusations regarding who I'm having gay sex with make no sense).

There is also the (likely) fact that TOM is mentally ill, which might at least partially explain what's going on. According to Octopus TOM submits many comments to Progressive Eruptions and The Swash Zone.

Comments in which he expresses his hate for gay people. And makes BS accusations of "Jew Hate" (I presume. Octo references accusations of bigotry). Octo thinks "these behaviors are attributable to a medical condition" and therefore TOM might not "have control over these behaviors". Which leads him to conclude that TOM can't be held "accountable for behaviors over which he/she has no control".

Then he says "if you accept this conjecture, and the inferences drawn, these best course of action is to ignore this troll". Octo's conclusion is that it wouldn't be "ethical" to "subject this person to any kind judgement or ridicule"... but I disagree. Given the fact that this is only conjecture (as Octo points out). In any case, TOM told me that the TOM of Stay A While is dead. So, if that is the case, then Octo's conjecture is wrong (Octo said "I recall a few posts and comments that alluded to some kind of medical issue involving brain surgery". So maybe it was surgery that killed him instead of just scrambling his brains).

On the other hand, how the hell would TOM the troll know if TOM (of Stay A While) was dead or not? Proof, I think, that these 2 TOMs are the one in the same. I mean, the TOM that submitted the comment quoted above is the same TOM that commented on Sue's blog. Proof of this is that the Blogger ID# of this comment by TOM on Sue's blog matches the Blogger ID# of the comment above (they are both 02464117691722213136).

And there is also the fact that there are posts/comments on the blog Stay A While in which the Wordpress blogger uses the ID "TOM" accuses Sue of sending him "hate mail" and writes posts complaing of liberal haters and accusing Rational Nation of attacking his blog.

Apparently this dipshit thinks he can hide behind the fact that his blog is on another platform (and therefore deny that the two TOMs are the same person). But the hater posted to his wordpress blog using his Blogger ID, a DEAD giveaway that TOM of Stay A While, TOM who submitted comments to Sue's blog, and TOM who has been submitting comments to my blog are ALL the same sick asshole.

TOM (comment on Sue's blog): RN what an elitist comment from you. Don't address the issue, just make your smart ass, cultist remark. What a blog troll you are. (3/16/2011 AT 10:37am). TOM (comment on Stay A While): ...that's not what bloggers like RN and others I'm describing do. And certainly insults are not part of an adult discussion. ... No doubt there is much to learn from mindless idiots, trolls, and other hypocrites. ... thanks for reading my blog! (4/17/2011 AT 8:01pm). TOM (comment on SWTD): You don't post to often here, but it's nice you blog currently on your other hate blogs. Good job spreading hate. Almost as good as RN, not quite. (1/18/2016 AT 9:03am).

The ID# for all comments is 02464117691722213136, and in the second comment (the one from Stay A While) TOM says "thanks for reading my blog"... but wait, I thought that TOM was dead?

TOM: Hey stupid fag boy, did you figure out who I am yet idiot? I'll give you a clue. The TOM you keep talking about is dead, and I never was him, but thanks for the laughs. Now back to getting butt fucked by your fag boy buddy RN. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. (2/05/2016 12:13 PM).

So some other TOM posts to Stay A While and says "thanks for reading my blog", but the actual owner of the blog (someone calling himself TOM, but doing so on Wordpress) says nothing? He doesn't say "this isn't YOUR blog OTHER TOM, it's mine". Right. You can stop laughing now dumbass. Just because TOM is now hiding his Blogger profile (where I assume it said that Stay A While is his blog) he thinks he can continue denying the obvious. What a f*cking imbecile!

So, that mystery? Solved. But the question still remains - why does this dipshit love Willis Hart so much? I mean, it is a fact that Rational Nation commented on the blog of Willis for a VERY long time. So, shouldn't the guilt by association (with Rational Nation) TOM is applying to everyone else also apply to Willis? Isn't Willis (because he was buddy-buddy with RN for so long) also a "Jew hater"?

OST #105

On How The Willis Hart Strawman Construction Went Down

This commentary concerns a recent strawman argument from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart...

Willis Hart: On How the Shit Went Down... a) A bunch of surface-thinking liberals and neoliberals take the South Carolina church shootings and idiotically extrapolate from them that there is this full-scale war on black people in which white racists/rednecks (wearing sheets and carrying the Confederate banner) are going around shooting them en masse. b) I point out that interracial violence is actually very rare but to the degree that it does exist, black on white violent crime is approximately 25 times more likely (per capita) to occur than the opposite (I also pointed out that research is advanced by examining aggregates and not by looking at anecdotes but that apparently went over their noggins, too). c) I get called a racist by these folks... That's it, in a nutshell, people. (8/2/2015 AT 4:24pm).

The "shit" that went down in this commentary is bullshit, in that Willis is bullshitting himself in regards to his racism. Which caused him to construct this strawman in which he lies about what the "surface-thinking" Liberals were "extrapolating" as well as what he was saying about "interracial violence" and "anecdotes".

The strawman is that Liberals (Octopus, I'm guessing) and Neoliberals (rAtional nAtion, I presume) ever said there was a "full-scale war on black people in which White racists/rednecks are going around shooting them en masse". Or that this racist redneck army is "wearing sheets and carrying the Confederate banner". This is an utterly over-the-top and completely ridiculous characterization of what was actually said... which is that the current situation that involves police shooting unarmed Black people and racially motivated shootings are cause for concern.

And that the Confederate flag represents racism, in that it was the banner of the Southern seceding states which wanted to leave the union because they were worried about Abe Lincoln getting elected and the Republican Party being opposed to slavery. Lincoln told the South "you think slavery is right and should be extended, while we think it is wrong and should be limited. That, I suppose, is the trouble. It surely is the only important difference between us". But the Southern states disagreed, thinking the difference was important enough for them to worry about Lincoln seeking to end slavery. Or cause them trouble, at least.

Although the neoliberal would disagree on this point; the neoliberal being in agreement with Willis that the Civil War being fought because of tariffs (although they are wrong).

But I'm pretty sure he agrees that most African Americans view the flag in a negative light and would prefer it would be removed from the grounds of government buildings... due to the fact that Southern State governments are now supposed to be representing everyone (including Black folks who view the flag as a sign that perhaps Southern State governments aren't working for them equally).

But the primary issue would be the police shootings, you know, because there is no "full-scale war on black people in which white racists/rednecks are going around shooting them en masse". And ZERO liberals and neoliberals ever said there was. At least in the discussion Willis refers to... there MIGHT be some morons out there who have said such a thing.

The police shootings, no, do not stack up against the number of African Americans who are killed by other African Americans.... HOWEVER, there is an important point that Willis seems to overlook, which is that the police are supposed to "serve and protect", while criminals (whatever their race) do violence. Police are supposed to only do violence to criminals, and then only if necessary. They are NOT supposed to be gunning down (or choking) unarmed people! Even if they are committing crimes.

The proliferation of "I think he had a gun, I feared for my life and so I shot the suspect dead" excuse points to... panicky cops, panicky racist cops, or racist cops... IMO. And NONE of these possibilities are good. Nor should the cops be using excessive force... like (for example) choking a Black man to death for selling loosies, kneeling on the back of a young teen at a pool party, arresting someone and throwing them in jail (where they later die) for not signaling a lane change.

It is ridiculous and has to stop! Yeah, and we think that racism is probably a factor in many (perhaps not all) of these cases. That is all the "surface-thinking liberals and neoliberals" are saying. That these cops obviously need to be better trained. And screened for racists or people who get off on exerting power over others. We don't want those types as police officers. We are NOT saying what the strawman-constructing Willis sez we are saying. What Willis is saying is total BS. Which is why he sez it! (it's an easy strawman to refute).

Willis' "nutshell", is a racist one, I believe. One reason being everything I just mentioned apparently going over his noggin. Because "black on white violent crime is approximately 25 times more likely (per capita) to occur than the opposite"... that makes the fact that cops are killing Black people OK in his mind... I guess (it's "anecdotal" in comparison).

Yes, I have noticed on his blog that he has (not one time that I'm aware of) said, "OK, it's obvious this time that the cop was in the wrong to kill that Black person". Not once. A cop shoots a Black man in the back as he flees, then plants his taser on him... and crickets from Willis. Although he often writes multiple posts (per "anecdotal" incident) of a Black person getting killed... when he thinks they deserved it.

Image: Slow motion GIF shows former cop Michael Slager allegedly planting his taser near the body of Walter Scott. (Image attached to a 4/9/2015 "Opposing Views" article by Dominic Kelly).

OST #66

The Canardo That Quacked

File this under the category of "interesting". An observation I made some time ago that was (at the time) referred to as "quacking". by "quacking" this person meant I was lying about the subject I posted on, which was an extremely hostile reaction I got after I submited a comment (as a joke) to the blog of the Libertarian Willis Hart.

Dervish Sanders on 9/29/2013: In an anti-creationist post (a position I actually agree with him on, as I believe in science over creationism, as all intelligent people do) Willis Hart wrote that there are "NO reputable scientists who still DON'T believe the earth is less than billions of years old". This, you may note, is a double negative, which means that Mr. Hart was actually saying that reputable scientists believe the earth is less than a billion years old. Another Blogger (Jerry Critter) pointed out to him that "general consensus (I know you don't like those words) puts the age of the earth at over 4 billion years". Given the double negative, Jerry thought Willis was saying the earth is less than 4 billion. But Willis said no, he had made an error (with the double negative) and he corrected it. Then I, as a joke - and as a test to see if Mr. Hart was reading comments from me... something he previously said he was not doing (he banned me from his blog and said he was deleting my comments without reading them) - submited a comment in which I said "Will tried to slip a lie by and Jerry called him on it... again!". In response to my accusation of a lie, an ANGRY Willis posted the following two comments... Willis Hart: What are you fucking talking about, you fucking piece of shit (yeah, my eyes wandered on this one)? I made a grammatical error (and even so BB knew what I was talking about) and I fixed it. What's the mother-fucking lie, you mother-fucker? (9/28/2013 AT 8:54pm) Willis Hart: See, this is the difference between you and Jerry (and why we all seem to like him and detest you). He accepts it when a person makes a mistake and doesn't go looking for some ulterior motive (probably because he isn't mildly retarded and/or paranoid) like you constantly do. You really do need to get some attention, fella'. (9/28/2013 AT 9:02pm).

Willis posted my joke comment, but went back to ignoring me after that. So I decided to respond on my own blog with the following observation.

Dervish Sanders on 9/29/2013: Wow, this Will Hart fella certainly has a temper, doesn't he? Maybe Mr. Hart should get some attention... before he hurts someone and gets in trouble with the law (I can easily see him escalating a verbal altercation into violence). In any case... the comment surely got his attention (so, the joke worked). Also (for the record) this joke is not one I'd have made normally (that is, if I were not banned from Mr. Hart's blog). So, when Mr. Hart says "this is the difference between you and Jerry", he is wrong. Back when Mr. Hart actually permitted me to comment on his blog... this isn't a comment I would have made. The comments I submit now (for the most part) are the same as when I wasn't banned, but some aren't. Hart couldn't have made this distinction (why "they" like Jerry but detest me) before because I wouldn't have made this comment before.

In reaction to my joke comment getting posted (because Willis' eyes wandered onto it), the commenter I previously mentioned (after Willis' tirade of profanity), submitted (to the blog of Willis) the following (which was published).

Rational Nation USA: Now Will, we've discussed this before. It does no good to allow Mr. Canardo Sanders to drag you down to his level. Simply accept him for what he is, make your point respectfully, and then ignore him. He is demonstrably and certifiably off his rocker. (9/29/2013 AT 6:33pm).

And on my blog (in response to me commenting on this incident) he submitted this...

Rational Nation USA: Keep quacking Mr. Sanders, keep quacking. (9/29/2013 AT 9:38pm).

I did not know what he meant by "quacking", so I said "quacking in the context above means? I'm going to guess telling the truth". In response to my guess as to what he meant by quacking, the following remark was forthcoming...

Rational Nation USA: No Canardo, more like in telling lies. But really Canardo, who gives a f**k? (10/06/2013 AT 11:16pm).

Note that "Canardo" is a liar (as decoded here). He was saying I lied about something. What, exactly, I am not sure. Did I lie about my comment being a joke? Did I lie about Willis losing his temper and launching into a heavy-on-the-profanity response? Who knows? The individual in question never explained what I was quacking/lying about. Only that I was quacking.

If the quacking was in regard to Willis losing his temper, perhaps now there is some agreement in regards to that?

The following comment from this same person (approximately 21 months later) on this blog in response to a post in which I asked why Willis called out Randal Paul for his "temper" in regards to the "dust up" between Randal and Chris Christie during the Fox Nooz Repub "debate".

Rational Nation USA: It is curious that my once friend Will jumped on Paul for temper, It is quite possible that Will himself has a temper when questioned. (8/11/2015 AT 7:58pm).

Huh. Remember that I said (21 months ago) that "this Will Hart fella certainly has a temper". At the time Mr. Nation said (about me) "He is demonstrably and certifiably off his rocker"... on Willis' blog. On my blog he accused me of "quacking".

Now he makes the same observation himself (re Willis' temper). Does this mean that Mr. Nation is "quacking"? I do not know, as I was never sure what I was quacking about. It does seem, however, that my comments about Willis' temper are now being met with some agreement. Perhaps I was not so "off my rocker" after all?

OST #65

On The Bloggers Who Have Departed The Willis Hart Echo Chamber (AKA The "Circle Jerk Society") & Their Reasons

Willis Hart, a Libertarian blogger who used to call himself "moderate", has banned a number of people from his site "Contra O'Reilly". A few others departed due to Willis' tolerance for idiocy from the resident ass-kisser, a dishonest individual known as dmarks (but whose real name is Dennis Marks).

One of these bloggers who departed the blog of Willis made the following observations before he left, never to return.

Mordechai: Oops, D marks has been exposed as not very honest, will will do something about it, or just deny it to continue to protect his small cabal of approved bloggers he NEVER seems to question, no matter what they do or say, while attacking ONLY left leaning bloggers for some strange reason. Long history of this one with many many left leaning bloggers attacked repeatedly then banned with no one from the right ever questioned let alone chastised, or ever (gasp) banned for their hate filled comments like D marks has done here. Will your moderate veil is slipping and your real ideology is showing once again (12/10/2012 AT 4:33pm).

Mordechai doesn't say specifically that he's leaving, but I don't recall him ever commenting again. In any case, he is 100 percent accurate with his remarks. Specifically the one about dmarks not being honest. Also the comment about Lefty bloggers being attacked (by dmarks, usually) and then Willis banning those people. That, or they leave. And finally, the oh-so-true closer concerning Willis not being a Moderate.

Another blogger who could not stand to stick around Willis' blog (and specifically said he was leaving) left the following comment (his last one).

John Myste: Your website was fun to watch and occasionally participate in, but alas, it is no longer. It has been dominated by the repeated assertions of a completely irrational man, who insists on making up straw men and refuting them. I can tell from his responses on other sites that he now intends to do this to any relevant comment I make, which makes all comments pointless... Without Dervish, DMarks will simply dominate the site with his straw man fiction. In other words, the site is now about the creativity of DMarks mind, which interests me not at all. Farewell... (9/5/2012 AT 8:35am).

Mordechai was still around at this juncture (the comment I opened with was made 3 months later), and his response was to write "and widdle willy loses another honest blogger to protect his circle jerk society".

What is oh-so-true about Myste's comment is that the irrational dmarks has been dominating Willis' blog. But Willis does enjoy dmarks jerking him off, so it isn't an issue. In fact, he does this on a number of blogs I know of. rAtional nAtion uSA and Libertas and Latte are two others (I'm aware of) where he dominates and sucks up to the blog host.

And due to arguments with dmarks I've been banned from all three blogs. Although Les Carpenter of rAtional nAtion is currently allowing me to comment. A situation which may or may not last. But Willis Hart hates my guts, so my banning from his echo chamber is permanent.

BTW, this "circle jerk society" Mordechai refers to is also known as the Higher Ordered Person's Society (HOPS) by others.

OST #50