So, Just How Much Does The Un-Factaholic Willis Hart Love Donald Trump?

So, just how much does the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart love Donald Trump? The following commentary makes me wonder.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Donald Trump Supposedly Said that "Eminent Domain Is Great"... I've tried to be fair with Donald (the fact that I a) don't like being part of a bum's rush, b) find his critics every bit as obnoxious as he is, and c) appreciate the fact that the dude's deviated from the neocons on more than a few occasions). But this is a view that I cannot tolerate. The fact of the matter is that eminent domain is one of the most loathsome and abusive acts that the government engages in (the fact that it isn't being used just for roads and bridges anymore but for private enterprises as well, the fact that there's already an abundance of property that can be used for development, the fact that a lot of the property taken through eminent domain never gets developed, etc.) and if Trump considers it "great" a pox on him. There, how's that for fair and balanced? (2/2/2016 AT 5:06pm).

Notice that Willis doesn't differentiate between necessary uses of eminent domain and abuses. He does say "it isn't being used just for roads and bridges anymore", but does that mean he thinks using it for roads isn't an abuse? Trump has abused eminent domain when he tried to use it to steal some old woman's house because he wanted it for "a new limousine parking lot for the nearby Trump Plaza hotel and casino"... and Willis is talking about Trump... so perhaps we can assume it's only the abuses he objects to. But I think he might be opposed to the government using ED for ANY use.

In any case, according to a subsequent comment, Willis says "this is a deal-breaker for me". Figures that Trump's race-baiting WASN'T a deal-breaker, given the fact that Willis has this in common with Trump. Might this explain why Willis says that he finds Trump's "critics every bit as obnoxious as he is". Because it's really obnoxious when the Donald's critics go after him for his comments regarding Mexicans who illegally enter the US being rapists because "somebody's doing the raping"?

Maybe not. Willis called those comments "despicable" and "vile shit". Although I'm thinking he said that because (as a Libertarian) he's 100 percent in favor of there being as large a labor pool as possible (because this drives down wages). But, despite being "despicable" and "vile"... still NOT a deal-breaker.

Perhaps it outraged Willis when Trump was denounced for implying that Megyn Kelly was a bitch on her period who asked him unfair questions (during the first GOP debate)? Perhaps not. Willis did author a minor rebuke. Although he might believe that Trump's detractors went too far. Kelly is a chick, after all, and as we all know, the Willis thinks the primary purpose of Fox "news women" is ogling.

Maybe he thought Trump wasn't implying that Kelly was on the rag at all, and was majorily insulted that people who don't like Trump drew that conclusion? It is a fact that Willis poo-poos the (very real) Republican war on women. Anyway, this apparently was also not a deal breaker.

Is it possible that Willis finds the fact checkers claims that Donald is a liar in regards to his claim that he saw on TV "thousands and thousands" of Muslims cheering in New Jersey? Does Willis find these criticisms "obnoxious", because, as Breitbart has reported "Trump 100% Vindicated" (because "Police... found eight men celebrating". "Thousands" or eight. What's the big diff? Question is, why does the media lie?).

But the answer again appears to be no. Willis himself got "obnoxious" on Trump when he said Trump was "confusing Jersey with the West Bank and, so, yeah, he probably flunked geography as well". Although readers of Willis' blog all know how much he loaths Islam. So maybe that's the subject on which Trump's critics are "as obnoxious as he is"?

Yeah, I'm going to say that could be it, given the fact that the Hartster has defended Trump's proposed Muslim immigrant ban. By which I mean that Willis said it might not be a good idea, although legal. To which I ask - why not a good idea? Given how much Muslims suck (according to Willis), why not ban them?

Although Willis is wrong about the ban being legal.

A flat ban on Muslim immigration would be unconstitutional under existing judicial doctrine, because it would flunk the basic doctrinal rule that every governmental action must have a legitimate purpose. Sure, such a law would be defended by the lawyer representing Trump's administration as having a valid purpose - presumably, the purpose of protecting national security. But just because a lawyer claims that a law is motivated by a certain purpose doesn't mean that the Court will accept the claim, even in areas where the Court gives Congress and the President a lot of deference. An outrageous claim can still be rejected as implausible. (Legal Experts Explain How Trump's Conservative Media-Backed "Ban Muslims" Proposal Is Unconstitutional by Nick Fernandez and Alex Kaplan. Media Matters 12/10/2015).

THIS clearly has to be the "bum's rush". At least a significant part of it, given that it's Media Matters who is saying this. And Media Matters is part of the (according to WTNPH) "partisan cesspool". Part of the "cesspool" of partisans bum rushing the poor Donald.

So, just how much does Willis Hart love Donald Trump? I'm going to go with just a little bit. Willis does give the Donald props because he's "the only Republican candidate who doesn't appear hell-bent on a second cold war".

Although... why the hell is it not Trump's position on trade that is a "deal breaker" for Willis? Trump says "only Sanders and I know US [is] being ripped off in trade Deals". I mean, for me, all those other things are deal breakers... and I AGREE with Trump on trade (so this isn't a deal breaker for me). But, given Willis' strong support for destroying American jobs by shipping them out to low wage 3rd world countries (to further enrich the already wealthy), I'd have thought Trump's trade position on trade would have been the deal breaker. Yet I can't recall him EVER blogging on Trump/trade. Could it be because he doesn't want to bum rush the guy?

In closing I'd like to remind people that Willis called the accusations of rape against Bill Cosby a "possibly a bum's rush"... and we all know how that turned out. The dude has 51 accusers (as of 11/21/2014), making it extremely unlikely that he's an innocent victim who did nothing wrong.

Which is why I think the facts clearly show that the Hartster's use of the the "bum's rush" is as OFF in regards to Trump as it was in regards to Cosby (and as OFF as he is when he starts SO MANY of his posts with the words "on the fact"). Although Willis might believe that the 51 Cosby accusers all got drunk and consented to taking quaaludes? You know, given Willis' belief that drunk sluts be making false accusations all the time.

OST #107

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