If Willis Hart Wasn't Such An A-Hole

He'd realize how disgusting a post such as the following actually is...

Willis Hart: "If President Obama Had a Son..." ...with a white chick, he'd look like Officer Ramos. (12/22/2014 AT 7:56pm).

Willis is referring to the recently murdered NY police officer (12/20/2014). What's disgusting is that he's using this murder to express his hatred for president Obama. The "if he had a son" is a call back to Obama telling the press that, if he had a son, he might have looked a lot like another murdered individual - Trayvon Martin.

Obama saying that if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon Martin made Willis mad. I have no idea why, but I'm guessing it has something to do with Willis' strong racial biases. And the fact that Willis sided with the shitbag murderer, George Zimmerman.

So he posts a completely absurd commentary... absurd because President Obama is a happily married man who is not cheating on Michelle with a White woman. Also absurd because Ramos is Hispanic! How the hell does a White woman giving birth to the son of an African American result in a Hispanic son?!

Like I said... utter absurdity. And completely disgusting. That the Hartster would take the murder of a police officer and use it to make a point about how much he hates Obama?! And remind us that he sided with the murderer George Zimmerman?!

Shame on you, Willis!

OST #34

The Willis Hart Movie: Deliver Unto the Plutocrats The Wealth Of Our Nation

Apparently Willis Hart is writing and directing a new movie designed to benefit from the hubbub surrounding the James Franco/Seth Rogen film "The Interview"? Somehow I doubt this is actually going to happen...

Willis Hart: "On SONY Pulling the Plug on that COMEDY in Which Several Bunglers Try to Assassinate Kim Jong Un"... You can relax, folks, my movie, a remake of Deliverance, in which the Ned Beatty character is Kim Jung Un (AKA, an actor who looks like him) and the hillbilly who butt-f*cks him is played by a Truman Capote lookalike, will NOT be nixed. (12/19/2014 AT 9:19am).

Yeah, I don't know how a movie that was never green-lit to begin with (by a major studio) can be nixed. Perhaps this is a small indie film that Willis is financing himself? In any case I would have guessed that the Willis Hart movie would star the Koch brothers (actor look-alikes) and Willis (as himself), and that the one to get butt-f*cked would be Willis. Although the Hartster would submit willingly and gleefully.

Maybe the Kochs are ponying up the dough for Willis' movie - to reward him for being such a loyal stooge?

OST #33

Consistent bush Apologist Despicable Defense of Torture

I refer to Willis Hart, of course... an individual who has been VERY consistent in his defense of former preznit George W bush in regards to war criminality.

Willis Hart: "On What to Do When You Accuse George W. Bush of Being a War Criminal and Then Ultimately Discover that Your Progressive Icon, FDR, Perpetrated Some of the Most Despicable War Crimes in All of Human History (the Targeting and Murder of Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians and in a Manner that Had No Strategic Value Whatsoever)"... Hm, let's see, a sane and responsible person would probably either modify the charges against Bush or have the power of his or her convictions and hold Mr. Roosevelt to the same standards... Of course I'm obviously not referring to a sane individual here (12/16/2014 AT 7:23pm).

So the argument Willis is making is that since FDR was never charged with war crimes, presidents can do whatever they damn well please. Treaties, international law, US law, and societal norms concerning right and wrong be damned.

Of course Willis jumping to the defense of GWb when it comes to the war crimes he approved is nothing new. He's done it many many times previously. Usually by bringing up FDR and WWII.

By the way, it is impossible to charge someone with a crime after they die, which FDR did... quite awhile ago. GWb is still alive and still chargeable for his war crimes, which CLEARLY Willis does not want to see happen.

And, for the record, I have not discovered that my progressive icon, FDR, perpetrated some of the most despicable war crimes in all of human history (the targeting and murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians and in a manner that had no strategic value whatsoever).

Regarding "strategic value", John Keegan, author of an October 2005 Telegraph article titled "Necessary or Not, Dresden Remains a Topic of Anguish", writes...

In the circumstances of early 1945 there were pressing reasons for persisting in the bombing. The Germans were still hitting London with pilotless weapons, the prospect of victory, apparently so close at hand in the autumn of 1944, had sharply receded after Hitler's great December offensive in the Ardennes, the Battle of the Bulge, which had caused more American casualties than any other battle in the west. Moreover, it was strongly believed - and not only by the bomber barons - that bombing severely damaged and might soon break German morale (source).

Whether this course of action was a war crime is not an opinion I am offering, as, admittedly I am not extremely well read when it comes to this subject. It may very well have been. I do know, however, that we were at war. A war Germany started.

Unlike the war we were engaged in when GWb authorized torture. Not only did GWb start that war, he started it by lying to the American people about WMD he KNEW Iraq did not have (SWTD #154). And, as we all know, torture does not work. It only gets those tortured to admit to whatever the torturer wants them to admit to (to get the torturer to stop).

This argument, IMO, has more to do with Willis hating FDR... which he does. A LOT. Willis, in opposition to what a sane and responsible person would do, allows his hatred of Progressives to excuse and defend a president who approved torture.

Frankly I find his defense of torture especially repugnant given recent BS from the arrogant Willis regarding him perhaps being "TOO anti-war" and that possibly being his "ultimate downfall".

Yeah... RIGHT... if by "anti-war" the Hartster means too anti-progressive and too much having his head up his ass when it comes to his belief in lies peddled by Libertarian "luminaries".

OST #32

Willis Hart LOL-able Narcissism & Oligarchy Worship

Another dig at a blogger the small "L" Libertarian Willis Hart does not like.

Willis Hart: If Obama Ever Came Out For a Flat-Tax and a Doubling of the Pentagon Budget... [blogger I don't like and view as an extreme partisan] would still support him, Hannity would still oppose him, and I'd still be banging my head against the wall... Rise above it, people. (10/14/2014 AT 4:37pm).

Note that I removed the name of the blogger Willis believes he has "risen above" (follow the link if you want to know who Willis refers to). This isn't a commentary about that blogger (who is not me in this instance). It's a commentary about the narcissism of Willis. He's beating his head against the wall because (in his mind) he "gets it", while many others do not.

This despite the fact that Libertarianism is a fringe ideology that most people recognize for the hogwash it is. It's purpose, in economic terms, is to funnel money upwards. Case in point, another commentary from Willis in which he praises the extreme tax cutting that directly lead to the Great Depression.

Willis Hart: More Unimpeachable Evidence that Lower Top Marginal Tax Rates Actually INCREASE the Amount of Taxes that are Paid By these Individuals... As you can plainly see from these charts... the amount of revenue that was collected at the 24% rate was significantly greater than the amount which was secured at the 73% rate (a 122% increase; $321 million versus $714 million) AND the share of the income tax burden for those making over $100,000 a year also soared, from 29.9% to 61.3%; a 105% increase! Yes, it took a year or two for the tax cuts to kick in but once in fact they did, tax revenues skyrocketed... (10/8/2014 AT 2:56pm).

Here the foolish Hartster presents a bubble as AWESOME and desirable. This particular bubble he points to (The Roaring Twenties) being the one the preceded the Great Depression. Seeing stupidity like this is enough to cause halfway intelligent people to bang their heads against the wall, you dope Willis!

And the Flat Tax is a Conservative/Libertarian idea. If adopted by Obama he might as well switch parties. The blogger who he thinks would still support him - would not. I know I would not. And a DOUBLING of the military budget? That's something not even the most neo-connish Republican would propose. It's outside the realm of possibility and reality.

Although Willis does add that this might be "a bit hyperbolic... But not a lot, I fear".

No, it is a LOT hyperbolic. And delusional as well... the thinking that Willis has risen above it but "people" have not. I assume he's talking about a majority of people (non-Libertarians) he thinks he's better than. Better than because he buys into economic policies that enrich the already wealthy while wreaking the economy.

LOL.

OST #31

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

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

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

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

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

Video 1: Early Version (2:08).

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

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

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

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

Dennis Marks: He'll get his pony tail in a knot if he reads that, Will. (8/17/2014 AT 7:01pm). Dennis Marks: ...when I (rightfully) accused WD of spamming, his response was to send 38 comments in which he focused on the phallus. And thanks to him, over Christmas, I learned far more about anal sex lube than I had ever known before (that past amount of knowledge being "none at all"). (8/18/2014 AT 5:04am).

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

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

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

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

OST #30. See also PPP #34.

Another Willis "Factoid" For The Fake History Books?

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

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

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

OST #29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OST #28