The Contra O'Reilly Response Page

Welcome to the special page on my blog I've decided to set up in order to respond to posts and comments on the blog "Contra O'Reilly". The purpose of this page is to give me a place to reply to posts or comments from the aforementioned blog, given the fact that the proprietor of that blog banned me and has comment moderation enabled. Seeing as whenever I submit a comment for his approval he rarely publishes, this will now be the place where I do my commenting. This way everything I want to say will be published.

Comments about my comments, comments about Willis Hart's comments, or comments about what any other commenter commented on the Contra O'Reilly blog are welcome. Comments about this page (criticisms) are not welcome. You may very well disagree with my choice to set up this page, or even question my sanity for doing so, but these are comments I am not interested in and for this reason they will remove immediately (or not be published). Thank you for adhering to this request.

Note: Instead of continuing on by posting comments to this page, I have decided to move the discussion to a new blog titled "Contra Contra O'Reilly". This page should now be considered to be closed.


  1. This is a (bad) poem I composed in response to being accused of word salads and non sequiturs by Will Hart (with agreement from Lester Nation).

    The Non Sequitur Word Salad

    The summary as follows
    A while ago I hear a sound that reminded me of a tailpipe backfire
    A word salad non sequitur led me to another point in time
    I forgot about the dinosaur that trampled on the butterfly effect
    Freeform poetry, nor poetry in general not being something I am skilled at
    I denied his request for an encore
    Writing here what comes to mind without consideration for making any sense
    Will Hart is quilty of making false assertions, as are his buddies RN and Dennis
    What else, pray tell, might one expect from the one who provided incorrect information?
    The time machine whirred and bounced and the matrix was rearranged
    For this I accept your applause and I take a bow
    Now bring on the insults please, as they only make me sad
    Also the laughs by Steve, although they will be deleted.

  2. Will Hart: The Keynesian "Solution" to Overspending, Overleveraging, And a Bubble... More overspending, more overleveraging, and another bubble. In a saner society, people with these types of thoughts would be marginalized and possibly institutionalized but, no, in our crazy world they're actually given column space in the New York Times.

    We should institutionalize Libertarians. If there is a drought (recession) their solution is to turn off the sprinklers (gov spending) and they think the outcome will be a healthy green lawn (economy). Insanity!

  3. dmarks (AKA Dennis Marks) [September 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM] The Bush administration argued that its actions in Iraq were in accordance with existing resolutions and international law. The UN did not object to this interpretation.

    They did object, oh king Canardo.

    When bush ordered the invasion of Iraq he violated Articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter, which is why Kofi Annan (UN Secretary-general from 1/1/1997 to 12/31/2006) said the war "was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter". This statement by Anon was made during a 9/16/2004 BBC interview while he was still the UN leader (not after his term expired).

    Excerpt from my 5/23/2013 post, "Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-President bush's WMD Lies".

  4. Will Hart [9/10/2013 AT 9:22 AM] "The Prosperity Factor"...Hurricane Katrina and the Bhola Cyclone that hit Bangladesh in 1970 were both highly destructive category 3 hurricanes. But while our Hurricane Katrina was responsible for less than 2,000 deaths on the Gulf Coast of America, the Bhola Cyclone killed somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000.

    Why the difference? I would strongly submit here that it was the prosperity of America that created a) a superior (albeit far, far from perfect) infrastructure and b) a superior (again, albeit far, far from perfect) response to the tragedy. I would also strongly submit that it is prosperity and economic development which give us the much better chance of dealing with climate change (long term) than those crazy types of crony capitalism and deficit spending spree approaches/discredited prevention measures as the Stern and Gore proposals. The only thing that those two latter strategies will accomplish is make us poor, very poor.

    I agree with the setup, but completely disagree with the totally false conclusion. Transitioning to a green economy would create an economic boom.

  5. Dennis Marks [9/12/2013 at 9:19am] I wonder how the current President might answer a question on something that actually is a controversy: global warming. I am guessing he might come down on the dogma-not-science side, and want no controversy mentioned at all. The equivalent of Bush being even worse and demanding that only "creation science" be taught.

    Barack Obama has addressed the global warming debate, Dennis. He came down on the side of science.

    Excerpt from "Remarks by the President on Climate Change", as posted on the White House web site...

    President Barack Obama:, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind. The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years. Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached record highs, and ice in the Arctic shrank to its smallest size on record -- faster than most models had predicted it would. These are facts. ... So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science -- of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements -- has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. They've acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.

    So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late. And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren.

    Surprised Dennis hasn't heard of this. No need for him to "wonder", as the information regarding the President coming down on the side of science is EASILY found.

  6. Will Hart [9/13/2013 at 8:20pm] On Ruffles Chips Now Coming in "Tangy Honet Mustard"... Well it's about damn time.

    I asked Will (but got no response)... what is "Honet Mustard"? I'm guessing he means "Honey Mustard", but maybe he meant to write "Hornet Mustard"? Maybe he meant "Blue Bonnet Mustard" (as in butter flavored). Looks like we may never know for sure what the hell Will is talking about. I doubt "Hornet Mustard" would sell very well, however. Much as Will might be longing for "hornet mustard", I seriously doubt Ruffles is going to put out this flavor.

  7. Will Hart [9/15/2013 at 5:07pm] On Why Bush is a War-Criminal and Obama isn't... The latter has a D in front of his name and believes in Keynesian economics and man-made global warming (this, despite the fact that temperatures have actually been going down while CO2 emissions have risen by 28%).

    I hate to say it, but the use of drones by Obama may very well be a war crime. However, Obama (like every president before him) is using powers grabbed by former presidents (and expanding on them). This is part of the reason Obama did not look into any war crimes by the former administration (didn't want to "look back"). In regards to the use of drones Obama is worse than bush (but whoever it was who followed him would have been). But Obama is being a hell of a lot more honest with the American people than the last president. Whereas bush LIED about WMD (saying the invasion of Iraq was to "disarm" Saddam), Obama is honest with us about reasons for acting in Syria. And he said there would be no boots on the ground there. Iraq versus anything Obama has done... bush is worse.

    None of this excuses anything Obama has done, of course. I'm very much opposed to the increased drone strikes, and have said as much to Mr. Hart. But does he listen? No. It's all about referring to me as a "partisan stooge" with him, facts be damned. And Mr. Obama accepting the science of global warming (see my comment above) has nothing to do with war crimes.

  8. Rational Nation [9/15/2013 at 7:52pm] 2016, actually post 2014 mid term election, should prove to be very entertaining. I can barely wait to find out which democrat buffoon and which republican buffoon will get the nod. I'm still hoping for a Johnson/Huntsman candidacy. And I'd be okay in either order really.

    Will Hart [9/15/2013 at 9:32pn] Johnson and Huntsman would be a sensational ticket.

    I agree that a Gary Johnson and John Huntsman ticket would be sensational.. or their loss would be. I keep asking Will how many electoral votes Gary Johnson won the last time he ran, but Will never answers.

    I'm not even sure how much they influence the conversation (the only reason they run, as they KNOW they won't win) given the fact that they were excluded from the debates... Gary Johnson never debated any of the Republican or Democratic presidential hopefuls. Huntsman was in there for a short while when he was running for the Republican nomination (but not long).

  9. Will Hart [9/15/2013 at 3:43pm] This is Your Last Warning, wd... I've asked you on more than several occasions to cease and desist with the comments and yet you continue to spam me with your partisan and knee-jerk idiocy. If I have to tell you again, I will file a complaint with the server on grounds of harassment. You have your own blog-site and so use it. There, now have a pleasant (albeit marginal) existence and vanish.

    In response I must say... what is this, a joke? I have never "harassed" Will Hart. He has a public blog and I read it. Yes, he banned me awhile ago for a dumb reason, but I never targeted Will "with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize" him. OK, so he may find the comments I submit to his blog annoying but (according to FindLaw) Not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety".

    I have never submitted a comment to Mr. Hart's blog that could be characterized as a "credible threat". Not even one that was an uncredibe threat... given the fact that I do not have any idea (aside from the state) where Mr. Hart lives. My comments have all been genuine... all things I'd normally publish (and have no problem with others seeing) on any other blog. That is NOT "harassment" Mr. Hart.

    In any case Will Hart previously said that he was sending my comments to the Spam folder, and that after doing that for awhile Blogger recognized my comments as Spam and sent them there automatically. Given that Will Hart has continued to respond (and occasionally publish) comments of mine (even going as far to write commentaries based on comments I've submitted) I assumed he was going into his Spam folder to read my comments.

    He's seeing them (and being "harassed" by them) because he WANTS to be, in other words. Again, how the heck is that harassment? If anyone is being harassed it is me. Go to his blog and you can find numerous commentaries and discussions trashing me. He and his buddies are clearly have fun doing this (trashing me). He even has a commenter who reads my blog and reports back (Rusty). Then they discuss what Rusty has to say.

    Is this harassment? I say no. I also say quit your whining, Will. Send my comments to your Spam folder if you don't want to see them. And stop insulting me on your blog. Yes, I write commentaries on my blog in which I cite posts on Will's blog, and I rebut them. But I don't refer to Will Hart as mentally ill (and other similar insults) on a regular basis.

  10. dmarks [9/15/2013 at 5:43pm] Back when WD was in full "Andrew Weiner" mode and sending me several comments per day about male genitalia for a couple of weeks, I shoved them all into spam. After a while they went there automatically. ...he did stop a while ago. Truth be told, my blog was relatively boring when active and kind of dormant now.

    "Anthony Weiner mode"? I never sent Dennis any pictures of my weiner. That *is* what "Anthony Weiner mode" would indicate, but it NEVER HAPPENED, Dennis!! This is a lie of Dennis' that has evolved over time. I think he just likes the thought of comparing me to Anthony Weiner, regardless of the fact that there is no truth to the comparison.

    But Dennis has a long history of playing fast and loose with the facts. To be honest, there is a small nugget of truth at the center of Dennis' lie. For anyone who wants to read the full story, see here. Long story short, Dennis got angry about an on-topic comment I submitted to his blog and called what I said "spam". I thought that was odd, as what I said was an original (not posted elsewhere) comment that was on-topic... Dennis just didn't like it.

    Given the oddness of calling my comment Spam, I thought... what does real Spam usually look like? My answer was... male enhancement ads. Spam is usually male enhancement ads. So I submitted some of those to his blog (he had comment moderation enabled and had already refused to publish a few comments from me, so I was confident no one but Dennis would ever see them). I said I was being "helpful" in giving Dennis some examples of what REAL spam looks like. It was a JOKE between Dennis and I, in other words.

    But turns out the joke was on me, as Dennis has absolutely REFUSED to let this go. Now I'm like Anthony Weiner and the number of times I sent him the spam examples has gone from 2 or 3 (which is the REAL number of times I sent them) to frickin' weeks. I did NOT send him the spam examples for "weeks". But the more times Dennis tells his mostly made-up story the more elaborate it becomes. He probably even believes that what he is saying is true.

  11. On the ridiculous notion that Will Hart isn't a master craftsman of straw men...

    Check out these two posts by Mr. Hart and see if you can spot the language that makes them straw men...

    Will Hart: On the Ridiculous Notion that Medicare Can be Saved STRICTLY by Raising Taxes on the Wealthy (9/16/2013 3:23 PM).

    On the Assertion that Employers ALWAYS have the Advantage Over Eployees When it Comes to Negotiating Wages (9/18/2013 8:21 PM).

    Hint... Will's posts are straw men due to the words "strictly" and "always". Nobody has strictly or always made either of these claims. Also, Medicare does not need to be reformed completely via the insertion of strong market forces. Get tougher on waste and fraud and the program will be fine... also open it up to anyone who wants to buy in.

  12. On the ridiculousness of Dennis Marks telling me I need to "grow up"...

    On 9/7/2013 Will Hart published a post titled "Competing Biographies Pertaining to wd"... the first "biography" of me was "Diary of a Madman" and the second was "The Idiot". Contributions by Dennis include "Basement Feng Shui", "How to Win No Friends and Influence Nobody", "What Color Is Your Paper Hat?" and "Fifty Shades of Batsh*t Crazy".

    Then, on 9/17/2013 Dennis (as one of the adults in the room) lectured me that I need to "grow up". Dennis needs to take his own advice, IMO.

    This was because Will printed a vile lie on this blog that killing (via Obama dropping bombs in Syria) was OK with Liberals so long as it is their guy going the killing. I took exception to that lie, and called Will an idiot (after he called me an idiot first). RN then chastised me (while completely ignoring the fact that the incident BEGAN when Will called me an idiot).

    Looks like I'm banned from the Rational Nation blog now, although at least I get to be full of myself and preen and strut around leftist blogistan (according to RN)... so, there's that (yeah!) OK, then... off to preen and strut!

    1. Correction to above comment...

      "...their guy going the killing" should be "...their guy DOING the killing".

      I regret the error.

  13. Issue with usage of idiot cleared up by will to his credit.

    As for Mr. Sanders being banned at RN USA. More bunk from Mr. Sanders. Explanation by moi can be found in a direct response to Mr. Sanders made quite respectfully and with the utmost accuracy on RN USA.

    I am sure everyone has realized by now that Mr. Sanders loves beating a dead horse.

  14. No "bunk" from me RN. I said "looks like", and I based that on me submitting several comments you declined to publish. The actual bunk is your BS "preening and strutting" comment... an absurd accusation. I have never in my life either "preened" or "strutted". If I had to guess where this absurdity came from... I'd guess it's projection... RN views himself as so incredibly superior to everyone else... and therefore he thinks everyone thinks similarly. Reality check RN... they do not.

    As for beating dead horses, I only continue to set the facts straight when RN insists on continuing to lie about them... and have his lies be the last word. You can do that on your blog, but NOT here. Here the last word is mine. So stuff it (and don't reply again because you will likely not be published).

  15. Finally figured out what you meant with that first sentence. Usage of the word "idiot" was cleared up by Will (with a capitalized "W"... meaning you were referring to Will Hart).

    *pats self on back*

    Most of the time the RN word salads are impossible to decipher. This time I got it.

    Anyway, yeah Will admitted he was the instigator. Woo-ho! YES, give "credit" where it is due, RN.

  16. LMAO! Keep trying (and spinning) Mr.Sanders. Rest assured the enjoyment is all mine.

  17. Will Hart [9/24/2013 at 4:57pm] Please, anything but "Skeptical Science".

    Will says this in response to another commenter citing Skeptical Science in a discussion on global climate change and the warming of the oceans.

    My response is...

    Will can't stand "Skeptical Science" because it utterly destroys his denialist bullshit.

    Which it DOES. Most (if not all) of the global warming BS Will posts is debunked by Skeptical Science.

  18. Will Hart [9/25/2013 at 3:47pm] On wd Saying that He's "Not going to bother composing a serious comment if it isn't going to be published" Over at Les's Site... Being that he's written literally hundreds of comments here that he KNOWS aren't going to be published, the man is either a liar or he's admitting that the comments that he does leave here aren't serious (and more along the lines of harassment). Either way... (insulting accusations against me he'd have no waying of knowing)...

    This came about as a result of me thinking I was banned by Lester... so I submitted a test comment (which can be described as noted above by Will). But I'm not a liar, nor are my comments on Mr. Hart's blog non-serious. I simply am not looking also leave comments on the blog of Lester if they aren't published (as I do on Will Hart's blog).

    BTW, in regards to Mr. Hart's "Final Warning", he can stuff it. As long as he discusses me on his blog I'm going to continue to "harass" him. He can't write these types of posts (making BS accusations regarding aspects of my life it is completely impossible for him to have any information regarding) AND not expect me to keep tabs on him. He doesn't like the comments so I'm going to keep submitting them.

    Rational Nation [9/25/2013 at 4:25pm] Mr. Sanders isn't a serious person, nor is he always truthful.

    I think RN just farted. Or, that is how RN might reply to a baloney comment such as the one above. I am a very serious person, and (when it comes to my views on politics) I have never told an untruth. But RN knows better than I about not being truthful... but more on that later (I am composing a post on the subject... stay tuned).

    I wonder if this RN fool has realized that a number of unserious and untruthful comments he has submitted to my blog have not been published.

  19. Regarding A Certain A-hole Who Clearly Can't Take (Or Get) A Joke...

    In anti-creationist post (a position I actually agree with him on, as I believe in science over creationsism, as all intelligent people do) Will Hart wrote that there are "NO reputable scientists who still DON'T believe the earth is less than billions of years old". This is, you may note, a double negative, which means (if say the same thing without the double negative) that Mr. Hart was 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". Will acknowledged the double-negative error and 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) -- 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 Will Hart posted the following two comments...

    Will Hart [9/28/2013 at 8:54 PM] 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?

    Will Hart [9/28/2013 at 9:02pm] 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'.

    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.

  20. Keep quacking Mr. Sanders, keep quacking.

    1. Nice, another RN word salad. "Quacking" in the context above means? I'm going to guess "telling the truth". If that is the case, then I say... I shall, Lester. You can count on it.

    2. No Canardo, more like in telling lies. But really Canaedo, who gives a f**k?

  21. Will Hart [10/4/2013 9:41am] A Jihad on Perspective... I find it a little strange that the Democrats in Congress (Jim Miller, for example) won't use the term, jihad, to describe the actions of Major Nidal Hasan but they will use it to describe the Republicans in the House over this budget crisis. Methinks that the vitriol has at long last overtaken them (not that the Republicans are necessarily superior, mind you).

    I find it a little strange that Mr. Hart could very well be referring to himself and HIS jihad on perspective with this ridiculous post. FYI, Mr. Hart, the Republicans compared THEMSELVES to the Taliban. QUOTE... Pete Sessions: "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban... we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side".

    I agree with the representative from the 32nd district in Texas. The Republicans are VERY much like the Taliban. Especially given their war on women and the homophobia thing. As for the Hartster's claim that Democrats "won't use the term jihad to describe the actions of Major Nidal Hasan"... I don't know where he's getting this from. Fox Nooz, maybe? Methinks he's clearly getting it from some Rightwing website. "Vitriol"? What a doofus.

  22. Will Hart has the hots for Democratic Women?...

    Will Hart [10/13/2013 7:41pm] On 90s Sex-Kitten, Linda Fiorentino... She's got a little Gene Tierney thing goin' on and I like it.

    The facts say Linda Fiorentino is a Democrat...

    According to her IMDB bio, in January 2007 Fiorentino attended a political fund raiser for Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York in New York City, and in 2008 she donated $1,000 to the New York Senate Campaign for Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. says Linda Fiorentino made two donations of $2500 each to the campaign of Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democrat representing New York's 20th congressional district. Wikipedia says that "Gillibrand has been seen as a progressive since her appointment to the Senate".

    According to the book Gene Tierney: A Biography "By the spring of 1946, Jack Kennedy and Gene Tierney had become something of an item". Although the book does go on to note that "the Tierney's [were] staunch New England Republicans..."

  23. Will Hart [10/14/2013 3:54pm] Green Minus Green Equals Red... According energy writer and electrical engineer, Steve Goreham, Germany and Denmark have combined to put up some 25,000 wind turbines and over a million solar panels, and in spite of this massive investment, neither country has been able to close down a single coal-fired plant. The fact of the matter is that neither of these supposedly green alternative would even exist if it weren't for government subsidies and mandates and the regular people getting screwed not once but TWICE (a, via their tax dollars being thrown away and b, via higher energy prices)...

    Oh, Steve Goreham is an energy writer and electrical engineer, huh? Obviously Will doesn't want to tell his readers this hack is also an employee of the Heartland Institute. And he's also listed at ExxonSecrets as being a paid shill for Big oil.

    According to Wikipedia the Heartland Institute "questions scientific opinion on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring and, further, that warming might be beneficial if it did occur". And Will Hart says he isn't a Global Warming denier (ha, ha). How much of a clueless stooge is this Hart fellow?

  24. Will Hart [10/17/2013 at 10:31pm] On Senator Mitch "The Bitch" McConnell Getting Nearly $3 Billion for a Preoject in His Home State as Part of the New Funding Bill... There aren't enough barf-bags in the galaxy to get me through this sucker, folks.

    That is one mighty expensive "preoject". I presume that those who voted "yes" know what a "preoject" is? I presume Mitch "the turtle" (his actual nickname) McConnell knows what a "preoject" is?

    Note: Sure, this is just a spelling error, but one I bet Will NEVER notices... despite my comment (one I did submit). He'll probably be to busy barfing.

    1. For the record... it has now been 4 days (plenty of time for Will to notice and correct his typo) and the title of the post still refers to a "preoject" for Mitch McConnell's state. There will be no correction, as I predicted. Even though I submitted several comments informing Will of the error.

  25. Delicious Irony From Worshipers In The Church Of Libertarianism...

    Will Hart [10/19/2013 9:14pm] On Hard-Core Partisans and True-Believers... The big question is, do they want to learn, or do they simply want to bow to their masters? Based upon my experience, it is quite patently the latter.

    Lester Nation [10/20/2013 7:43am] Given years of observation I must concur.

    So far as Libertarian partisans go, I also concur. With these guys Libertarianism is like a religion... a religion of greed. Their Goddess is the psychopath Ayn Rand.

  26. Regarding a shitheaded blog that is currently open to "invited readers" only...

    Will Hart [10/20/2013 4:49pm] What happened to your blog, man? You just doing American Nihilist now?

    The above comment was written by Mr. Hart in response to a comment left by the blogger Joe Truth 101 Kelly. Out of curiosity I decided to check in with Joe's blog... after that I wrote and submitted the following comment in response to Will's question...

    Dervish Sanders: I just checked... and I see that Joe hide his blog again. Just as well, as it had become a joke, what with commentaries that slandered people with outright lies and idiocy about big boob headphones and going Republican for work-related reasons.

  27. Regarding The Laughable Libertarian Argument Against Anthropogenic Global Climate Change...

    These dullards say it's political when the reality is that Big Oil has bribed the politicans to do NOTHING about it. Yes, we have an acknowledgement of it's reality from our president, but are we actually doing anything? No.

    Will Hart [10/19/2013 3:27pm] The Left's Favorite Argument for Anthropogenic Global Warming... The (well-connected, heavily funded, pseudo,and politically driven) experts say.

    What about the oily bedfellows you laughably claim are "luminaries" and "heavyweights"? Big Oil is the most profitable industry in the history of man... which makes your commentary a complete JOKE. That we have no cap and trade legislation is because Big Oil bought off enough Congresspersons to stop it!

  28. Regarding a Libertarian Who Apparently Does Not Know That A Billion Is Way More Than A Million...

    Will Hart [10/21/2013 7:35pm] On the Obamacare Web-Site Now Expected to Cost U.S. Taxpayers Over $500 Million... Yeah, I'm thinking a wee-bit over-budget (the original estimate being around $90 billion)..

    Looks like -- according to your figures -- it is way UNDER budget. You do know that a billion is MORE than a million, right? Perhaps you do not.

  29. Regarding a Deluded Fool Who Believes "The Debate Is Over Allright" In Regards To AGW...

    Will Hart [10/21/2013 2:49pm] On Gavin Schmidt and Debating"... He doesn't do it anymore. Ever since that fateful night when Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton wiped the floor with him and that lady from the Union of Concerned (as in concerned that their research money will eventually evaporate) Scientists, the dude won't even go on camera with a skeptic anymore. Yeah, this whole global warming (er, I mean, climate change) debate is over alright.

    Will Hart [10/21/2013 5:05pm] And 2 of those scientists are Roy Spencer and John Christy, creators of the satellite temperature readings and winners of the NASA award for outstanding achievement. Skeptics.

    Being good or bad at debating does not disprove or prove scientific theories. If the skeptic side won in the debate you are referring to (I have not watched it)... all that proves is that the oily bedfellow Lindzen and the science FICTION writer Crichton are good at spinning BS (or were in Michael Crichton's case).

    Also, Spencer and Christy, using the data from the satellites didn't arrive at the correct temperature readings (see here for the details). Their work included mathematical and other errors. Spencer himself has admitted it! When the errors are corrected for the temps match the models and validate them. What a nincompoop.

  30. Canardo Sanders, you really are one very sick lying MF'er. You need serious psychological intervention.

  31. Accusations of dishonesty from Lying Lester? That is rich! Notice that, despite how much there is to respond to here, Lying Lester cannot cite ONE lie? If the lying (by me) were as egregious as he makes it out to be, you'd think Lying Lester could give at least one example. He can't (and did not) because there are no lies here.

    Clearly the one who needs serious psychological intervention is Lying Lester. BTW, you are still banned. I meant to send this comment to the spam folder but accidentally clicked "publish" (I thought about deleting you but decided to respond).

  32. Clearly Canardo Sanders is too stupid to understand I refer only to lies he as uttered with respect to me. He also fails to get his continued posts over at his hangout SwTD about me ans his slander over the past several months is certainly indicative of his need for serious help. Not to mention his obsession with Will and dmarks.

    As you continue to be a waste of perfectly good oxygen the sane will go about their business and ignore you. Thus denying you the attention you crave.

    As we say goodbye to the Giant Canardo Colonel Sanders by all means continue on.

    1. How can I be "too stupid to realize" you're talking about lies I uttered in respect to you when I only told the truth about you? Your comment makes no sense. THAT is why I didn't understand you before and still do not understand you. Everything I say on my blog is backed up with facts... again, none of which you have disputed. You only speak of nebulous unnamed "lies" because there are no real ones. Now please proceed to ignore me as you keep promising. I look forward to it as I do not seek any attention from you. Thanks.

  33. Will Hart [10/27/2013 AT 3:54pm] He's at it Again, Folks... [picture of Rep. Alan Grayson] Only this time, instead of comparing his political opponents to the Taliban, he's comparing them to the equally loathsome KKK. Hey, maybe he and his douche-bag Republican counterpart, Gohmert, can get together some time and compare (vitriolic) notes/brewskis. I'd watch!

    Hurrah for Representative Grayson! He tells it like it is/tells the truth... which is why the Righties (like Will Hart) hate him so much. I hope he holds his seat for as long as he wants it (many decades to come). He is a true champion of the people, unlike Gohmert who is a stooge for the plutocrats (also like Hart). Grayson is no "counterpart" of Gohmert, but if Will were in the House he would fit right in with stooges like Gohmert (not quite as bad by any measure, but still a shill for the wealthy elites they both worship).

  34. Another AGW Denialism Post From A Dull Stooge For The Plutocrats...

    Will Hart [10/27/2013 AT 7:41pm] The Dull Hypothesis... The case for catastrophic anthropogenic global-warming is one of the most pseudo-scientific (not to mention, politically corrupt) enterprises in human history. What you essentially had was a bunch of bureaucrats, politicians, reviewers, crony capitalists, and activists creating this theory out of borderline cloth... (blah, blah, blah... who really cares? you see where this is going.)

    "Pseudo science"? Really? Gosh, I wonder why it's so widely accepted as reality while your "luminaries" and "heavyweights" aren't listened to (even though they've got the BIG money backing them). No need to wonder as far as I'm concerned. If you want Big Oil to continue on indefinitely as the most profitable endeavor in all human history (i.e. if you worship at the alter of the plutocrats)... then denialism is for you (which is why it isn't for me).

  35. Canardo is a narcissist as well.

    Is it also possible he has a thing for Will?

    1. Lying Lester is suffering from projection (he's the narcissist and he is the one who has a thing for Will).

    2. Cock-a-doodle do says Canardo.

    3. Interesting. You seem obsessed with this "Canardo" dude... whoever the hell he is. Maybe Lester is talking about his pet rooster? (just a wild guess based on your reporting of him saying "cock-a-doodle do").

    4. Actually Canardo Colonel Sanders if I had a rooster it certainly would NOT be you.

      Cock-a-doodle do Canardo Colonel Sanders.

  36. Will Hart [10/28/2013 AT 3:59pm] manufacturing alone there are 600,000 positions that can't be filled. And when Manpowergroup did a random survey of 1,300 employers, nearly half of them said that they still had positions open that they couldn't fill due to a lack of skilled applicants.

    Without looking into Mr. Hart's claim, I say it is probably accurate. The second sentence, anyway. The first one is total BS. The position could be filled if the employers were willing to train people. But they only want to hire people that someone else has trained. They don't want to pay for training. And they are paranoid about training someone and then that person taking a job elsewhere (because that is what they want to do... hire someone who has been trained elsewhere and on someone else's dime). They could hire people (who would probably be willing to work for less as they trained) but their greed and greed-based paranoia simply won't allow it (as well as the fact that they can have the work done in China for slave labor wages... thanks to the job-destroying free trade policies the plutocrats and their stooges love).

  37. Employers do train people dumb ass Canardo. Training today is an ongoing process. But since you obviously haven't a clue, or maybe you've never had a job (a great probability) you can't be blamed for your ignorance.

    1. Lying Lester, I was referring to the 600,000 positions that can't be filled due to a lack of skilled applicants (according to Will). Now you're saying Will is wrong because the employers ARE training the people they need. Why not take this up with Will? If I'm a dumb ass then so is Will (because I agreed with him concerning manufacturers not being willing to spend money to train people). But that probably didn't occur to you because YOU'RE the dumb ass who doesn't have a clue, Lester.

      FYI, I trash canned your second comment due to it's utter stupidity (not that the comment of your's I did publish WASN'T stupid). Cock-a-doodle-do Lying Lester.

  38. LMAO Colonel Canardo Sanders. LMAO!!!

  39. Sing us another song Canardo Colonel Sanders Or should I say chirp another song.

  40. Will Hart [11/2/2013 AT 7:13pm] Dis Incentives... Constantly telling people that the larger society is unjust, that other people are responsible for their dire situation, that they don't have what other folks possess... leads to lowered expectations, learned helplessness... Somehow, someway, we have to convince young disadvantaged black people that they, too, can be pilots and teachers, welders and nurses, computer programmers and realtors...

    Wow. At first it looked like Mr. Hart was just dissing poor people (as he often does), but then he ventures into racist territory. He's done this before too... but still, how disgusting. What is telling Black people they can't be these things are the racist elements within society (which still very much exist) and economic realities. If you're poor it's hard to pay for schooling to train for these professions (or get the grades that would allow you to qualify to train for them).

    But Hart blames Liberalism. The old "learned helplessness" as a result of Democratic programs designed to provide assistance canard. False, insulting, and racist.

    1. On Morons Who Are Completely Oblivious To The Fact That The Shit They Write On Their Blogs Is Indeed Racist...

      The following from Mr. Hart who obviously read the comment I submitted to his blog above (in repsonse to the racism contained within his comment)...

      Will Hart [11/2/2013 AT 8:50pm] On Morons Who Use the Race-Card as Readily as They Breathe... When you only have so many quivers at your disposal.

      I didn't play the "race card"; it was a "reality card" I played, Mr. Hart. You may be oblivious to how racist what you wrote it, but that does not make it not racist. Progressives (who everyone knows you were talking about) are not "constantly telling people that the larger society is unjust" they point out the FACT that it *IS* unjust, due to our rigged economic and justice system that favors the wealthy over the rest of us -- as well as people who are White over people who are Black. That is just a fact, and that you dispute this as well as spread lies about "learned helplessness" *IS* racist.

    2. Another response to my being labeled a "moron" by the blogger Will Hart...

      On Morons Who Use The Bogus "Learned Helplessness" & Bogus "Race Hustler" Cards As Readily As They Breathe...

      When you only have so many quivers at your disposal... I mean, clearly Mr. Hart would never suggest racism and poverty were a factor. That would involve placing the blame where it belongs. Why do that when it is so much easier to blame the victim. Blame the victim and the rest of us don't have to do a thing (expend money or energy to try and address the problem). We also don't have to feel guilty. Hell, we can even get indignant. Unbelievable.

  41. On The Wealthy Worshiping Stooge Who Disrespects The Sage Jerry...

    More wealthy worship from the stooge Will Hart...

    Will Hart [11/2/2013 AT 3:48pm] Milking it Money... The problem with progressives and taxes is that they're seemingly never satisfied. I mean, we just got done raising taxes to the level that they've been clamoring for FOR YEARS... and now, before the ink even becomes dry on it, you have folks like Jerry (who's views I generally respect but not on this) not only asking for another 4.6 percentage points but another 10!.

    In response the blogger Jerry Critter said...

    Jerry Critter [11/2/2013 AT 10:36pm] You are wrong in at least two respects. Progressives have "been clamoring for FOR YEARS" to return to the Clinton rates. They did not. The starting point for the top rate is higher. Two, I would not jump the current top rate by 10%. I would add another two or three levels, say at $1 million, $5million and $10 million with the top rate in the 50 to 55% range.

    My Reply...

    Sage words, Jerry. I whole-heartedly, although I'd make one clarification, which is: Progressives have been calling for getting rid of the bush tax cuts... Obama should have gone at them as his first order of business when he took office instead of waiting for them to expire (which he also did not do; instead extending them). So the "clamoring" has been going on for almost 6 years and it wasn't to raise rates to what they were before the bush tax cuts. Getting rid of the bush tax cuts was *OF COURSE* a STARTING POINT and *OF COURSE* progressives think they should be higher.

    And another dense comment from Mr. Hart...

    Will Hart [11/2/2013 AT 11:43pm] And the assumption here is that individuals are nothing more than carved pieces of wood who don't respond in any way to government action. The higher the tax rates on earnings the less that people will probably want to earn or at the very least they'll put their money into tax exempt instruments.

    The assumption you speak of is the EXACT OPPOSITE! *Of course* one of the purposes of tax policy is to modify behavior. I see nothing wrong with people putting their money into tax exempt instruments... so long as the tax exempt instrument is one that benefits society (i.e. a business owner buying a new piece of equipment to grow their business instead of taking the money as salary). That benefits society, as when the business grows it pumps more money into the economy. If it's a bad tax exempt instrument (that simply allows an individual to hide their money) then we need to pass legislation to get rid of it. BIG duh on this one, Mr. Hart. Raising revenue AND modifying behavior are the two MAJOR purposes of tax policy.

  42. Replies
    1. You didn't reply to any specific comment (or what you wrote would be indented)... that means you agree with EVERYTHING I wrote that is above your comment? Or, (I assume) you're only referring to the comment where I refer to you as "sage"... yes? Anyway, I see that you usually leave Mr. Hart with the last word, which is why he likely thinks well of you (IMO).

      I didn't do that and I think that is a factor that lead to my banning. Now that I look back on what transpired, I think your approach is the one I probably should have followed. Continuing the argument (and never giving up) when the person you are arguing with will never agree only makes that person mad (and I think Will really hates my guts at this point).

    2. I see no reason to go around in circles. I make my point and leave it at that. Let the readers decide for themselves. It is not worth my effort to continually go over the same things. And often, Will's additional remarks are even more goofy than his original ones.

  43. Master Craftsman of Straw Men Churns Out Another Masterpiece...

    A discussion concerning racist Democrats of yore from the blog of Libertarian William Hart...

    Jerry Critter [11/6/2013 AT 10:43pm] Who is contending that the racist Democrats were "strictly" southerners and that they "all" eventually became Republicans? Strictly and all? Is your world really that absolute?

    Will Hart [11/6/2013 AT 11:04pm] Every argument that I've ever encountered has articulated both of these assertions and if you yourself hold a different one, I commend you.

    Jerry Critter [11/7/2013 AT 6:53am] LOL. "Every"?

    Will Hart [11/7/2013 AT 9:19am] What's so funny, Jerry? It's a stock argument; the racist Democrats were the Southern ones (the Dixiecrats) and they eventually became Republicans...

    True, when speaking in generalities. Of course there are numerous exceptions (in the past and in the present... though not so numerous in the present). Nothing is true across the board, and nobody would claim most Democrats would make such a sweeping statement... unless they were selling a straw man. Hint: that is why Jerry laughed, Mr. Hart. Also, Will's world *is* that absolute... or, that is how he views those who disagree with him. They are absolute and Will is among the enlightened few.

    Obliviously Pulling The Race Card "Arrow" From His Quiver...

    Will Hart [11/6/2013 AT 3:47pm] Just correcting the record. And have the progressives really moved on, Jerry? Or have they simply segued into a softer (yet equally virulent) form of bigotry?

    Will is speaking of the "bigotry" of social welfare programs that cause Africa Americans to become dependant... it's an insidious scheme wherein the Democrats cause Black people to become dependant on the government... and due to their "learned helplessness" they have to keep voting Democratic to keep getting free stuff...

    This "theory" is, in my strong opinion, a soft, but extremely virulent form of racism practiced by delusional Right-wingers like Will. And YES, it is incredibly delusional and RACIST... as well as complete bunk. That Mr. Hart buys into this BS is truly stomach churning. And, here he makes a blanket statement concerning Progressives, after he just said (regarding calling others racist) that morons use the race card "as readily as they breathe". He just fricking said that! Here I thought he was talking about me (see above comments @ 11/03/2013 9:59am *AND* 11/04/2013 12:42pm), but I guess he was talking about himself.

    1. A comment made by the blogger Dennis Marks (AKA "dmarks") in regards to Will's post "A Race to the North" (responded to above) about racist Democrats of yore that I have something to say in regards...

      Dennis Marks [11/10/2013 at 8:43 AM] The quotas the Dems support are explicitly racist too. A manifestation of bigotry.

      Actually, the fact that Dennis opposes Affirmative Action programs that seek to level the playing field and give qualified Blacks a leg up is what is explicitly racist. It is a manifestation of his bigotry. I wasn't completely sure about Dennis until he used his legendary twisted logic to support the Southern Strategy. According to Dennis this explicitly racist scheme was actually the Republican response to racism from the Democrats! (unbelievable but true!) This despite the fact that Nixon himself is ON THE RECORD as saying "The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are".

      I suppose you could chalk it up to some serious delusions (denying it is racist when the President who first used it admitted it was), but when you go THIS far out of your way to excuse racism, I think the probability that you are an in-denial racist is quite high.

  44. How Long Will Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal Allow Themselves To Be Abused By & Taken Advantage Of By The Banksters?...

    This is a question I have wondered about (and still wonder about). But not Libertarian blogger Will Hart. He turns it around and blames the victims for their problems...

    Will Hart [11/13/2013 AT 10:55pm] Certainly Not Forever... What would be my answer to the question, "So, how much longer do you think that the Germans are going to be willing to bend over and take it up the poop-shoot by European slacker counties like Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal?

    Wrong. The question is how long are Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal going to be willing to bend over and take it up the poop-shoot from the banksters? You do have the correct answer though. BTW, this post is further proof (as if any more were needed) that Will Hart is on the side of the plutocrats.

  45. On The Pure Stupidity Of The Argument That Some People Might Refuse Raises Because Of The ACA (AKA ObamaCare)...

    Will Hart [11/13/2013 AT 10:55pm] They've created a scenario in which certain people are going to be forced to refuse raises in the future. How can that possibly be good for the economy?

    "They" is the Obama Administration and the scenario is how ObamaCare works. (now for my response)...

    Only an idiot would refuse a raise (and they'd prove they did not deserve one if they did). If they needed to get their income down for tax reasons they could take a deduction for giving to a charity (for example). There are MANY methods to get your taxable income down without resorting to refusing a raise.

    Dennis Marks [11/16/2013 at 2:41am] And a lot of working America will get a huge pay cut as Obamacare forces companies to employ people for less than 30 hours a week instead of 40.

    It does not "force" companies to do this. Companies may do this, but it will be their greed which causes them to do this, not ObamaCare. These companies Dennis says are being "forced" to cut hours simply don't want to pay for health care insurance for their employees but instead stick that money in their pockets. Dennis calls it "force" because, for him, greed is a natural human condition and should be admired.

    Except when it comes to people making minimum wage. If THOSE people ask for a fairer wage Dennis says something like... "McDonalds jobs mean loafing on the restaurant lawn while demanding that McDonalds pay you $8 an hour in welfare money on top of the $8 they pay for your work".

  46. Regarding Liars Who Refer To Single Payer As A Way Of Providing Health Care Insurance That Would Include Death Panels...

    Dennis Marks [11/15/2013 at 6:58am] Rationing is a kind way to re-label the death panels which are a necessary part of single-payer health "care".

    We have rationing RIGHT NOW. Health care is rationed based on how much money people who want it have... but that kind of rationing is just fine with Will and Dennis. As are the very real death panel we also currently have (which kill over 40k people every year)... but those are people Will and Dennis hate. They likely smile when they think of the poor losers who die because of the bad decisions they made (in their minds).

  47. Regarding The Acceptance Of The Plutocrats Stealing From Us By A Delusional Conservative...

    Dennis Marks [11/16/2013 AT 2:54am] ...poverty will go up if the government steals more from the people, and it will go down if the government steals less.

    What a dope Dennis is. Income taxes don't have much of an effect on poor people (although sales and other taxes are a different matter). And Dennis completely ignores the money the plutocrats steal, and the FACT that the government collecting taxes is WE THE PEOPLE taking back a little of that. Taxation is NOT theft as the government is US. We decide how much taxation we want by voting for the people whose views on taxation we agree with. Also, we can't have a government without taxation. So, is Dennis advocating anarchy? Of course not. He'd probably jump for joy if government was abolished and the rule of the land was turned over to billionaires. Dennis would be one of the few happy vassals and would eagerly serve his new feudal lords.

  48. Libertarians Praise "Market-Based" While Not Knowing What "Market Based" Means...

    Just noticed this unbelievably stupid conversation on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog...

    Lester Nation [11/13/2013 AT 2:50am] I suggest smart brokers in government begining asking questions of the Swiss on how their market based universal health care system works, and successfully.

    Will Hart [11/13/2013 AT 5:17pm] "market based universal health care" - I do like the sound of that, Les.

    ObamaCare *IS* market based. If Will "likes the sound of that" WHY does he continually bash ObamaCare? Does Will not know that insurance under the ACA is provided by the so-called "free market"... there is no public option.

    BTW, the Swiss system mandates that the private insurers must operate on a not-for-profit basis. THAT is why it works. And it is also why the Swiss system is NOT "market-based", Lester!!

    Wikipedia: A market economy is an economy in which decisions regarding investment, production and distribution are based on supply and demand, and PRICES OF GOODS and services are determined in a free price system.

    1. Perhaps Lester just doesn't know that the Swiss health care system is not-for-profit? That makes more sense than him not knowing what "free market" means. Either way this is a pretty dumb exchange.

  49. One just has to chuckle at wd. The fucker deserves an academy award. Eh Will.

    You know what assume does right Canardo (the Dervish- Sanders?

    You're dumber than a Lemming marching into the seS Canardo.

    1. I chuckle at Lester's meaningless word salad... as I march into the "seS Canardo"... whatever that is.

    2. Sea Canardo, a typo. A is next to s, keys are small on cell phone, fingers big.

      Chuckle away Canardo.

    3. So, what you're saying is that you're only quilty of making a typo? But I say you're also quilty of following the teachings of Rand off a cliff. Lester says he accepts some but rejects others, but I've never seen him say which he rejects. Certainly not the central tenant of selfishness, er "rational self interest". All Lester can say about that is that I "don't understand it properly".

      FYI, I don't know what the "sea Canardo" is either.

    4. I believe I mentioned Lemmings marching to the sea Canardo. You are a Canardo and a Lemming.

      See now Canardo. Damn your dumb.

    5. You made up the word/name "canardo". There is no such thing.

  50. Regarding The Plentiful Left-Bashing Of A Certain Libertarian Blogger That Does Not Kinda Make Me Wonder...

    Will Hart: [11/17/2013 AT 8:15pm] On Mormonism, Islam, And the Left... While both of these religions are thoroughly bat-shit crazy and in a myriad of ways, it is only Mormonism (the one, ironically, that hasn't been going on a full-bore killing-spree of late) that the progressive community seemingly wants to ridicule, denigrate, and criticize these days. It really kinda makes me wonder here.

    NO religion has "been going on a full-bore killing-spree of late". It is radical elements within Islam, not the religion itself. Is this simply a misstatement or YET ANOTHER example of Will's bigotry?

    However, and some may say this is an example of MY bigotry, but I think Joseph Smith MADE UP Mormonism. It's a fake perversion of Christianity, in my opinion. That said, I wouldn't necessarily "go after" the average Mormon, as I believe in freedom of religion (even religions I consider to be fake). Anyway, what Will refers to (the ridiculing, denigrating, and criticizing) of Mormonism largely happened because Mitt Romney ran for president. Now the only (prominent) criticism I'm aware of is the Mormon Church's spending on efforts to hold back/defeat same-sex marriage laws. In this regard the Left would oppose any institutional religion taking such actions, be they Christian (right), Islam, or Mormonism.

    Also, there is a big difference between criticizing "the church" (the institution representing any religion) and criticizing any individual practitioner. Myself as a Christian have problems with "the Church" representing Christianity and would not shy away from criticizing any denomination.

    And, what about Will's Left-bashing? As someone who does not consider himself to be a member of the Left, criticism from him of it is not unexpected, but this guy SAYS he criticizes both sides... even though his blog contains MUCH more Left bashing than Right criticism. I wonder why (I ask rhetorically).

    1. Blogger Dennis Marks (AKA "dmarks") submits the following response to Will's post about the Left and Mormonism and makes a observation that is total bullshit. My reply to the comment of Dennis follows...

      Dennis Marks [11/18/2013 AT 4:45am] If what you say is true, then it is just another example of the strong racism of the Left.

      Who does Dennis believe the Left is racist against? My guess is that he thinks it is rich White guys. Certainly there is no way he could be referring to minorities. Both African Americans and Hispanics mainly vote Democratic. And let us not forget that Dennis ALWAYS says that a person's vote cannot be questioned... because they know their life better than anyone else and always act in their own interest. But, if Dennis is saying minorities vote Democratic despite the "strong racism of the Left" then he is also questioning their vote... which is very arrogant (according to Dennis HIMSELF).

      For example, when I told Dennis that I thought that people who voted for Romney in the last election were wrong - and predicted that Dennis would call me "arrogant" for saying so, Dennis responded with the following comment...

      Dennis Marks [4/9/2012 AT 7:00am] And an incorrect opinion is still incorrect. As I lack this arrogance, I respect the informed decisions of voters. People who vote for Obama are right and are acting in their interest. As are Ron Paul voters, and Romney voters. No less.

      If the Left possesses "strong racism" as Dennis claims, then would it not be stupid for any minority to vote Democratic? Certainly it cannot possibly be in your interest (if you are a minority) to vote for a party that is based on "strong racism". Obviously Dennis is judging these voters and finding them to be stupid. And, if that isn't "arrogance" I don't know what it. No doubt the lying arrogant hypocrite Dennis would come up with a BS excuse as to why what he said was not arrogant, but it would be just (and only) that -- total bullshit.

  51. Regarding The Plentiful Word Salads Of "Sir Baron Von Quilty" AKA Lester Nation...

    Lester Nation: [11/18/2013 AT 12:45pm] It's as if by acting this way some on the extreme left feel it makes everything somehow fair and equal. Misplaced quilt can be a dangerous thing.

    (Note: This reply by Lester is in response a nonsense post by Will Hart in which he says Mormonism is the one religion "that the progressive community seemingly wants to ridicule, denigrate, and criticize these days"... see my 11/18/2013 AT 11:05am comment above).

    Misplaced "quilt", Lester? No, when it comes to quiltiness, it is Lester (not the "extreme Left") that possesses it in spades.

    Also, in regards to Lester's comment above (11/18/2013 AT 3:34pm) regarding me being a lemming marching into the sea...

    Snopes: Lemming suicide is fiction. Contrary to popular belief, lemmings do not periodically hurl themselves off of cliffs and into the sea.

    Secondly, Lester says "damn your dumb"... and in response to I ask, my dumb what? Maybe Lester meant "you're" as in "you are", but as far as Lester's word salads go - I am going to refrain from guessing what he meant and go with what he actually typed. Perhaps he simply did not finish his sentence and meant to refer to my dumb SOMETHING? But what is that something? I have no idea (not that I care).


    Okay Sherlock Sanders, decipher time. Have fun.

  53. A Disgusting Unbridled Hatred For The Poor On Display On Libertarian Blog... A Virulent Bigotry...

    A discussion bashing Islam gets diverted to another discussion staple on the Will Hart Contra O'Reilly blog... that staple being hating on poor people. The diversion begins with a comment from blog regular Dennis Marks...

    Dennis Marks [11/20/2013 AT 7:56am] Islam (like any religion... or socialism for that matter) has no place in government. It all treads on matters that should be left to the people.

    Socialism is one of the primary reasons government exists! Also, this statement from Dennis shows what an ENORMOUS liar he is. Previously Dennis argued against the minimum wage by saying it was an "unearned handout" and said that, if poor people need assistance the government should do it... now he says get rid of socialism all together and let poor people starve. I knew he hated the poor and was lying before. Now we have the proof... he let his TRUE views slip with this comment.

    Will Hart [11/20/2013 AT 3:55pm] Amen, dmarks (no pun intended)...

    Is Will saying "Amen" to the "no socialism in government" statement by Dennis? Get rid of food stamps, social security, etc? Is what Will saying "amen" to the very real reality of people starving to death what he is applauding? I knew both of these bastards hated poor people, but this goes a bit too far, IMO. Next they will be suggesting we euthanize poor people either so they turn to crime to feed themselves.

    A kinder interpretation of this discussion would be to assume neither of these dullards knows what socialism is and that they wouldn't actually do away with social security, food stamps, etc... but with these guys? Who knows. Will has been going more and more Libertarian as time goes by... and we all know Ayn Rand despised poor people and most middle class folks... everyone that didn't share her "greed as a virtue" worldview, in fact (which is CENTRAL to Libertarianism).

    Or it is central to extreme Libertarianism... the kind that identifies more closely with Objectivism and Rand... which is why Lester Nation sloughing off this criticism by saying I "don't properly understand" "rational self interest" is such nonsense. It is self explanatory... it is a form of bigotry under which the Libertarian believes himself to be morally superior and more deserving of living the good life than almost everyone else. In that respect I think it is the most virulent form of bigotry in existence.

    1. Will Hart [11/10/2013 AT 4:59pm] Health savings accounts, subsidies for the poor, and catastrophic high-deductible insurance plans - that would be my suggestion to fix this sucker (not that anybody's listening, obviously).

      No, nobody is listening to this idiotic idea of health savings accounts! Also, subsidies for the poor would be socialism, DUMMY!! In another thread (see above) Will says "amen" to a suggestion from Dennis that socialism be eliminated from government. I guess this is evidence that Will simply does not understand what socialism is.

  54. Extreme Shortsightedness In The Name Of Greed On Display In This Comment...

    Lester Nation [11/21/2013 AT 12:10am] We can'figure out how to have a decent AND affordable healthcare system for ALL American CITIZENS, but, we sure as Hell can figure out how to spend billions and billions on socialistic endeavors oversees (foreign aid), and the perpetual war machine activity.

    First of all, I don't buy it for one second that Lester is interested in getting health care to all. He's got some qualifiers in there, and what some may find "affordable" isn't affordable to "all". He knows (or should know) that healthcare being "affordable" (a subjective term) wouldn't mean everyone would have access. No doubt he puts those qualifiers in there on purpose... because he really isn't concerned about covering everyone.

    And, if Lester disagrees... then I ask -- how is that in line with the teachings of Ayn Rand? Either you are a Objectivist or you aren't. Lester says he picks and chooses from Rand's teachings, but you can NOT chuck the central tenant and still be a follower of Rand.

    In any case, the shortsightedness I refer to is the fact that foreign aid is an extremely small part of our budget. And it buys goodwill throughout the world. Help people living in poverty and you will dissuade them from taking up arms against us or our allies (or engaging in terrorism). A person isn't going to be convinced to take up arms against an "enemy" that is helping lift his people out of poverty. Foreign aid (non-military) buys goodwill and PREVENTS terrorism. And it is a LOT cheaper than war. We should be INCREASING our foreign aid... although I am strongly opposed to foreign aid that aids the military of foreign governments. But I am quite sure Lester makes no such distinction. He would not have used the term "socialistic endeavors" if he was referring to military aid (I know I would not).

  55. Concerning Conservatives & Libertarians Who May Have Well Have Been Rooting For bin Laden To Escape When We Attacked Afghanistan...

    Conservative/Libertarian/Crazy blogger Dennis Marks brings up a discussion from several years ago, despite him accusing me of "beating a dead horse" for referring to a comment that was a few months ago recently... can you believe the unbelievably hypocrisy of this nut?

    What I'm talking about is the fact that a representative of the Taliban offered to take bin Laden into custody and turn him over to a 3rd country for trial after former prez GWb demaded they surrender him or he'd attack (see here for my post on the topic from 5/13/2011). In regards to this Dennis says...

    Dennis Marks [11/23/2013 AT 7:04pm] ...imagine what kind of nut would have wanted Bin Laden turned over to such a collection of monsters as this... for "justice".

    In response Will Hart says...

    Will Hart [11/23/2013 AT 9:01pm] Yeah, that was definitely a classic.

    And in response to both comments I submitted the following comment (which the cowardly Will Hart will refuse to publish)...

    Dervish Sanders [unpublished comment submitted 11/24/2013 AT 5:30pm] Imagine the kind of nut who would choose to let bin Laden get away instead of accepting an offer to take him into custody. THAT was definitely a classic (as far as nuttiness beyond belief goes). You'd have to wonder if such a person was actually rooting for al Qaeda.

    The "monsters" Dennis refers to is the moderate Islamic organization known as the Organization of the Islamic Conference. He and Hart both say this organization would have let bin Laden go.

    But someone with some actual credentials that say he knows what he is talking about, Gareth Porter (an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy) says he believes the OIC would have found bin Laden guilty of the 9-11 attacks. So... do I go with the uninformed opinion of the Muslim-bashing Hart and Dennis or the informed analysis of Mr. Porter. IMO the answer to this question is incredibly obvious.

    And then there is the fact that the Taliban eventually said they'd turn bin Laden over to a neutral 3rd country for trial (not the OIC). Think if GWb had actually at least considered the offer? We could possibly have got bin Laden without invading and occupying Afghanistan. But these two idiots clearly preferred that OBL got 10 extra years of freedom. Makes me wonder if they cried when OBL was killed on President Obama's watch? What utter dipshits.

    (to be continued...)

    1. (continued from previous comment...)

      Finally, in regards to the hypocrisy of Mr. Marks... he recently said this on the blog of Lester Nation...

      Dennis Marks [11/23/2013 AT 9:27pm EST] El Canardo is not only still riding dead horses (linking to a conversation that died out almost 4 months ago!!!).

      In this comment I am "El Canardo"... Dennis is taking a nickname assigned to me by Lester and running with it. But notice how he thinks it is so ridiculous for me to reference a comment from a few months ago... but he brings up a discussion from more than 2 years ago? And, this isn't the first time he has done this. The notion that we could have got bin Laden 11+ years ago is one that both Dennis and Will Hart ridiculed me for on a number of occasions. Hypocritical dipshit? How can one NOT conclude: ABSOLUTELY.

    2. As Canardo continues to erroneously call me Lester by choice even after being corrected, multiple times. So, he remains Canardo for now.

    3. Did you make up the name "Canardo" first or did I call you by your full name first (Les being short for Lester)? I could look up the comments and the dates, but I think Lester knows the answer.

  56. Choice is entirely yours.

    Les... DS or Dervish Sanders
    Lester... Canardo

    Choice is up to you.

    1. Ha ha ha ha ha... that's hilarious. You're trying to spin your stupid "Canardo" nickname as a RESPONSE to me calling you by your full name? Come on, Lester, we both know you started calling me "Canardo" first. As for your obvious dislike of the name "Lester", isn't that something you should be blaming your parents for?

  57. As you wish.

    I would blame them. However I am unable to as they did not name me Lester.


    1. Maybe "Les" is short for "Leslie"? I could refer to you by that name instead.

  58. Whatever pleases your fancy . NFO.

  59. You are commenting on MY BLOG and you're telling me to "FO"?

  60. Concerning A Judgmental Dick & His Love Of Judging Others By Making Up Shit About A Person's Life When He Does Not Know Hardly Anything...

    Will Hart [11/28/2013 AT 3:53pm] A Tale of Two Chickies... There were these two women who I used to work with from another nursing home and the contrast between the two is interesting. First off, their situations were actually identical in that they were both high-school educated, divorced with two children, and worked as CNAs. But, while the older of them worked 44 hours a week (four hours of OT) every week in an effort to not have to be reliant on assistance, the other woman worked 32 hours a week every week in an effort to MAXIMIZE HER entitlements.... Gee, guess which one of these two individuals who I more admired...

    First of all "a tale of two chickies"? Sounds sexist to me.

    Secondly, I have it on good authority that the second woman wrote a commentary for her blog called "A Tale Of Two Jackasses" about Will Hart and another dude. In it she criticizes the judgmental and holier-than-thou Mr. Hart... especially given the fact that the Hartster doesn't know all the personal details of her life... including circumstances that may very well prohibit her from working overtime. But not knowing anyone's personal details does not stop the Hartster from judging... things he does not know he just makes up!

    I could be wrong and Mr. Hart could very well know all when it comes to these two women. Perhaps they both like to talk about the personal details of their lives and have everyone know their business... but for some reason I doubt it. Could be that I have first hand experience when it comes to Mr. Hart filling in the details when it comes to the lives of people he decides he does not like.

  61. Did the pot just call the kettle black?

    1. No. I'm nowhere near as judgmental as Mr. Hart. Or Mr. Nation, for that matter.

  62. The result of a far too open mind rather than an active questioning and inquisitive mind Mr. Sanders.

    Oops. Was that judgemental? Waiting for Mr. Sander's "non judgemental" reply.

    1. Your comment includes a judgement based on an incorrect assumption. That would be that I do not possess an active questioning and inquisitive mind. For the record, due to my inquisitiveness, I examined Objectivism, questioned it, and found it to be psychopathic in nature. Once I discovered that my mind closed to the possibility of me adopting it. I judge after having the facts, unlike some.

  63. With all due respect Mr. Sanders I question the degree or depth you examined Objectivism. But I really am frankly not concerned, any more than you are concerned to what degree or depth I examined socialism, communism, or facism before determining they are psychopathic and closed my mind to them. I judged after having the facts, unlike some.

    1. With all due respect you judged incorrectly... and didn't examine very closely. Apparently you've never heard of Ayn Rand's Superman, AKA William Edward Hickman?

  64. I judge based on the book Objectivism, as well as other non fiction writings. I'm familiar with her remarks with respect to Hickman. Nothing in her philosophy (writings) indicated that posistion.

    An obvious flaw. It however does not negate the value of everything she put forth in her philosophy.

  65. As you chose to not publish my response to your prior inaccurate assumptions I can only conclude you have accepted defeat Mr. Sanders.

  66. I just didn't get around to it. What you describe "admitting to defeat by refusing to publish" is what you do to me when I comment on your blog. Also, I didn't make any inaccurate assumptions, I only gave my thoughts on Ayn Rand and Objectivism... it is a psychopathic rationalization for greed. My opinion remains the same. I do not accept "defeat".

  67. A you wish. Call it a stalemate if you if that be your preference.

    My position on the issue stands.

  68. Will Hart [12/9/2013 8:39pm] The performance of the American economy during World War 2 is proof-positive that the Keynesian multiplier effect is absolute rubbish. The U.S government spent massive amounts of money and, while, yes, the total GDP of the country did go up, the private sector component of it actually WENT DOWN. And this whole notion that it was the war that got us out of the Depression is also a load of bullshit. The American economy was a veritable mess during the war (lots of guns and very little butter) and all of the available data substantiates this fact; production of durable goods - DOWN, consumption - DOWN, investment spending - DOWN, rationing - UP...

    I was going to laugh, as everyone with a functioning brain knows that during WWII resources that would have gone to consumer goods and foodstuffs were diverted to the war effort (which is why there was rationing). This argument that Will says the Keynesian make about WWII and Keynesianism isn't an argument they've ever made. I think this is evidence that Will Hart is getting dumber by the day. Seriously, I think the guy might be suffering from Alzheimer's or something (therefore I will not laugh).

    There most certainly IS a multiplier effect when the government spends money domestically to stimulate the economy in times of economic downturn. Employment did go up during WWII, so that had some effect, but most of the money spend went to the war effort and therefore it was IMPOSSIBLE for this spending to have any effect on the economy. As for WWII getting us out of the great depression... some do say this, but they are wrong -- and are mostly Conservatives who don't want to give any credit to FDR. The truth is that we were on our way to recovery and we would have come out of the Great Depression without the war spending.

    Maybe Will joined a Libertarian cult and was brainwashed. Whatever happened my memory says this guy used to be at least a little smarter.

  69. Regarding a Comment By Mr. RN In Which He Worries About The Pope Speaking Against Greed & A Reply By Mr. Marks In Which He Makes It Clear He Has No Clue What The Pope Is Talking About...

    RN [12/15/2013 at 8:04pm] It is clear Pope Francis is pitching the philosophy. As his anti capitalist pro socialist/progressive collectivist statements have shown.

    Dennis Marks [12/16/2013 at 4:52am] And to address your point on the Pope... he will be OK as long as he is directing his economic comments at individuals and how they control their own resources and decisions.

    RN [12/16/2013 at 8:29pm] My major point and I find it just a bit unsettling.

    RN is correct (from his perspective) to be "unsettled", because God with judge the NATIONS, not the INDIVIDUALS...

    Joel 3:2
    I will gather all the NATIONS and bring them to the Valley of Judgment.

    Of course an individual who subscribes to greed as a virtue finds what the pope has been saying "unsettling". I find it refreshing. But at least RN is consistent in that he subscribes to a philosophy based on greed and does not consider himself a Christian (or a believer of any kind), so I give him kudos for that. But Dennis, I believe, has indicated he is a Christian, yet he attempts to shoehorn the statements by the Pope into his philosophy of greed... saying it is OK what the Pope said, so long as he was only talking to individuals (Dennis being for "individual liberty" and personal choice)... BUT, he wasn't Dennis (talking only to individuals). RN is correct when he responds by saying that the intent of the Pope "is to influence government and the power it wields as well as the individual with his moral judgement".

    RN sees that as a bad thing, however. I see it as a good thing... and Dennis doesn't know WTF he's talking about... as usual.

  70. Dennis Lies About Clinton Versus Bush II Enron Connections...

    On the subject of crony capitalism, Dennis asserts that an example of where Democrats were worse is Enron...

    Dennis Marks [12/20/2013 at 4:43am] Look at the Enron scandal. It unfolded and flourished under Clinton. Enron gave Bush a lot of campaign donations... but Bush let Enron and Ken Lay take their consequences. Unlike under Clinton, the campaign donations got Enron a smile and a "Kenny Boy", but that's all. No helping hand.

    Not true, Dennis. In a 2001 article Molly Ivans wrote that "Enron's connections with bush go way back". According to the article, "Lawrence B. Lindsay, Bush's top economic adviser, got $50,000 from Enron in 2000 for consulting, presumably giving the company the same excellent advice now proving so healthy for the nation's economy" and "Lay was the only energy executive to meet alone with Vice President Dick Cheney while Cheney was drawing up a new national energy policy in secret". Furthermore, "Enron influenced public policy time and again while Bush was governor in Texas. Enron was a major player during the utilities deregulation debate, for which Bush lobbied actively, and in tort reform, making it harder to sue corporations for the damage they do".

    No influence, huh, Dennis? That last one is a doosey... in that Enron asked for deregulation and bush (as governor of TX) gave his buddy "Kenny Boy" a HELPING HAND.

    Also, Snopes has debunked this as well. Snopes says, "Democrats and the Clinton administration received more campaign contributions from Enron and were MORE ACCOMMODATING of Enron's lobbying efforts than Republicans and the Bush administration".

    Snopes says this is FALSE. The Democrats and the Clinton Administration were NOT "more accommodating"... the bush administration was... As pointed out by Snopes, "since 1989, the Houston-based energy broker and its employees have made more than $5.7 million in contributions to federal candidates and political parties, nearly three-quarters of it to Republicans. Enron was George W. Bush's biggest contributor in the 2000 presidential campaign".

    And these contributions bought influence (not just a smile and a "Kenny Boy"). The influence was that Enron had a seat at the table of VP Cheney's "planning of Bush administration energy policy... [Snopes reports that] the corporation's access to the administration at its highest levels apparently continued well after Bill Clinton left the White House".

    That isn't to say that the Clinton Administration gave no "helping hand" to Enron, but that the claim of Dennis that Enron got nothing in return for it's "contributions"? Patently false. They gave MORE and got MORE.

  71. Will "Straw Man" Hart Again Crying About The Wealthy Paying Too Much Taxes & Making His Case With Yet Another Straw Man...

    Will Hart [12/23/2013 at 7:53pm] Using this progressive argument which states that the allowance for private citizens to keep more of their own private property causes not just economic downturns but long and virulent downturns...

    The Progressives make no such argument. Another straw man from Will "straw man" Hart. Apparently you never tire of them.

    People were not that rich in the early days of our country... there were no (inflation adjusted) billionaires. The federal income tax was instituted in 1862. Investopedia says "John D. Rockefeller is held to be the world's first official billionaire, achieving that status in 1916".

    It is the existence of the uberwealthy that contributes to economic downturns, not the totally false argument you straw maned into the mouths of Progressives.

    Also, the government was funded by tariffs, which both you and Dennis oppose.

  72. Greed Held Up As A Virture By Ayn Rand Admiring Libertarians Necessitates Death...

    On 12/22/2013 Will "Straw Man" Hart argued against the statistic that says 45k people die each year due to a lack of health insurance. He doesn't buy it. I'm guessing that the reason is that; if so many people were dying we should really try to do something about it (like taxing the rich to pay for a national single payer health care system).

    Anyway, in response the sage Jerry asked "So, how many should die?". Indeed, Jerry. Excellent question. How many people SHOULD die in the name of greed?

    What I'd like to respond to here (with this comment) is the following reply from Mr. Hart...

    Will Hart [12/23/2013 at 2:28pm] We don't want anybody to die who doesn't have to, Jerry.

    "Doesn't have to" being the operative phrase here, I'm guessing. Getting sick while poor can be be terminal... clearly those people HAVE to die in order for the greed people like Will hold up as a virtue to flourish.

  73. Racist Nutjob Boob Directs Insult At Me On Blog I Am Banned From Commenting On...

    The following idiocy from Dennis is clearly directed at me. The moron clearly can't figure it out, but the reason I keep bothering him is because he refuses to stop lying about me on the blog of Will Hart. Or taking digs at me... without mentioning my name, but I know he is talking about me with the following comment...

    Dennis Marks [12/24/2013 at 6:56pm] I find an even better equivalent of the "birther" kooks in those who think Bush didn't win the election in 2000. Both of the groups are at heart clueless boobs who can't cope with it when Constitutional democracy doesn't go their way, so they try and fabricate any excuse to disrespect the man who won.

    Now, as for the leftist wingnuts who think "President Bush was responsible..." for 9/11, there is a matching/similar group on the Right also. You see their rantings all the time, claims that Obama is a Muslim and that he serves the Caliphate and terrorists instead of the American people.

    I go with the facts... and they say Al Gore won. As for 9-11, I do not believe there was any direct involvement by the doofus administration... except to look the other way. Al Franken calls it "operation ignore" in his excellent book (which I own a copy of).

    Dennis is a racist boob... what other kind of nutjob would ignore that Nixon said the purpose of the Southern Strategy was to get racist Whites voting Republican... and actually defend it as the Republican's answer to racism from the Democrats? Pure idiocy.

  74. Nutjob Proposes Test To "Enter Society" That He Would Fail...

    Dennis Marks [12/29/2013 at 4:51am] Since there is a lot of nuttery going around, and it often comes up. What do you think of the idea of flunking any student who thinks... Keeps most all the crazies down, doesn't it, Will? Simple litmus test of qualifications to enter society.

    1) That there is any controversy that evolution is a fact.

    2) That there is no scientific debate over global warming/climate change.

    3) That Bush didn't win the election in 2000.

    4) That Obama isn't a born US citizen.

    Sure, Dennis, but your test is flawed. I'd go along with it if instead of flunking any student who disagrees with your statements, they should be flunked if they give any wrong answers. In regards to that, the correct answers to your questions are as follows...

    1. Evolution is a theory, although one accepted by thinking people.

    2. The only "scientific debate" that exist around global climate change comes from a small (usually Big Oil-Funded) minority. The consensus is that global climate change is a reality and should be treated as such.

    3. bush lost the election in 2000 due to chicanery that involved the FL state government wrongfully disenfranchising Black voters. Although, despite this, Gore still won. A statewide recount would have shown he was the clear winner. Granted, that is not what he asked for, but that does not negate the fact that more FL citizens voted for Gore than voted for bush.

    4. Obama was born a US citizen. The debate is in regards to whether or not he was "natural born". Some say both parents must be US citizens for their child to be "natural born" (and Obama's father was not), but the Constitution does not define "natural born". Suffice to say the issue has been decided by the fact that Obama ran for the office and most certainly will serve two full terms.

    The final tally for Dennis would be 2 wrong (2 and 3) and partial credit on the other 2 (1 and 4)... which means that Dennis flunks. I would also add another question, which would be...

    5. Was the "Southern Strategy" employed by Richard Nixon explicitly racist, in that Nixon himself said the purpose of it was to get racist Whites voting Republican, or was it the Republican answer to racism from the Democrats?

    As everyone knows, the correct answer is that the "Southern Strategy" was explicity racist and was employed to win the votes of racist Whites. Dennis, unbelievably as it may seem, actually argues the latter... he REALLY thinks the "Southern Strategy" was anti-racist! Really. And for that he should (if such a test were in effect) be barred from entering society. With this argument he strongly identifies himself as one of the crazies.

    1. A true anti-racist (and anti-bigoted) strategy would be truly color blind, gender blind, sex orientation blind, handicap blind, or any other "qualifier" blind one can think of.

      Good luck with that . First existing (and future) biases will have to be eradicated. Likely will need an eternity for that to happen. The pursuit is a noble one however.

      You can't legislate ethics or morality. You can pass laws that force people to comply with generally accepted societal standards of conduct or pay the consequence for failing to do so.

  75. Brainwashed Libertarian Touts The Myth Of Hong Kong Economic Success...

    Will Hart [12/30/2013 at 9:47pm] the jurisdiction of Hong Kong ... in the years and decades after WW2 ... went almost immediately to a free market capitalistic approach. ...that's right, folks... Hong Kong quickly became one of the fastest growing economies in the history of human civilization.

    Yes, Will, the wealthy did very well in Hong Kong. Everyone else, not so much. An 8/2/2012 article from the Asia Time Online says "...if you are labor, chances are in most cases you can only aspire to some sort of glorified slavery". What the "success" of HK shows is how well a minority can do if neo-feudal economics is adopted and the lower classes toil to enrich those at the top. And YES, everyone knows Will wants that for the United States. Luckily very few Americans agree with him.

  76. The problem is really one of excess labor. Mechanization, computers, robots, technology, etc. has its downside. Fewer people required to create more stuff.

    Imagine where society will be when the need for labor is decreased even further.

  77. Liberalization Apparently Not What It Used To Be, Or Just Another Straw Man From A Distorter Of Facts Who Traffics In Them...

    Will Hart [12/31/2013 at 8:42pm] This is the Indian economy, folks *graph showing the Indian economy growing*. For the first 43 years of its existence it was tightly managed by government. You see what happened? And do you see what happened when they finally liberalized the sucker? Yeah, huh?

    The Libertarian Hart believes this is proof that breaking down regulations and eliminating tariffs is key to economic success. And he posts on this subject because he thinks Progressives oppose "liberalization" and support "strong government controls". But this is just another straw man from Will "straw man" Hart. Progressives believe strongly that the private sector is key to a healthy economy. Although we do know that smart regulations and tariffs are NEEDED to protect workers (the 99+ percent that actually drive the economy) and the environment. Will favors "liberalization" because it allow the plutocrats to run roughshod over both (workers and the environment). A regulatory system that works well, isn't corrupt and protects workers and the environment should be our primary concern (not liberalization). Although "liberalization" certainly is not a bad thing (not at all). But the two need to be balanced (regulations and "liberalization").

    In any case, the Indian economy was not "liberalized". A story from Live Mint (India's second largest business newspaper) reports that "Laura Alfaro of Harvard Business School and Anusha Chari of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill [examined the data and found] an economy still dominated by the incumbents, state-owned firms, and to a lesser extent, the traditional private firms, that is, those firms that existed before the first wave of reforms. [The] evidence [shows] continuing incumbent control in terms of shares of assets, sales and profits accounted for by state-owned and traditional private firms".

    State control, crony capitalism, and corruption still are VERY much a part of the picture, in other words (all opposed by Progressives, BTW).

  78. Racism Alive & Well In The Heart Of Liar Who "Oddly" Seems Exclusively Concerned With "Racism" Perpetrated By Non-Whites...

    This entry in the "Response Page" concerns remarks by one Dennis Marks in regards to a post by Mr. Will Hart concerning the flap over remarks made on MSNBC's Melissa Harris Perry show concerning a Christmas photo of Mitt Romney with an adopted Black grandchild on his knee...

    Dennis Marks [1/1/2014 at 8:49am] ...Toure was a famous example, when he, on MSNBC, railed against black men as typically being sexual predators ... There are other examples also. ... As for Ms. Harris-Perry... she has a lot in common with the KKK, who, like her, would scream bloody murder over this ... racism is alive and well in the American Left.

    Dennis AGAIN complaining about "racism" against White people, and "racism" from a Black man supposedly (and TOTALLY unbelievably) criticizing another Black man for being Black! Gee, what a surprise... NOT! From peddling lies regarding a Black man implying a Black man is a rapist to lying about a Black woman "bashing" multiracial families, racism is alive and well in the heart of Dennis.

    MHP never said she opposed adoption of Black children by White families... in fact she said she supported it (in a later statement). The initial observation was only a casual observation regarding the picture of a large number of White people and Mitt with one Black baby on a knee. Perhaps ill advised, but completely innocent.

    And your laughable lies about Toure are utterly ridiculous... but what else could one expect from an individual SO focused on one aspect of "racism" (offending the White sensibilities of Dennis) ONLY. Also offensive to Dennis is any suggestion that the racism of the past could possibly have any impact on society today.

    Here Dennis complains about those who point to the institution of slavery and make the observation that the African American population of today might be at a disadvantage because of it (even though they did not experience it themselves), by quoting author Dean Koontz, who said (apparently) "Those who wish to punish the current and future generations for the inequities of a generation long gone, and who equate justice with revenge, are the most dangerous people in the world".

    First of all, who said anything about "revenge"? Nobody/that is a lie. Secondly, racism exists today and slavery sure as hell is a contributing factor (at the very least) as to the WHY. To deny this is itself racist. And that is not the only proof that Dennis harbors strong racial resentments... here, again, the fellow dismisses a very real phenomenon (one which is a DIRECT result of slavery/racism), and that is White privilege. Concerning White privilege, Dennis says it is "a purely racist concept".

    Baloney, Dennis. Denying White privilege exists is what is racist, not the concept/reality of it! For all these reasons I MUST conclude that Dennis harbors some SERIOUS racial resentments and prejudices. And, given the FACT that "discrimination" against Whites and "racism" coming from non-whites (and directed at Whites) is clearly the primary (or only) focus of this individual, I fail to see how anyone could possibly disagree with me.

  79. On having an reaction of "I've never heard anything so idiotic in my life" when someone cites a politician as one of their heroes...

    Will Hart [1/8/2014 at 10:33pm] On Having Politicians for Heroes... I've never heard anything so idiotic in my life.

    I've never heard anything so idiotic in MY life... politicians make important decisions that can seriously impact people's lives. If there are a few who can be viewed as exemplary, then I see nothing AT ALL wrong with considering them to be heroes. But a jackass Libertarian who hates all (or nearly all) politicians... yeah, I can see why such an a-hole would be condescending toward such a person. Not that I'd give a shit what such a person thought, mind you. Especially coming from someone who considers Barry Manilow to be one of their heroes.

    This post by Mr. Hart, BTW, was in response to me submitting a comment to his blog in which I said Alan Grayson was one of my heroes... In reply to some disparraging comments Rusty made with which Will agreed by comparing Rep. Grayson to Louie Gohmert of all people... calling them both "crazy, malicious, and totally divisive", which is true in regards to Ghomert, but not at all to Grayson. "Divisive" is the only term I could understand someone mistakenly using... but I'd say that what appears as divisiveness is only Rep. Grayson's reaction to divisiveness from the other side. I mean, why the hell should he be trying to get along with folks who have made it clear that they aren't going to try and get along with you? What is the freaking point? Better to point out THEIR divisiveness, I say.

    When Republicans act like ghomerts, I applaud any Democrat who will stand up and tell it like it is... this is one of the primary reasons I admire Rep. Grayson and called him a hero of mine. Also because I suspected such a comment would get a reaction from Will.

  80. Christ Mr. Sanders, for one who doesn't give a shit you sure as hell went to great length to display your not giving a shit..

  81. May I makea suggestion?

    As this scroll is getting exceedingly lengthy why not start a page two with comment 101, page three with comment 201 and so on? I mean if you're going to continue with chronicling your fascination with Contra O'Reilly and Will.

    You know, make it more user friendly and and all.

    1. Suggest away, RN. However, Blogger only allows a set number of pages, so I'd run out if I did it that way. Also, "fascination" is your word, and not one I agree with. Is RN fascinated with me and my blog? This is, after all, not a page that is read by many (just me and you, apparently).

  82. I sure as hell wouldn't call it fascination. More like curiosity.

  83. Hypocrisy & Lies Regarding The So-Called "Free Market", So-Called "Free Trade" & Supposed "Anti-Production"...

    Will Hart [1/26/2014 at 3:59pm] Yes, I DO think that the American electorate is quite stupid and quite irrational in that they have consistently shown an anti-market/pro-government bias, an anti-free-trade/pro-protectionism bias, and a anti-production/pro-make-work bias. Economists don't agree on much but they do agree that protectionism is lethal and that it has never brought prosperity.

    All good biases to have. If this is indeed true then I say there is hope. Also, economists do NOT agree. More economists disagree on free trade than on scientists disagree in regards to global warming. Yet Will trots out the small minority of (largely bought off) scientists who are skeptical when it comes to global warming and believes it shows there is dissent.

    On the subject of free trade a majority proves his point, but on the subject of global warming a majority means nothing. Will's hypocrisy in action, folks.

    FYI, when I said all the "biases" Will lists are good biases to have, I meant all those except "anti-production". I have no idea what Will is talking about with his comment about the "American electorate" being "anti-production". Sounds like idiotic gibberish to me. Manufacturing products people need is good and I know of no bias the American electorate has against it... unless the manufacturers are polluting, making an inferior product, off-shoring labor, or underpaying workers.

  84. Suspisions and rivers run deep. With whom rests the greatest responsibilty to understand?

  85. Dennis Marks [2/12/2014 at 7:12pm] Mr. O'Reilly makes me lean all the more toward legalization (of marijuana). Thanks Bill!

    Dennis is being HIGHLY disingenuous (frankly, I believe this is just more ass kissing). We all remember he wanted to lock up Trayvon Martin even though he had no convictions at all. Dennis is ON THE RECORD as advocating for locking someone up just for using pot and branding them a felon! Presumably that means stopping people on the street and, not only going through their pockets, but drug testing them on the spot. Obviously this is POLICE STATE shit, but it is what Dennis wants... or perhaps he just wants it for young Black males wearing hoodies (so-called "gang attire")?

  86. Coming from you Mr. Sanders, one of the biggest of the progressive ass kisses, this comment as well as your most recent post is really rich.

    Carry on...

  87. Life in the United States, or the "Kland", According to a Bigot Named Rusty...

    Rusty Schmuckelford [2/23/2014 at 2:00am] I fear in 2016 we will elect a 69 year old women....only because she is a woman and her name is Clinton... not because she has done wonderful things... in fact she really hasn't accomplished bupkis. But we will elect her to make ourselves feel better.....and we will feel vindicated because back to back we elected a black guy and a woman to the highest office in the kland... all our guilt will be gone.

    So, Rusty thinks Obama was elected only because he is Black... no surprise then that he calls our country the "kland". Wishful thinking, I'm guessing.

    As for his remarks about Mrs. Clinton... surely it is misogyny to suggest that being elected a Senator and serving as Secretary of State is "bupkis".

  88. ChuckleNutz, aka Shackleford is both a bigoted schmuck and a misogynistic jerk. Or maybe it is just an act. But really, at this point what difference does it make?


Comment moderation is not currently in effect. Your comment will appear immediately. I do not, however, allow Anonymous comments. Anyone wishing to comment MUST have a Blogger account.