On Willis Hart Being FAR Superior To You

It is because I am not a surface thinker.

The old proprietor of this blog authored a commentary in which he claimed that he was a superior specimen. An elite member of the Higher Ordered Persons Society. While this was a statement I agreed with at the time, as of late it seems that the Jersey persona has taken complete control here. Sadly.

Let me explain... Previously I said that I thought there was something kinda fishy about this fellow. It's almost as if he's a little TOO textbook, I said. My suspicion was that he's probably somebody's alter-ego/sock-puppet. Now, not only do I stand by this suspicion, but I am convinced that Jersey McJones is Les Carpenter's sock puppet. I refer to the Les Carpenter of the blog rational nAtion uSA, the former proprietor of this blog. The dude who used the alias "Lord Lying Lester" when he authored commentaries for this site (or "sight", as Les might say).

Anyway, as it turns out, Les is just another surface thinker. This is a truth I have reluctantly been forced to acknowledge. The forcing coming after I, in a discussion concerning an inflammatory episode that we should not give so much credence to... Because it was one isolated (albeit admittedly revolting, although understandable) incident from which no greater conclusions should be drawn (in research we call it an anecdote).

I refer to the murder of some Black church goers in South Carolina recently. So what, I asked? Then I pointed to the stats that prove African Americans are violent animals that need to be watched very carefully... And that this watching should take the form of aggressive racial profiling. A nationwide stop-and-frisk on steroids, if you will. This is the only way to deter the hyper-violence of the black thugs perpetrated on innocent White citizens.

Of course I was attacked by the pompous blowhard Octopus, a low-ball jammer that never ventures from liberal echo chambers where the minions view him as some sort of sage, who stated that racial profiling is the same as racism.

Basically Octopus was arguing that "if you don't agree with me you're a racist", which would comical (granted, in a puerile manner) if it wasn't so rank, dangerous and despicable. I mean, you've got these demagogues like Shaw and Octopus who are just so incredibly limited when it comes to understanding even basic research going around crying foul when they don't even know what they're talking about. I say that when it gets to this level of depravity the saner elements of society have to call these idiots out.

The saner WHITE elements that realize how incredibly violent and criminally-inclined the Blacks are. Does this view make me a racist? Yes, it absolutely does! But for that I make no apologies. In fact, while I may be a racist, it is not because I hate black people, but because I realize Whites are much less violent. That is just a fact... so I like to think of myself as a "good racist". That is, someone who (with no hate), simply acknowledges the facts that prove Whites are less violent (and therefore more advanced, or "superior", if you will).

But I am certainly no Dlyann Roof, who is an anomaly, as I already pointed out. I mean, we must remember that the vast number of racial crimes in this country are black on white and that this whole idiotic narrative that blacks are constantly being hunted down by thousands of bloodthirsty racist whites is bullshit.

As well as a strawman I am quite proud of. THOUSANDS of bloodthirsty racist whites are HUNTING DOWN black people CONSTANTLY? Yeah, that is the sanctimonious leftist narrative (or that is my strawman version of what they argue). What they actually are saying is that racism is still very much a problem, and that these police killings and the Dylann Roof incident are but the worst examples of what this continuing problem with racism has yielded.

But I reject that rational argument (and replace it with my strawman). Why? Because the real argument plays against my narrative. A narrative that says blacks are inherently violent and more criminally inclined than Whites. And that recognizing this "fact" makes me a "good racist" and not a bad one (the bad ones being very rare).

In any case, these attacks from the likes of Octopus and Shaw were not unexpected. What was somewhat unexpected was that an individual who I considered a friend, Les Carpenter, joined in the attacking, saying (in regards to myself) "Of late he has drifted into more hard core fringe views". Acknowledging the truth is NOT "hardcore fringe", Les... Or should I say Jersey. Yes, this is another example of Les utilizing the Jersey persona, which he has been doing more and more of - without signing into the Jersey account.

Anyway - long story short - this is why I, Willis Hart, am truly a higher ordered person. While people like Octopus and Shaw are clearly lower ordered. And Les is, sadly, on the path to lower orderedness. So it is a good thing that I kicked him off this blog. He went back to lying on rAtional nAtion, which is what he does best. Although I think he should really stop lying about me.

Which is a noble tactic to use when it comes to the enemies of the truth as I see it. These enemies include loathsome individuals like Octopus, Shaw and even wd (a total creep who had the balls to think he could friend me on Facebook!).

This is part of the reason I am a superior person... I am one of the thin red threads between Radical Redneck (a racially insensitive buffoon and one of the bad racists) and Octopus (a hardcore racial demagogue). Demagogue? Perhaps I'm using that word incorrectly, as a demagogue is "a person... who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people"... And I'M the one being prejudiced. So I guess I'm the demagogue!

Still, I'm super pissed at Octopus. And one of the thin red threads between the bad racists and surface thinkers like Octopus who preach that the races are equal (when one race is provably more violent than the other). A "thin red thread" being a good racist and deep thinker such as myself. Which makes me, Willis Hart, FAR superior to most people. Sure, some people may call me arrogant for making such a statement, but I can survive in that space. You might even say that I embrace it (being superior, that is).

Byline: This superior commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of good racism. LLIN-170.

Northerners, Who Did Not Own Slaves, More Responsible For Slavery Than Southerners Who Did Own Slaves

In regards to those Southerners who owned slaves and lived large in plantation mansions while the Black folks toiled for no pay and got whipped, raped and murdered for their troubles? This situation was entirely the fault of Northern a-holes! Let's put it this way, folks. Those rich northern bankers and industrialists probably got a wee bit more out of it than the poor white trash from the Allegheny and Blue Ridge Mountains did.

What more proof do you need that the Left's narrative is complete bullshit? Northern emancipation certainly didn't free all the slaves in that a great many northern slave owners (in a ploy to protect their investment) simply sent their slaves south to be sold/auctioned off.

Yet the Leftists and their narrative of blaming the South for simply wanting to escape the thievery of high tariffs imposed upon it by the North... blame that has the South as "evil". It's disgusting, especially given the fact that Northerners basically forced Southerners to accept slavery in order to enrich themselves!

Of course, what is probably the most diabolical element of all here is the fact that a great many of these same northern states immediately instituted "black codes" which would have made it next to impossible for blacks (on the contingency that southern slaves were ever emancipated) to reside there... although THAT I understand, given the fact that Blacks are prone to criminality.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, there were 320,082 episodes of black on white violence in America in 2010 but only 62,593 episodes of white on black violence. This is a 5:1 ratio and when you factor in the population differential you end up with the fact that a black person is 25 times more likely to attack a white person than the other way around.

I mean, I know that this probably a revelation to those of you (and I'm not naming names like Elia Kazan) who strictly get your news from the Huffington Post, MSNBC, liberal talk-radio, Media Matters, etc. but if you really and truly want to get to the heart of racial violence in the U.S. you have to go to the aggregates and not give so much credence to these highly publicized and inflammatory episodes.

Inflammatory episodes like this Dylann Roof fellow shooting up a Black church. It boggles my mind why people are making such a big deal out of this when the Black criminals get a free pass! Will the lies from the Left demonizing the South never stop? Answer... no.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of defending the honor of the South and placing the blame for slavery with the North (where it belongs) and pointing out Blacks are more prone to criminality than Whites. LLIN-169.

On the Hard Left's Theoretical Answer to The Income Inequality "Problem"

I'm not entirely convinced this is a real problem.

Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. (Income inequality in the United States... excerpt from Wikipedia).

(Note: Ignore the struck out portion, as it is inconvenient to my argument).

OK, so the Hard Left's answer to this "problem" is taking money from the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor? But that (at least theoretically) wouldn't alter anything one iota in that a) the income statistics are almost always displayed on a pre-tax basis and b) transfer payments likewise are rarely included.

So theoretically we could transfer ALL the money of wealthy people to the poor... and the poor would still be poor, but the rich would also be poor. Theoretically this sounds like a very bad "solution" to the income inequality "problem", no?

In any case, I'm just not sensing that these rich folks are screwing the rest of us (especially considering the fact that they probably had to go to college for 6 to 8 years, accrued some massive debt, and spent another decade plus building up a practice). Think about it... how much of the total wealth of our nation do the 1 percenters deserve? 50%? 80%? Every cent of it?

No, not every cent, as the result of that would be mass starvation and death. But what if the combined wealth of the richest 1 percent was more that of the other 99 percent of people combined? 1 percent owned 99 percent and 99 percent owned 1 percent, in other words?

Sounds fair to me. And that is what the state of affairs will be by next year (2016), according to this article I just Googled.

Why would anyone disagree with me on this? Please, enlighten me here.

Byline: This theoretical commentary was authored by a theoretical Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of thinking theoretically and wealthy worship. LLIN-168.

On Willis Hart Being Addicted To Getting High Huffing Cato Farts

It is the absolute truth that I haven't smoked pot in 30 years, but that doesn't mean I still don't like getting wasted out of my gourd. Nowadays I like to get high huffing Cato farts.

Because I consider myself more of a Cato problem solving/policy oriented libertarian than I do a Mises or Rand Institute (while, yes, I have a great amount of respect for people like Yaron Brook and Robert Murphy, I generally prefer the art of the possible to that of the theoretical world) libertarian.

Previously I said what wd fails to realize is that in a true free market economy, guys like Cheney, Gore, Immelt, Lay, Raines, etc would actually have to compete for our business and market share. As the thing stands now, big business and big government are totally in bed together.

From my perspective, the only fool-proof way is to significantly reduce the size of government in that it really doesn't matter who's in charge, corruption is bound to happen. I mean, do you seriously think that corporate America hasn't done swimmingly under Obama; the stimulus (which was a veritable grab-bag for big companies), the bank and car bailouts, the health-care plan, the "green" energy agenda?

Although what I fail to realize is that by reducing the size of government you're disempowering the people (as in "we the people") and empowering the plutocrats. But I'm such a blind stooge that I discount that reality. And I also discount the fact that crony capitalism could be controlled if we cut off the bribe money. By which I mean we make it impossible for the plutocrats to pay our elected officials to do their bidding.

But how?, you ask. Public financing of elections and campaign finance reform. Elect a Democratic president. Then that president appoints the next Supreme Court justices that need appointing. Then they overturn Citizens United. Then we can finally get money out of politics and get our politicians back to doing the will of the people.

But my brain is so addled from all those Cato farts I've been huffing that I'm convinced doing things the way the Koch brothers want them done is the only way to stop the crony capitalism (note: Cato was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries. In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute).

Of course if the plutocrats don't have to bribe our representatives they will be able to rule without government as an intermediately. And they'll no longer have to worry about the honest politicians who can't be bribed (Senator Bernie Sanders, for example... although he's a Socialist for christ!). And even those who are bribe-able won't have to put on a show and at least attempt to make it look like they're acting in the interest of the voters by passing some legislation the voters want once in a while.

So The People would be TOTALLY screwed if we shrank government down to the size so it could be drowned in the bathtub (as Grover Norquist once said). But this is the problem that Cato wants to solve. The problem of The People having any power at all. As well as the problem of the plutocrats having to bribe our representatives to get what they want.

The plutocrats should be able to do as they please and not have anyone say NO or have to bribe anyone, shouldn't they? I do love our plutocrats... but I'm so hopped up on Cato BS I'm not sure if giving them ALL the power is the right thing to do. Anyway, devouring Cato bullshit is also something I absolutely LOVE. That would be in addition to the huffing of their farts.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of huffing farts and devouring bullshit. LLIN-167.

On the Fact that Banking, Mortgages, and Housing Were the Three Most Regulated Sectors of the American Economy and Yet this is Exactly Where the Problems Erupted Leading Up to the Financial Collapse

A total coinkydink, I gather. By which I mean I'm totally pushing the bullshit from the Right that OVER regulation caused the collapse. Because, when it comes to Libertarian lies concerning regulation of the financial sector being bad, I'm a total stooge for our plutocratic overlords.

For example, Cato says Gramm-Leach-Bliley (the law that repealed the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall) and allowed "the mixing of investment and commercial banking" was not responsible for the financial crisis. Cato says too much regulation is to blame. They say "Congress should repeal the Community Reinvestment Act".

And, given the fact that Cato is Libertarian Think Tank that I frequently reference on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly (although I usually don't say who I'm quoting), I completely agree with them. The blame, in my opinion, should be heaped upon government (via the CRA and Fannie and Freddie) and on poor people who could not afford homes being given loans they would never be able to pay back.

So what if this is total bullplop?

...the false narrative [is] that the financial crisis was caused by... government regulators [who] used the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to force banks to make loans to undeserving poor people and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased doomed subprime mortgage backed securities to meet the affordable housing goals. This [so goes the false narrative] was the main cause of the crisis. The argument that CRA and the affordable housing goals caused the crisis have been debunked time and time... again. The CRA has been in place since 1977, while subprime lending only skyrocketed in the 2000s. Even if one concentrates on the changes in enforcement of the act in 1995, the Act does nothing to explain the massive uptick in subprime lending concentrated from 2004 to 2006. What's more, most subprime lenders weren't banks and therefore weren't even subject to CRA. That's why only 6 percent of the high-cost mortgages at the time (a proxy for subprime) could even potentially qualify for CRA credit. Similarly, for most of the housing boom, Fannie and Freddie were on the sidelines due to their fairly strict underwriting requirements. By the time Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards in 2006 to buy riskier products, they were too late to the game to cause the subprime frenzy. Moreover, while they also bought private subprime mortgage backed securities for their investment portfolio – an inarguably bad idea – those purchases did little to meet the housing goals. For the most part, Fannie and Freddie-guaranteed loans have performed, and are still performing, remarkably better than the toxic products pioneered by subprime lenders. The real causes of the financial crisis were predatory mortgage products, out-of-control securitization and derivatives markets, and the failure of government regulators to crack down on the massive risk being taken by our nation's financial institutions. (Excerpt from No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis by David Sanchez. ThinkProgress 8/15/2013).

What this article points out is that I, Willis Hart, am totally full of shit! That does not matter to me, as I simply do not care what "Think Regress" says (even though this article accurately recounts the real causes of the financial crisis).

Because lazy low-skilled losers earning low wages (all they deserve) who wanted a home without earning it and government regulators "forcing" banks to loan them money they could never pay back is the better narrative, IMO.

Because it lets the real culprits totally off the hook! And, given that I am a stooge for the plutocrats who benefited from the crisis, I absolutely do NOT want them to be assigned any blame (even though they deserve it). Which is why I eagerly buy into the BS about OVER regulation being responsible for the financial crisis. Because if we were to crack down and increase the regulations... well, then the plutocrats couldn't do it again (make tons of money by duping poor people into signing up for predatory mortgages).

And that would be bad. Very bad.

Byline: This stoogish commentary was authored by the true-believing stooge Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of blind stoogery. LLIN-166.

On Lindsay Graham (Again, Who I Like on a Personal Level) Saying that if We Don't Destroy ISIS In Iraq and Syria They'll Be Coming Over Here to Attack Us Next

And this will materialize how exactly? An armada of ships? A squadron of Black Hawk helicopters? An intercontinental ballistic missile? I mean, yeah, a couple of these schmucks could sneak into the country and detonate themselves. But they can do that now!

By the way, did I mention how much I like Lindsay Graham? He's pretty awesome, wouldn't you say? From 1982 to 1988 Lindsay served in the South Carolina Air National Guard then in the Air Force Reserves, attaining the rank of colonel, so he's clearly no chicken hawk. For the next four years he worked as a lawyer in private practice, which is proof of how smart he is.

Then Lindsay decided to enter politics, starting with a term in the South Carolina House of Representatives (1992). Then Lindsay served in the United States House of Representatives, representing South Carolina's 3rd congressional district from 1995 to 2003. He was elected to four terms, receiving at least 60% of the vote each time. In 2002, Graham ran for the U.S. Senate after eight-term Republican incumbent Strom Thurmond announced his retirement. Graham won the primary unopposed and defeated Democratic opponent Alex Sanders in the general election. All of which is proof of his drive and ambition, qualities which, as a small "L" libertarian, I greatly admire.

Why do I admire Lindsay so? It's because he is known for his willingness to be bipartisan and work with Democrats on issues like tax reform and immigration reform. Although I do NOT admire him for his willingness to work on issues like global warming, which is a total hoax. At least as far as it being a threat of any kind. Of course the world is warming, but it is no big deal, contrary to what the frauds (who call themselves climatologists) Hansen and Mann say.

But back to Lindsay. Yes, I would absolutely consider voting for this handsome man, if only he were not speaking of expanding the war on terror. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to sit back and a) let the Iranians take the incoming fire for a while and b) focus more on port, airline, and border security? No, it's not as sexy as blowing stuff to smithereens but keeping OUR powder dry just might be good for a change.

Which isn't to say that I do not find Lindsay Graham to be incredibly sexy. Which I do, albeit in a totally non-gay way. But if he were elected president he might just be worse than George W and Barack H... in that Lindsay would have us fighting in the Middle East for many decades to come. I mean, fighting these wars is expensive. Would it not be more prudent to, instead of spending taxpayer monies we don't have (while going further into debt) get ourselves back into a position where the taxes of the job creators could be cut so they could create even more jobs in other countries via outsourcing?

Then I'll be able to buy even more cheap crap at Walmart. Think about it Lindsay... more war, or a lot more cheap crap from Walmart? I know which I would prefer.

Byline: This muy excellente commentary was authored by Willis Hart. Purveyor of saying Lindsey Graham is likeable on a personal level. LLIN-165.

On Rachel Maddow & Republicans And On Sean Hannity & Democrats

A Republican could find the cure for AIDS and take in every stray puppy from Puerto Toro to the Bay of Fundy and Ms. Maddow would still find fault with the person due to the high cost of said Republican's AIDS cure and their making of the puppies into dogfood... which the Republican would absolutely do because Conservatives are all evil.

A Democrat could find the cure for AIDS and take in every stray puppy from Puerto Toro to the Bay of Fundy and Mr. Hannity would still find fault with the person due to the Democrat giving away the AIDS cure for free (thus saving the lives of many undesirable people... mostly gays and straights with lose morals) along with a gratis puppy! Which would sicken Mr. Hannity because he's one of those evil Conservatives.

Or this would be the spin of wd, due to the partisan viewing politics as a 1970s wresting match with Dems as the good guys and Repubs as the bad guys!

Byline: This both-sides-are-equally-bad commentary was authored by the awesome small "L" libertarian Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of purveying. LLIN-164.

On the Comparing of Scott Walker to Hitler

I am BEYOND outraged that anyone would do this!! Just because Walker had the balls to deal with the parasites? And we still have 17 more months of such niceties? Wake me when it's over.

By the way, you might ask, WTF is Willis Hart talking about? Well, I usually do not explain myself, because I simply do not give a fuck if my readers do not know what the hell I'm talking about. But that is on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly.

On this blog explanations will be given for some reason... Perhaps because Les (the former proprietor of this blog) decided he would be truthful with his readers here, while he lied to his audience on RNUSA. In that tradition (acting differently on a secondary blog), I've decided to explain myself better on LLIN.

And continue laughing at the readers of Contra O'Reilly (where my readers sometimes know what I'm talking about, sometimes do not, and sometimes think they know what I'm talking about but are wrong).

So, who am I so outraged at for comparing the parasite busting Scott Walker to Adolph Hitler?

BB-Idaho: Sounds sort of familiar. Oh yeah - "We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike" - Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933. (Sat Jun 13, 03:01:00 PM EDT).

Hey, look, it's BB-Idaho who compared Walker to Hitler. BB is a regular commenter on Contra O'Reilly, so that might have something to do with why I did not point to him specifically. To offend someone with charges that are total bullshit is something a blogger might find offensive (and BB, fed up with my idiocy, might permanently depart Contra O'Reilly).

So I didn't name him... and simply left my readers to guess WHO THE HELL (I thought) compared Walker to Hitler. Or who did not, as is the case here. BB only said the going after of unions sounded like something Hitler did. So, not a direct comparison, just a noting of the fact that Hitler went after unions exactly like Walker, and Scott Walker did too (although not in exactly the same manner).

Yet, if I had read this comment by BB and interpreted it this way? Well, then I could not have feigned outrage on my other blog. And that would not have been any fun. Therefore I risked offending BB. But, since I did not name him... I can deny it if he calls me on my utter stupidity in thinking his comment was "Walker = Hitler".

Which is something he obviously did not say. But I'm such a dumbass that I convinced myself that was exactly what BB had done.

Byline: This moronic commentary was authored by the dumbass Willis Hart. Purveyor of utter stupidity. LLIN-163.

Willis Hart's Lying Lester Blog Hostile Takeover

Hi, my name is Willis Hart. Awhile ago the proprietor of this blog, Lying Lester (note: I prefer to call him "Les" and will do so henceforth in this commentary), allowed me to comment here. As a condition of me bringing my considerable talents to this blog I negotiated for partial ownership in LLIN.

Initially my ownership in LLIN only amounted to about 20 percent. Much of the other shares of stock in LLIN Les sold to some investors in order to keep the blog going...

But if I'm going to tell this story I should start from the beginning... My friend Les began this blog as a sole proprietorship (he owned 100 percent of the shares). After he decided to shut down LLIN at the insistence of Octopus, LLIN was briefly transferred over to some friend of Les' named Lyle. When Lyle died in an unfortunate skydiving accident, ownership in LLIN reverted to Les.

But when Les became the owner of LLIN again he discovered the blog finances had been badly mismanaged. Long story short, LLIN was deeply in the red. Les thought he could earn the cash to keep LLIN by building up readership. In pursuit of this, Les brought me on (and signed 20 percent of LLIN over to me). He figured that my skill at authoring commentaries from the Libertarian perspective would attract new readers as well as advertisers.

He was right, of course. After I joined this blog as a contributor revenues went up. But it wasn't enough. The bill collectors demanded to be paid, but the money coming in was just not enough. That is when I agreed to purchase additional shares of stock in LLIN. That way Les could pay the bills and LLIN would not be forced into bankruptcy.

Eventually I ended up owning more shares in LLIN then anyone else when Les sold me the shares that increased my ownership to 49 percent. I told him I would support him staying on as proprietor, and I would remain a contributor. I already have my own blog (Contra O'Reilly), and was content with running things there.

But then I thought, Les has another blog (rAtional nAtion uSA), so he's already in charge there. If he were not in charge here? Well, it would not be that big a deal. I mean, he does not post that much here anyway. Clearly, lying to his readers on RNUSA is his priority.

That is when I got to thinking that this blog needed a new direction under new management. So I went to the other shareholders and convinced them to vote for me as the new proprietor of LLIN. This is what is known as a "hostile takeover". Hostile in that Les blew a gasket and security had to remove him from the building.

Now that I'm in charge the blog will henceforth be known as Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart's Lying Lester's Irrational Nation. Although I admit this title is a bit clunky, so I think we will go still go by LLIN for short.

Make no mistake, however... Les is out as proprietor and I am in. In charge as the new blog proprietor. Les will no longer author commentaries for this blog. No hard feelings, buddy. Hopefully we can still be friends. This was strictly a business decision. And LLIN, I suspect, will prosper under my superior leadership.

No insult to Les, as he still has RNUSA, and it is, from the appearance of thing, doing quite well. The problem here, I think, is that Les' heart just wasn't in it. Telling people the truth here on LLIN, that is. Turns out he prefers lying. Even though he professed to like having a blog he could be honest on.

But frankly it is my opinion that he lied about that.

Byline: This excellenter commentary was authored by Willis Hart. Purveyor of hostile blog takeovers. LLIN-162.

Billy Bob Thornton's Oscar Wins For Playing Mentally Deficient Fellows: Not Coincidence!

The actor Billy Bob Thornton was nominated for two Oscars for "Sling Blade" (writing and acting) and later for best supporting actor in "A Simple Plan". Coincidence? I say NO! I say Billy Bob is mentally deficient in real life. Remember that when he was married to Angelina Jolie that they both wore vials of each others' blood around their necks?

In regards to his ex-wife, Angelina Jolie (1 of 5 prior marriages), recall that incestual kiss between her and her brother? If Jolie is a product of incest the probability is high she is another mental deficient. BTW, I'm not saying that her father, noted thespian and Conservative Jon Voight is the guilty party. I say it was her mother.

Jon Voight used to be a Liberal, but, as he says, this was a result of "Marxist propaganda". Thankfully he came to his senses later in life and started voting Conservative. And advocating for Conservative presidents. But I don't trust people who do 180 degree flips. This "Marxist propaganda" BS smells, I think. Did a mentally deficient dad lead to a mentally deficient daughter? It is possible, I think. That, or the incest thing.

It's a good thing the two mentally deficient people did not produce and offspring. Although Angie did birth some rug rats with her 3rd husband, Brad Pitt. Concerning this I will say no more, given that I am gravitating away from my original topic, which was how nuts and dimwitted Billy Bob is.

Back on that topic, the name "Billy Bob" is obviously a dead give away. Billy Bob Duggar is a religious fundamentalist mental deficient who found a wife that was willing to pop out dozens of babies for decades. Not that anyone who believes in this "Jesus" fellow aren't mentally deficient, but the fundamentalist types that the Far Right caters to are the more mentally deficient by far.

Bill Maher, aside from being a Left wing nut, did get it right with his documentary Religulous. And he's also totally right about the evil of Islam. I can't think of anything else I agree with him on, however. Point is, Billy Bob is a mentally deficient religious nut. The Duggar Billy Bob, that is.

Is the Thornton Billy Bob a religious nut? No. He is a Hollywood Barack Obama voting Liberal moron. I'm guessing. But, the point is that the name "Billy Bob" screams "mentally deficient".

And, there is some info I found that backs up my theory.

Thornton has obsessive–compulsive disorder. Various idiosyncratic behaviors have been well documented in interviews with Thornton; among these is a phobia of antique furniture - a disorder shared by Dwight Yoakam's character Doyle Hargraves in the Thornton-penned Sling Blade, and by Thornton's own character in the 2001 film Bandits. Additionally, he has stated that he has a fear of certain types of silverware, a trait assumed by his character Hank Grotowski in 2001's Monster's Ball, in which Grotowski insists on a plastic spoon for his daily bowl of chocolate ice cream. In a 2004 interview with The Independent, Thornton explained: "It's just that I won't use real silver. You know, like the big, old, heavy-ass forks and knives, I can't do that. It's the same thing as the antique furniture. I just don't like old stuff. I'm creeped out by it, and I have no explanation why... I don't have a phobia about American antiques, it's mostly French - you know, like the big, old, gold-carved chairs with the velvet cushions. The Louis XIV type. That's what creeps me out. I can spot the imitation antiques a mile off. They have a different vibe. Not as much dust". (Link).

I think that's some pretty compelling evidence to support my "mentally deficient" theory right there! And proof that he's what some call a "method actor". The "method" in his case is to be an actual mental deficient. The PC folks might say he's an individual with an "intellectual disability", which means that he has an IQ below 70.

Or perhaps not. Like I said, I was only theorizing on Thornton being mentally deficient, although I am convinced that Billy Bob is playing so many of these characters for a reason. The reason is because it's easy for him to play characters close to himself. This is what lazy actors do. Or mentally deficient ones like Billy Bob.

That is all I really have to say on that. Although I would like to add that laziness might be why he Billy Bob voted for Obama (if he did). Because he lacks the mental facilities to investigate the issues and come to the correct conclusions. The correct conclusion being that he should have voted for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr.

Which is what I would do if I could go back and change my ballot. I am ashamed to admit that I voted for Barack Obama. But, not being a mental deficient, I've reexamined my prior decisions and modified my views based on my reevaluating.

Barack Obama, it turns out, is a pretty poor president. Much like the prior one. Obama, for example, believes in the thoroughly discredited idea that the planet is warming. A discredited hoax that mentally deficient people (like Billy Bob?) buy into without examining the evidence as I have.

They also do not listen to the luminaries. A luminary is the exact opposite of a mental deficient (someone like the scoundrel Michael Mann). But, despite this, I actually liked Sling Blade. So, hey, don't worry me-buck, in the words of Carl from "Sling Blade"... "You'll be dead soon enough and the world'll be shut a ya'".

Byline: This insightful commentary was authored by Willis Hart. Purveyor of mentally deficient insights. LLIN-161.

My First Post!

Les made me member of this blog with privileges to write posts! Welcome to my first post! There has been no Blogging from me since I shutdown my Thrown Away blog in fear. Due to fear of wd bugging me with his rational and reasoned pushback to my baloney and constant and pathological lying.

Will I post again? I do not do that so much these days, what with me shutting down my blog. So, I do not know. I may or I may not. We shall see.

My blog is still open to invited readers, however. I did this to honor wd. My blog is now a shrine to my disturbing fan boyish obsession (to the point of being a fetish) with this outstanding blogger. Please shoot me a request if you wish to view my blog and worship in my wd shrine. I'll let you join if you are the right kind of person. Which would be someone as obsessed with wd as I am.

Byline: This First and perhaps last commentary was authored by Dennis Marks AKA dmarks. Lover of lying & weinergrams. LLIN-160.