Cutting Off Government's Balls

If you're like me, Lying Lester, you worry frequently about America becoming a plutocracy. And, if you're a fool like me you think the answer is to neuter government. You see, the problem isn't that ultra-rich people are creating monopolies and forcing workers to accept low pay... no, those are both good things.

Lying Lester only has a problem when these ultra-rich people use their money to influence government. But cut off government's balls (by taking away all it's power to do anything) and these rich people won't bother buying off our elected officials (as they will have no power).

Then us ordinary folk with average wages will be able to stand up to the rich corporations. I mean, we COULD reform government so that it represented WE THE PEOPLE instead of the rich influence peddlers (via campaign finance reform, for example), but that would be a bad idea in Lying Lester's opinion.

Why? Because, as a nation of individuals, we're weaker when we join together. Just like the corporations who aggregate resources and thus become weaker. Take government out of the equation and we'll overcome our oppressors easily, because only then will the average citizen be on an equal footing with the mega rich and transnational corporations.

Yeah, that might sound counterintuitive, but it's the foundational principle of Objectivism and Libertarianism that dupes like me subscribe to. So, bring on the plutocracy, I say. Lying Lester can't wait to bow down to and serve the coming aristocracy of wealth.

But get government out of the way and off our backs (and the backs of the wealthy) FIRST. Because Lying Lester believes in survival of the fittest, and our new masters will be weak masters if government helped them achieve their wealth. They must do it without government's help. Only then will we know they are fit to rule.

One thing is for certain, however, and that is that WE THE PEOPLE are NOT fit to rule. This is why Lying Lester hates, and I mean absolutely LOATHES democracy. Democracy is, in the opinion of Lying Lester, rule by the parasites. Be they rich parasites buying influence, or poor parasites voting for the politicos who offer them the most free goodies (like the parasites who voted for Obama). That is why I always say the sooner we abolish democracy the better.

Byline: This ballsey LLIN commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth and possessor of extremely LARGE balls. LLIN-028.

Dumb Blondes, Greenscammers & The Keystone XL Pipeline

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a bumbling female Congressperson and Chairperson of the Democratic National Convention, doesn't believe politics or political considerations will play any part in Obama's final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. Righto Debbie... a woman who is obviously inferior to her male Congressional colleagues.

Politico - Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn't believe President Barack Obama's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline will be swayed by politics. "As a member of Congress who represents hundreds of thousands of people in south Florida, I want to make sure the right decision is arrived at and that the president makes that decision carefully and doesn't factor politics into his decision, which I don't think he is", Wasserman Schultz said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. She wouldn't say whether the latest delay in the pipeline approval process — announced Friday — would be potentially helpful to Democrats, since it likely signals that a final decision won't come until after November's midterm elections. "What's true is the decision over the Keystone pipeline is complex, and it's one that has to be examined very carefully. It affects multiple states", she said. "What's also true is that incumbent senators like [Louisiana Democrat] Mary Landrieu understand the issues that are important on the ground in their states to their constituents" (link).

Call me a monkey's uncle if this isn't ALL ABOUT the upcoming elections. Looks like Obummer is going to delay his decision to APPROVE the pipeline until the final days of his presidency. Then the dEmocrat donors that profit from the greenscam industry will be angry.

For the record Lying Lester is a strong supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline. It will create some jobs, raise the price of gasoline in the US, and endanger the Ogallala aquifer. All good things, in the opinion of Lying Lester. Except the aquifer thing, but they're no doubt overhyping that.

One eco-extremist naysayer says "a worst-case spill in the Sand Hills region could pollute 4.9 billion gallons of groundwater with a plume of contaminants 40 feet thick, 500 feet wide and 15 miles long", but Lying Lester does not buy it. Such talk is just a scare tactic designed to stop the pipeline.

The important thing is that our plutocratic masters stand to make quite a bit of money from the construction of the pipeline, and that, in the opinion of Lying Lester, outweighs any "safety" concerns. And all the profit will be extracted from the consumer via the free market (as the Founders intended). Unlike with those greenscammers, who want government "subsidies" (handouts).

In any case, I do not live in any any state that could (potentially) have it's water supply contaminated, so I don't give a shit. So, ignore these lies from Debbie the dumb blonde and call your Congresspersons and let them know of your support for the Keystone XL.

(For the record, LLIN is still closed as well as FOR SALE. I am simply waiting for the bidding process to conclude. When it does I will anounce the new owner before handing all passwords over to said buyer. LLIN thanks you for your patronage and hopes you will continue reading when the as-yet-to-be-determined new owner assumes control).

Byline: This peerless commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-027.

Lying Lester Asks: Are Men Superior to Women?

I recently came across an article from the Federalist that is intriguing and thought provoking. It is one particular women's response to an article in the Atlantic titled "Why Are Feminists So Insecure? 6 Reflections On The Confidence Gap". The Federalist article talks about risk taking and feminist perceived insecurities. What follows is from the article...

I read the piece and was completely flummoxed by it, for a variety of reasons. Here are six reflections on the most serious problem of our era week: The Confidence Gap. 1) It isn't about confidence. The article is really about risk-taking and how men differ in their risk calculations from women. To give just two examples from the article, and to give you an idea of its tone: "We watch our male colleagues take risks, while we hold back until we're sure we are perfectly ready and perfectly qualified". "If a woman walks into her boss's office with unsolicited opinions, speaks up first at meetings, or gives business advice above her pay grade, she risks being disliked or even—let's be blunt—being labeled a bitch". Leaving aside the melodramatic stereotyping and bizarre generalizations about how people love unsolicited advice from men but abhor it from women, you'll note that risk is the main ingredient in the supposed confidence gap. 2) Opportunity Cost. How does it work? And in order to have a conversation about risk, it's good to talk about opportunity cost, and even just the particular opportunity costs associated with risk-taking. We should look at how women, on average, value what they must trade in for the potential benefits of risk-taking. That's not well discussed in the article. Yes, men really do show, on average, a far greater proclivity for risk-taking. See, for example, all of human history. And they tend to have different calculuses about what they seek or are willing to make do with in terms of lifestyle and stress. It is true that risk-taking behavior works out very well for men. But it also works out horribly for them. How can that be? Well, they do have higher average outcomes than women. But when they fail, hoo-boy do they fail. We're talking job loss, demotion, loss of status, physically problematic stress, serious inconsistency in pay, homelessness, prison, and so on and so forth. None of the down-sides of risk taking are given proper weight, which makes the sloppily sourced article naive and unhelpful, at best. Maybe women should fight their nature and go match men in the CEO and imprisonment categories. I don't know. But we should at least be honest that women choose less risky moves in part because they frequently don't have to take risks like men do and frequently don't want to take risks like men do. The article also fails to note that women, on average, choose less risk for reasons having to do with things other than cash money. If you make one choice, you lose other choices. If you prefer making money and having a ton of power, you make different decisions than if you prefer having a nice work-life balance, a flexible schedule, non-remunerative benefits, and what not. The tradeoffs for risk-taking and aggression in a corporate environment might involve things that you are not comfortable giving up. This can be a bad thing, but it is by no means necessarily a bad thing. Either way, this issue should have been discussed far better. 3) Is second-guessing our nature really so empowering? The article on developing confidence ends by telling women that their brains are malleable: Almost daily, new evidence emerges of just how much our brains can change over the course of our lives, in response to shifting thought patterns and behavior. If we keep at it, if we channel our talent for hard work, we can make our brains more confidence-prone. What the neuroscientists call plasticity, we call hope. Nothing shouts "be confident in your natural abilities!" like "your brain is mushy and able to be reshaped by propaganda!" But maybe that's just me. Still, all this second-guessing of female traits doesn't feel empowering. At all. Feminists seem to be on a constant campaign of obsessive gender reflection, the net result of which is to tell women they're bad at what they're doing. Don't call bossy people bossy. Don't be considerate of others. Please keep kids out of the picture for the vast majority if not entirety of your fertility. If you do choose to stop fighting your fertility for a brief period, you shouldn't let kids affect your career. You need to crush or at least smother your maternal instincts at all costs. In order to succeed in life, you must be like men — emulate everything they're doing. I love being female, and I'm actually quite confident about being a woman, but the only time I even come close to feeling bad about myself is when major media outlets and elite feminists use their power to tell me there's some major flaw with me being female. Also, it's kind of funny that the article is all about obsessive overthink keeping women from taking the risks they need to in order to succeed. I do hope that whoever wrote this at least noted that an article ostensibly against such overthinking ran 7,242 insufferable words. By the way, I challenge you to read the first section without gagging, either at the over-the-top generalizations about how universally awesome women are or about how victimized the elite authors are by their gaping self-doubt. The humblebrags in that section alone are epic. "Katty got a degree from a top university, speaks several languages" and yet thought "her public profile in America was thanks to her English accent". Claire was CNN's Moscow correspondent while in her 20s but supposedly deferred to the "alpha-male journalists around her, assuming that because they were so much louder, so much more certain, they just knew more". The thing is that even if we're just talking about lower braggadocio levels, what if that's an ingredient that makes women better at social bonding? Leadership is important to society. Absolutely. But so is a basic functioning community. Heck, call me a woman if you must, but I could make a good argument that community bonds are even more important than CEO leadership. There's no reason that men and women must fill one or the other category (and every single person reading this knows men and women who fit various high-risk/low-risk/high-confidence/low-confidence categories) but neither do we need to insist on denigrating people who do the hard work of community bonding, whatever that given community is — in office environments, immediate families, extended families, local congregations, Brooklyn co-ops, boxing clubs, etc. So if women have, as the article claims, a "part of the brain [that] helps us recognize errors and weigh options", why do we want to get rid of it or curb it? Why are we ashamed of something that's awesome? Why are feminists so down on women's brains? I mean, again, leadership and risk-taking are great for humans. Don't get me wrong. But so are wisdom and restraint. (Sources: Atlantic article; Federalist article).

So, my takeaway from the article(s) is that men take more risks and thus have historically been the makers, the doers and the movers and shakers. For this reason I conclude that men are indeed superior to women with little exception. One such exception would be the great philosopher Ayn Rand. Surely she was a great woman who was superior to many men. But great women like Ayn Rand are an exception, in Lying Lester's opinion.

And, if there is sure indication that any given women is inferior, it absolutely is that she identifies as a "feminist". Feminists do not wish to compete on a level playing field, instead petitioning the government to grant them special advantages. That is why feminists disgust Lying Lester, as feminists disgusted Ayn Rand.

Everyone should be judged strictly on their achievements; achievements that should be earned by merit alone and NOT due to special favors or assistance from the State. This is why Lying Lester also opposes these so-called "equal pay" laws. If a woman deserves equal pay she should EARN it and not ask for a government mandate to force private employers to pay her more than she deserves.

(For the record, this blog is still closed as well as FOR SALE. I am simply waiting for the bidding process to conclude. When it does I will anounce the new owner before handing all passwords over to said buyer. LLIN thanks you for your patronage and hopes you will continue reading when the as-yet-to-be-determined new owner assumes control).

Byline: This honest commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-026.

Lying Lester Is So Scared He's Pissing Himself!

Yes, I admit it. I am so scared that I am actually pissing myself. Or I did pee my pants, but I've changed into fresh garments now. So, what had (and still has) me so scared? It seems that another blogger is very mad about the stark truths I have been revealing here on LLIN.

This other blogger is so incensed that he is threatening "war" with me. Lying Lester pleaded with this blogger for mercy, but the blogger said no... and then refered to Lying Lester as "pond scum". Now, Lying Lester does not deny that he is pond scum, but he IS truly sorry that this other blogger is so angry.

Could I do anything to make it right with this other blogger I asked. But the answer is apparently no. So what should I do? As I previously said, Lying Lester does not want war with anyone.

So I've been posting some opinions that many find disagreeable, but can we not disagree respectfully? Must we resort to threats? Lying Lester does not believe that threatening those we disagree with is how civilized people behave.

Perhaps Ed Degorio (the blogger who is threatening me) will reconsider and withdraw his threats? I am very, very sorry, after all. Come on, Ed. Be the bigger man and do not resort to threats to settle your differences. We can disagree and still be friends!

I think my friend Ed could learn a thing or two from the Amazing Octopus. Octopus is a highly-principled blogger who believes we should all just get along... and with Octo Lying Lester agrees fully.

So, what about Ed? Perhaps he might consider joining with Octo and me and put our petty differences behind us? Please, Ed, I am begging you. Please do not do anything that might cause Lying Lester to piss himself again!

Byline: This 25th LLIN commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of awesomeness and NOT of pissing myself... except when it comes to Ed Degorio. LLIN-025.

The Lying Lester Blog Is Still Closed

Seems that a number of people are upset that this blog exists, which is why I thought I needed to clarify that this blog is and remains closed. The blogger Octopus was simply chagrined, but the blogger Ed Degorio is much angrier.

Fact is, Ed is "pissed off as hell" and says "this is war". Now, given that Ed is a sock puppet of mine, I am surely confused regarding how I can be at war with myself.

But Lying Lester is a coward who does not desire war with anyone. Not Octo and not myself (or "Ed"). I am therefore begging "Ed" for mercy. Please do not go to war with me, "Ed", I beg you! I already closed LLIN at Octo's request - so why are you so pissed off in regards to a blog that is closed?

I don't know, but there must be something I can do to make things right? Let me know "Ed", and if I can comply, I will. Lying Lester does not want war.

Byline: This 24th and absolutely last LLIN commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of writing posts about shutting down this blog. LLIN-024.

Comments Submitted, Published, and Then Deleted by Ed Degorio

Please note that LLIN should still be considered to be closed. The purpose of this post is to reinstate comments from Ed Degorio which he submitted for approval, were published, and then were deleted by Mr. Degorio.

Ed Degorio is a sock puppet of Les Carpenter's (AKA Rational Nation, AKA Lying Lester, AKA me), which was proven here.

The following "Ed Degorio" comments have been retrieved from my Google email account... Ed left a total of 11 comments and deleted them all. Exactly why I did this I cannot remember, but I've changed my mind.

Comments listed in the reverse order that they were made (newest first)...

Ed Degorio noreply-comment@blogger.com to me. #11

Ed Degorio has left a new comment on your post "Lying Lester Can't Decide Whether Or Not To Shut Down His Blog":

Ok, I'm caught? I'll end this dock puppet called Ed.

I'll come clean and admit my fraud now that the Jig is up.

Bye bye Ed Degorio, you are going into retirement.

Posted by Ed Degorio to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation on April 4, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Ed Degorio noreply-comment@blogger.com to me. #10

Ed Degorio has left a new comment on your post "Pondering With My Big Brain":

By the way Devious, you are not ghe only "pond scum" here you have company with 8 legs.

Posted by Ed Degorio to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation on April 4, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Ed Degorio noreply-comment@blogger.com to me. #9

Ed Degorio has left a new comment on your post "Pondering With My Big Brain":

Devious is lying again. Or should I say, Pond Scum rides again!

Posted by Ed Degorio to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation on April 4, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Ed Degorio noreply-comment@blogger.com to me. #8

Ed Degorio has left a new comment on your post "Extreme Irrationality Totally Normal For Lying Lester":

Devious.is lying again.

Posted by Ed Degorio to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation on April 4, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Ed Degorio noreply-comment@blogger.com to me. #7

Ed Degorio has left a new comment on your post "Hypocrites Enslaved by Looters And Moochers":

Devious is a liar, he should rename this blossom to Lying Devious.

Posted by Ed Degorio to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation on April 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Ed Degorio noreply-comment@blogger.com to me. #6

Ed Degorio has left a new comment on your post "Lester Nation, Proud Mental Masturbator":

Jealous aren't you Devious, because I can masturbate and you wish that you could do it for me. Caught you again.

Posted by Ed Degorio to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation on April 4, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Ed Degorio noreply-comment@blogger.com to me. #5

Ed Degorio has left a new comment on your post "Lying Lester Heartily Endorses So-Called "Wage Theft":

Good catch Devious.

Posted by Ed Degorio to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation on April 4, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Ed Degorio noreply-comment@blogger.com to me. #4

Ed Degorio has left a new comment on your post "Lying Lester Heartily Endorses So-Called "Wage Theft":

I guess you caught us. I didn't think that you had the brains, you fooled me!

Posted by Ed Degorio to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation on April 4, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Ed Degorio noreply-comment@blogger.com to me. #3

Ed Degorio has left a new comment on your post "Lying Lester Heartily Endorses So-Called "Wage Theft":

Like I care about your banning me.

Who give a crap?

Your blog is a Shit Hole anyway . BOTH of them.

You Pond Scum POS!

Posted by Ed Degorio to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation on April 4, 2014 at 4:13 AM

Ed Degorio noreply-comment@blogger.com to me. #2

Ed Degorio has left a new comment on your post "Lying Lester Heartily Endorses So-Called "Wage Theft":

We must start calling you Devie the Lying Pond Scum!

Posted by Ed Degorio to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation on April 3, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Ed Degorio noreply-comment@blogger.com to me. #1

Ed Degorio has left a new comment on your post "Welcome to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation":

Can't figure out who is the bigger a- hole, I'd call it a tie .

Posted by Ed Degorio to Lying Lester's Irrational Nation on March 27, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Byline: This revealing commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of vicious outings. LLIN-023.

Chelsea Clinton Pregnant & Lying Lester Goes Bonkers!

The event of Chelsea Clinton being with child should not be a big deal, but Progressives apparently are going bonkers with suggestions that it's no coincidence and that said baby will be used as a "prop" to get Hillary elected!

Well, I suppose if Momma Hillary gets herself elected to the presidency of our developing Oligarchy it may be a big deal because we may be looking at a possible Clinton Dynasty right here in America, and that is causing Lying Lester to go absolutely bonkers!

At any rate one of the bastions of progressive "journalism" Crooks and Liars just couldn't help themselves and threw out the bait in their article "Will Chelsea Clinton's Pregnancy Become Another Right Wing Conspiracy?"...

...But I'm forgetting myself because Hillary is not allowed to be a happy mother. We may see a normal life unfolding, but Teabirchers see coverups and conspiracies. Skip I wouldn't be surprised at all if Hillary gets asked to comment on Chelsea's pregnancy by the media, since that's only natural, right? But after that happens more than once I really expect Limbaugh and all the wannabees to scream bloody murder that Chelsea's announcement was staged, a set-up plot which is being aided by the librul media to cover up Benghazzzzzzzziiii! (Source).

And they say conservatives can't let a sleeping dog lie and intentionally keep pointless BS alive. Who cares really that I, Lying Lester am lying about painting this as a Progressive conspiracy theory?

Newsmax host Steve Malzberg on Thursday speculated that Chelsea Clinton's pregnancy was no accident, and that the conception of Hillary's grandchild was "arranged" so that it would arrive just in time to serve as a "prop" for a widely expected 2016 presidential run. (Source).

Huh. Looks like I was wrong. I suppose could have looked up whether or not this was real conspiracy (that Progressives are saying Conservatives will go bonkers). Instead I simply assumed that Conservatives were not saying such things and Crooks and Liars just made it up. Why? Because I'm biased against Progressives and will automatically assume a Progressive News organization is full of shit.

Turns out it's me, Lying Lester, who is full of shit. Similar to when I said this blog was "closed", yet here I am posting again. Oh, well. Have a Good "Good Friday" and a "Happy Easter".

Byline: This 22nd LLIN bonkers commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of pointless BS. LLIN-022.

Reminder: The LLIN Blog is Still For Sale

As I previously stated on 4/11/2014, The Lying Lester blog (Lying Lester's Irrational Nation or "LLIN") is now for sale to the highest bidder. The purpose of this post is to remind people that LLIN is still for sale and bids are still being accepted.

Only serious bids are being solicited, which is why I have instituted a minimum offer of $50. Please do not respond (via comment or email) with a bid of less than $50. Any joke bids received via email will be ignored and any furter emails from said joker will be sent to spam. Joke bids submitted via comment to this blog will also be ignored.

I would also like to remind potential buyers that, as a condition of the sale, that any potential future owner of LLIN not have an axe to grind in regards to (or be disliking of) the Blogger Octopus. I will only sell to a person who agrees with me that Octopus is awesome. Or someone who will agree, at least, never to mention Octo in any of their posts when he or she assumes control of this blog.

This provision will be written into the contract, and if that provision is violated, ownership of the blog will revert back to me, Lying Lester (and there will be no refunds).

Offers can be submitted via this blog by leaving a comment, or by contacting me at lyinglester@gmail.com. What you will get if you purchase this blog is... the blog, set up and designed by me. This involved setup under blogger, header/banner creation, blog layout and HTML/CSS coding. If the buyer is desirous of any changes those can be a part of the deal, although any major overhaul of this blog is NOT a part of any deal I would consider.

The new owner will also receive the aforementioned email address, as well as the associated Blogger and Google+ profiles. $1,000.00 is my target price, but any and all offers will be considered. Please email me your offer by May 1, 2014. All offers received by May 1st will be considered.

In the event of multiple offers, all bidders will have the opportunity to increase their bid. The bidding will continue until one high bidder remains. Passwords, etc will be handed over to the high bidder after receipt of payment.

Any questions or bids can be submitted to me via email or by leaving a comment in reply to this post. Thank you, The Management of LLIN.

Byline: This Commentaire en suspens was input via keyboard by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-021.

A Man Cannot Live By Telling Jokes Alone?

As I have disclosed here before, my other blog, rAtional nAtion uSA is my joke blog. The joke is that my commentaries appear to be completely serious, but are in fact not. When my readers and commenters take what I say seriously, I laugh (it's a "laugh at" and not a "laugh with" kind of blog).

This was OK for many years, but eventually I decided that a secondary blog where I was honest with my readers and engaged them in some honest discussions might be a good idea. That thinking is what lead to the creation of this blog, "Lying Lester's Irrational Nation".

The blog title is in reference to the fact that I do nothing but lie on the RNUSA sight. Also, I am a very irrational person, which is why I say on RNUSA that "the blog Lying Lester, a spoof blog designed and set up by one extremely unscrupulous lying asshat is not the property of this sight and there is ABSOLUTELY no connection between the two"... so people won't be sure if RNUSA is the joke blog and LLIN is the spoof serious blog. It might be the other way around.

Of course it does not matter much anymore what the purpose of this sight is, given that Octopus told me that I must shut it down. Readers of the RNUSA sight apparently either enjoy playing along with the joke, or they've been fooled by my previously referenced "disclaimer".

Either way RNUSA is the blog that will continue on and LLIN is the blog that will soon close. Personally, I'd prefer it was the other way around, but I couldn't possibly go against the wishes of Octopus. I wouldn't want to. Nor do I wish to turn RNUSA into a non-joke blog. In any case, Octo probably would not approve of that either.

It seems that Octo approves of the joke I am playing on all my readers, which is a good thing, actually. And another reason why this blog MUST close soon. I've got Octo's support over on RNUSA and I would not want to lose it.

Byline: This phenomenal polemic was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-020.

The Nobel Lying Lester

Greek philosopher Plato introduced "the noble lie" to politics in his "The Republic". The concept is people are for the most part not bright enough to handle their own affairs so they need a few leaders who will feed them tales to keep them in line and presumably happy, thus avoiding revolution.

One such "noble lie" from the Conservative side of the aisle is that women make less money than men for reasons other than misogyny. They work less because they're having kids and therefore have less experience and therefore make less (or other similar BS). Sounds logical, right?

Women on average make only 77 cents to every dollar earned by men. Women earn less than men because of the "choices" they make in their lives – choosing to work in less lucrative careers, to work less hours, and to take more time out of the paid labor force to stay home with children or care for elderly relatives. Some of that wage gap is the result of women being more likely to work in certain industries or occupations. But there is a preponderance of evidence... [that says] about 40 percent of the difference in men's and women's wages cannot be explained by any measurable factor. (source).

The "noble lie" is to deny this fact. Conservatives need to tell this lie because some people (women) like to think that they deserve equal pay and equal treatment to that of men. Feeding women untruths like there being no rEpublican "war on women" and fictional statistics that say they don't actually earn less for no reason are examples of such lies.

In denying these facts some say we might as well have a holiday celebrating Spider-Man's birthday. OK, but Lying Lester agrees with Ayn Rand who said there is no sex discrimination in the United States. And, if an employer won't hire you (or pay you equally because you're a woman), the intelligent employer will. So what if many employers are not intelligent and *do* discriminate against women?

I'm a man and this lie benefits me, which is why I support pay discrimination (by flat-out denying there is any)! This is why on my other blog rAtional nAtion USA (my joke blog), I tell my readers that the "noble lie" is that women don't make less - and I give the example of a leader who will "feed them tales"... Barack Obama celebrating "Equal Pay Day".

My main beef here is mostly that the so-called "wOmen's liberation" is a very false and phony issue. Feminists are just Takers who are going around asking for government handouts with their demands of "equal pay". You only get paid equally if you work equally hard... and most women don't.

Or, so those of us telling the "noble lie" would like you to believe. Me, I could care less either way. If some women work hard and achieve equal pay from an "intelligent employer" that is OK by me. But if some employers pay their female workers less simply because they are female, that is OK by me too.

As a man I'm getting paid more, which is what is important. Also important is that any and all reasons our job creators can use to give workers the shaft be preserved. The more workers our job creators can find a reason (any reason) to pay a worker (any worker) less is an economic good, IMO.

Byline: Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation) is the author of this outstanding commentary; a commentary with which I fullfill my role as a purveyor of untruth. LLIN-019.

Lying Lester Reluctantly Endorses Voter Suppression

In regards to the sale of this blog - I am currently waiting for the bids to start rolling in. In the meantime I thought I'd let my thoughts regarding the so-called Republican "Voter Suppression" be known.

Make no mistake, however, but this blog is still in the process of shutting down due to the chagrin of the blogger known as Octopus. I just thought I'd get another quick post in before that actually happens.

Now, back to these accusations of voter suppression that the dEmocrats are levying at rEpublicans. Suppressing the vote is unethical and it should be illegal. That said, I, Lying Lester, reluctantly endorse it. Over on my other blog, rAtional nAtion uSA, I play the "both sides are equally quilty" provocateur, but I'm no dummy. I know both sides are not equally quilty.

rEpublicans are actively working to disenfranchise voting blocks that tend to cast their ballots for dEmocrats. We all know this to be true. However, as I am sure the more astute libertarian and fiscally conservative readers of this site understand, voter fraud, irrespective of which party is quilty will, if ignored continue to metastasize and like a cancer completely corrupt our democratic republic.

No matter that it is statistically insignificant and there is no evidence whatsoever of any partisan conspiracies behind these isolated incidents. I will continue to speak against voter fraud none-the-less. Because if people get the mistaken impression that "both sides do it", that make it easier for the side that is actually quilty to get away with their election stealing shenanigans.

And, while I consider myself an "independent libertarian", I will join forces with the dog whistle brigade in order to muddy the waters regarding which is the a bigger deal - insignificant voter fraud, or the far nastier election fraud (voter fraud is when voters cheat and vote when they should not, whereas election fraud is cheating designed to stop legitimate voters from casting ballots). 20% of the population is threatened with disenfranchisement due to this type of cheating... cheating that is the sole province of rEpublicans.

I endorse the second and not the first type of cheating because victory at all costs with lots of sound bites to cover up the crime will help the only party that is currently fighting on behalf of fiscal responsibility. Sure, the rEpublicans might be doing a very poor job in fighting for it, but they are still doing a better job than the dEmocrats.

This is why it makes sense to disenfranchise millions of voters just to capture a .0006% incidence rate of voter fraud. Because it will help rEpublicans and hurt dEmocrats. Not that I approve of the job either party is doing, mind you. But if I have to choose one or the other, obviously it's the rEpublicans who do the least harm.

And, perhaps we can get a Libertarian elected if running as a rEpublican by suppressing enough dEmocratic votes? That surely would be an outcome that I would not object to. In any case I remain opposed to voter fraud and will also pay lip service to "opposing" any other corruption in the election process. Because as long as there are corrupt political parties the corrupt individuals leading them will continue with the shenanigans. Some shenanigans being bad and some shenanigans being good.

Sure, I'd prefer an honest system where an enlightened electorate voted Libertarian... but we don't currently have that. The fact is that most voters are too stupid to realize that both parties are eroding our liberties and continually putting us further into debt. Until the day comes when the voters wise up and start voting Libertarian I will keep pushing the false "voter fraud" narrative.

Because it hurts the party that is in favor of out-of-control spending and taking away liberties, as opposed to the other party that is in favor of doing these same things, but to a lesser degree. That, at least, gives the United States a fighting chance. I mean, if you HAD to choose between getting shot in the head or shot in the stomach, you'd obviously have a better chance of surviving a gut shot.

And, only one party is dedicated to keeping taxes low... so there is that. So, if no Libertarian or Libertarian-minded candidate is running (and I cannot throw my vote away on that individual), then the rEpublican who will keep the taxes low on the Makers (instead of wanting to raise taxes in order to fund more giveaways for the Takers) is the politician I'll reluctantly support.

Byline: This eye-opening commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-018.

Comments From Idiots Accepted To Highlight Their Idiocy

A commenter that goes by the ID "Mista Potato Head" recently referred to this blog as a "hate page", due to the fact that many other commenters have been posting negative things about the blogger Octopus. Or, I am assuming that is why MPH called this a "hate page", as that designation surely could have nothing at all to do with anything I, Lying Lester, have written.

I have only had praise, and a lot of it, to offer in regards to the blogger I think is amazing, highly-principled and a role model that anyone of any political stripe should seek to emulate. Octo strongly believes that we should all try to get along and converse without being rude, no matter our political beliefs... and I agree completely.

But, given the aforementioned negative comments concerning Octo, obviously there are at least a few people who do not agree about civility and decorum being important guidelines to follow whilst blogging.

These people are idiots, IMO, and me publishing their comments does NOT signify agreement! I do it (publish them) to highlight their idiocy. With every comment they are practically screaming "look at me! I'm an idiot!".

When I see such comments they cause some loud LOLing from yours truly! If you're a non-fan of Octo who wishes to proclaim your idiocy via this forum, I approve of your decision. It would be better, IMO, for you to reform and acknowledge the intelligence of Octo, but obviously you aren't going to do that.

So, if you aren't going to shape up, then alerting people to your idiocy is the next best thing, I believe. You leave a comment proclaiming your idiocy and I know who I'm dealing with (an idiot).

By the way, no reason to get angry in regards to this commentary if any of this applies to you. I'm not passing any judgements here, just stating the obvious. Sure, it wasn't obvious to MPH, but he is clearly not that smart. Smart people get it that Octopus is a blogger to be admired... by Conservatives, Libertarians, middle-of-the-roaders, and Progressives alike.

Everyone could learn a thing or two from the amazing Octo. Even those who disagree with him politically. That is just a fact. And, being an individual who is superior to most people myself, you can trust me to accurately identify "amazing" when I see it.

Byline: This brutally honest commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-017.