Satan Loves Ayn Rand

Dervish Sanders. May 22, 2022 at 10:59 PM.
The church of Satan loves Ayn Rand.

Thought Criminal. May 23, 2022 at 5:19 AM.
So does Jesus. And?

Dervish Sanders. May 23, 2022 at 11:50 AM.
Satan loves Ayn Rand more. She served him well during her time on earth. That the evil Objectivist philosophy lives on brings Satan great joy.

Thought Criminal. May 23, 2022 at 4:41 PM.
The evil Objectivist philosophy that you've never read and can't explain.

Dervish Sanders. May 23, 2022 at 6:54 PM.
No, not that one.

Thought Criminal. May 24, 2022 at 1:38 AM.
Which one then? Explain it.

Dervish Sanders. May 24, 2022 at 6:39 AM.
"Objectivism" is an ideology for egomanial narcissistic sociopaths who believe they're better than most people. They measure success in terms of money. Why they look down on poor people and have little to no empathy for them. Mostly they view the poor with contempt (Ayn Rand said the poor are parasites). I view it as similar to a belief in the "prosperity gospel", except each egomaniacal Objectivist sees him or herself as the center of the universe (why Rand believed the world would end when she died). They love no one more than they love themselves.

donald tRump, an egomanial narcissistic sociopath, is an Ayn Rand fan. Though he is definitely not an Objectivist. I point out this obvious fact because, if I did not, I am sure that is what you would assume I am saying. Ayn Rand has many fans within the republican party. Even though she would surely not be fans of theirs.

btw, I am 100 percent positive my response will be declared by you as proving your assertion that I don't know what Objectivism is and that I can't explain it. What I wrote will be viewed by you as more blithering idiocy and further proof of my extreme stupidity.

Thought Criminal. May 24, 2022 at 7:13 AM.
You're right. Objectivism is an ideology. But then you went downhill with nonsense about narcissism and sociopaths. Your last paragraph is little more than self-fulfilling prophecy. Make it hard on me... actually know what you're talking about so we can have a good discussion. I'm not asking for a term paper with footnotes. I mean seriously, do you actually believe Donald Trump would risk a paper cut trying to read a book, much less an Ayn Rand book? Be serious. You're not even coming up with a good caricature of Objectivism. Try again.

Dervish Sanders. May 24, 2022 at 11:39 AM.
tRump probably watched the 1949 movie and said "I'm like Gary Cooper". As for YOUR nonsense re Objectivism not being an ideology for narcissistic sociopaths - you are one. Clearly you enjoy insulting people you incorrectly perceive yourself to be more intelligent than. But all your comments do is prove you are a blithering idiot. I stand by my prior comment. I accurately summarized Objectivism.

Thought Criminal. May 24, 2022 at 5:06 PM.
You spew a lot of belittling insults in, well, just about every comment you make here. Very narcissistic, certainly sociopathic. Are you an Objectivist? Or does Objectivism have a set definition that you can't address because, you know, you don't have a clue about it.

Dervish Sanders. May 25, 2022 at 5:00 AM.
I don't care if my hate for your hate offends you. Or if my response IN KIND to your insults offends you either. How could I be an Objectivist if I "don't have a clue about it"?

Thought Criminal. May 25, 2022 at 6:04 AM.
I'm not an Objectivist, but I don't go out of my way to "other" them as the enemy as you do. Perhaps you haven't made an impact in your war on Objectivism because you don't know what it is? You keep throwing all your weight into pushing a door clearly marked "pull." It's cartoonish.

Dervish Sanders. May 25, 2022 at 3:05 PM.
Ayn Rand said "Life or death is man's only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course".

If a poor person does not have enough money to feed themselves and starves, or cannot afford health insurance and dies from a treatable condition, Rand does not care, as it was the poor persons choice to die. I call that evil. Evil is the enemy of good.

Thought Criminal. May 26, 2022 at 5:31 AM.
If a poor person does not have enough money to feed themselves, then he knows what he needs and will take action to acquire it. Or starve to death. He's either got a rational self-interest in survival, or he does not. And? Why is it "evil" that suicidal behavior results in death?

Dervish Sanders. May 26, 2022 at 10:23 AM.
Jonathan Judaken says ...Jews Should Embrace Critical Race Theory. In 26 states, including Tennessee where I live and teach, lawmakers have introduced or passed legislation that preempts the teaching of Critical Race Theory (or CRT) in public schools.

Jews should resist this crusade. It is based on a manufactured moral panic... Instead, Jews should embrace critical race theory, knowing that some of its progenitors, along with contemporary practitioners like me, are Jews committed to fighting the entangled history of racisms in all their forms.

Anti-CRT laws are part of a global backlash designed to quell the reckoning with racism unleashed by the murder of George Floyd. Jews should oppose these laws and lean into the insights of critical race theory, some of which were shaped by Jewish antiracist theorists. We should do so because anti-Semitism is on the rise, we need to build coalitions in the struggle against it, and the resources of critical race theory can help us to analyze it more acutely. Ultimately, we should embrace critical race theory because the core Jewish narrative in the Bible is a story about the movement of a people from slavery to freedom, which is precisely the goal of Critical Race Theory.

Jonathan Judaken is the... author, editor, or co-editor of 6 books, he is currently completing a manuscript entitled, Critical Theories of Anti-Semitism: Confronting Modernity and Modern Judeophobia. Article published on Tikkun, which is a quarterly interfaith Jewish left-progressive website and magazine.

Beamishderp: ...then he knows what he needs and will take action to acquire it.

Apply for food stamps. But Objectivists are opposed to the existence of social safety net programs. Poor people are OPPOSED to the elimination of social safety net programs because they are NOT suicidal. Objectivists are homicidal. They want (as articulated by Rand) poor people to die by denying them help.

Ayn Rand: The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him...)

It is our moral duty to help others. Both individually and collectively through our government. Ayn Rand was wrong.

Thought Criminal. May 26, 2022 at 7:22 PM.
It's my moral duty to kill thieves.

Dervish Sanders. May 27, 2022 at 3:42 AM.
Are you a serial killer? There are a LOT of people who receive food stamps. They are all thieves it is your moral duty to murder? I hope you get the death penalty. No life behind bars mooching off the taxpayer for you!

Joe Conservative. May 28, 2022 at 6:37 AM.
Some post-Randian thought.

Thought Criminal. May 28, 2022 at 8:08 AM.
Adam Smith wasn't wrong, he was just monogamous. He lived in a time before hedge funds and diversified portfolios. ;)

Thought Criminal. May 28, 2022 at 8:13 AM.
Are you a serial killer? There are a LOT of people who receive food stamps. They are all thieves it is your moral duty to murder? I hope you get the death penalty. No life behind bars mooching off the taxpayer for you!

You're just not advanced enough in your socialism to feed, clothe, house, and give health care to the cotton pickers you train with a whip. All half-assed, you even let them wander off to the liquor store.

Paul Ryan Squirts Satan

swtd-366. Sunday, January 08, 2017.

Narcissism Is An Objectivist "Virtue", Right?

This comment is in regards to a commentary by creator-of-Objectivism-Ayn-Rand-admier rAtional nAtion. A commentary titled "Oh How I I Love Myself". The person loving himself is Donald Trump. The clue to his self-love is him saying "you'll be so happy. In four years you're going to be interviewing me and you're going to say, What a great job you've done, President Trump".

My response to this post was to submit a comment in which I said "Trump must be an Objectivist" (8/17/2015 AT 07:37:00 PM EDT).

The rAtional response was to write "Not likely". (8/17/2015 AT 08:17:00 PM EDT).

After that I submitted another one in which I clarified what I meant, which was that, seeing as selfishness is an Objectivist "virtue", I assumed that narcissism was too. You know, given the fact that selfishness can also be described as love of one's self. But Mr. nAtion declined to publish my second comment.

Seems it rubs him the wrong way when I point out the truth re Objectivism and Ayn Rand. He objected quite freverently when I posted two commentaries on my blog in which I truthfully referenced Rand's hatred for poor people (SWTD #303 & SWTD #306).

rAtional nAtion: Did you personally speak with Ayn Rand? Can you point to any statement made by Ayn Rand that she hated the poor? Can you point to or link to any statement that supports your hypothesis? Can you formulate a rational non emotional argument supporting or proving your hypothesis? What seems to be true us you hate successful individuals and negate the importance of personal responsibility and the personal effort required to succeed. Can I prove it? No. But neither can you prove your hypothesis that Ayn Rand hated anybody. (8/16/2015 AT 2:11pm).

I included a video in which Rand was asked if she hated poor people... and she said "no". If I spoke with her I'm sure she would have said the same thing. But her writings say otherwise. She CLEARLY hated poor people, and hated them VERY much. I don't know why rAtional brings "emotion" into the argument. Wait, I do. It's a standard Objectivist/Libertarian attack line... they view things "rationally", while their opponents view them "emotionally".

This despite the fact that humans are emotional beings and a LACK of emotion is a sign you're dealing with a sociopath... which Rand was. And Objectivism is too... a sociopathic ideology, that is.

Image: Two Fox Nooz potus interviewees (Donald Trump and Scott Walker) on 8/6/2016 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland OH.

 IDB #5 

Scott Walker Squirts Hitler

This comment by rAtional nAtion falls into the WTF category.

rAtional nAtion: ...Walker is decidedly not Hitler. But his anti union stance and methodology definitely squirts Hitler's own. (6/14/2015 AT 7:48pm).

A typo, I'm guessing. Did rAtional mean to write that Walker's "anti-union stance and methodology definitely squares with Hitler's own"?

Possibly, but I must admit that this is a total guess. Perhaps he DID intend to write about Scott Walker "squirting" Hitler? Maybe that means Scott is "jacking it" while thinking about bashing unions, being like Hitler, and, as a result he "squirts"? It is possible. Although I've never seen Mr. Nation write anything else along those lines.

 IDB #4 

The Obsession Of Three

The "obsession of three" is something the Libertarian blogger rAtional nAtion identified with a comment on his blog "rAtional nAtion uSA".

rAtional nAtion: As for Dervish? Don't bet on it. He seems to have "the obsession of 3". This time it was Will's turn (6/17/2015 AT 03:46:00 PM EDT).

What rAtional means when he says "don't bet on it" is that Dennis Marks (who he is responding to with this comment) is that Dennis should not bet on the discussion "fueling an obsession with Will's clothes".

Why would I be obsessed with Will's clothes? Because he said "I'll eat my hat (along with my tie and trousers) if this guy [Donald Trump] runs [for president]". Then rAtional replied that he would hold him to it.

Since rAtional said he'd hold Willis to eating these clothing items, I followed up (after Trump did indeed announce), with a comment in which I said that I thought Willis should post a video on YouTube showing him eating his hat, tie and trousers (as proof).

In response, rAtional presumed that my comment was a part of my "hateful agenda" against him. In addition to it being part of my "obsession of 3".

The "three" being Willis Hart, Dennis Marks and rAtional nAtion. The "obsession" labeling stemming from the fact that I've created stand-alone blogs dedicated to each of these individuals.

Why did I do this? In regards to Dennis Marks, I created the blog The Truth About Dennis Marks in his honor (on 2/21/2014), because he announced on the blog of Willis Hart that he was doing a series of commentaries purporting to reveal the "truth" about yours truly. Turns out he was lying. It was a little joke by him. He made his blog private so I could not look at it, and then posted links to these truth-telling commentaries on the blog of Willis... when, in reality, there were no truth-telling commentaries.

But I assumed there were. Or, I thought there might be, but I suspected he might be lying. Although, given the fact that his blog was (and still is) private, I could not look and see for myself if his first commentary The Truth About Dervish actually told the "truth" about me. (by "truth" I mean lies. What lies were on Dennis' blog, if any, I did not know).

So I decided to author my own commentary, this one to tell the truth about Dennis and his MANY lies. Which inspired me to create the aforementioned blog. So, that is how that "obsession" came to be. It was prompted by Dennis' constant vile lying.

In regards to Willis Hart, the blog I created in his honor (on 3/6/2014), Oligarchic Stooge Talk (OST), was set up by me after Willis banned me from further comment on his blog (on 8/30/2012).

The banning was something that came about suddenly after he was OK with me commenting on his blog for several years. (see the first OST commentary for more information on why the blog was created).

As for the date discrepancy (Willis banned me on 8/30/2012 and I did not create OST until 3/6/2014)... at first I accepted the banning and went away. Later, I came back and started submitting comments (even though he did not publish them... although he did read them). Then he stopped reading them (out of a frantic desire to protect his echo chamber).

On 9/04/2013 I created a stand-alone page on SWTD (my primary blog) and used that page to respond to posts on Willis' blog.

It wasn't until sometime after 1/12/2014 that I got the idea to do a whole new blog. The idea prompted by the following comment by rAtional nAtion (left on the aforementioned page).

rAtional nAtion: 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. (1/12/2014 AT 10:15pm).

As for the 3rd individual who comprises the "obsession of 3", rAtional nAtion, the blog I created in his honor came about on 4/4/2014, when (during a period of time that rAtional had decided I was banned from his blog), Willis Hart said to rAtional "doesn't he already have a blog that's dedicated entirely to you? I thought that he did", and rAtional replied that YES, I did have one.

Which was false. I did not (at the time) have a blog dedicated to him. So, given the fact that rAtional obviously desired a blog by me dedicated to him SO MUCH that he imagined I had already made one... I decided to oblige him and create one. Although, this time (for fun) I decided this new blog would be a spoof of rAtional's blog RNUSA.

In any case, Mr. nAtion seemed to appreciate the spoof, as he voiced his approval with the following comment...

rAtional nAtion: LMAO! You've really out done yourself this time. Keep em coming Dervo, keep em coming. You're a gas dude. (3/27/2014 AT 2:18pm).

And, in addition to this comment, he also authored a post on RNUSA to plug the spoof blog. But now I'm convinced rAtional lied and was simply attempting to drum up condemnation for me amongst the readers of RNUSA. Indeed, he lied in the comment thread to this post, claiming that I sent him "daily e-mails", which I did not (no daily emails, and no daily comments). Although it is possible rAtional was simply confused, as I did send him a few comments, although only a few and they were not sustained (and absolutely not "daily").

Now, instead of enthusiasm, he says I have an "hateful agenda" against him (the agenda being the spoof blog). Although I have since discontinued spoofing him. Whether or not he noticed this, I do not know. Hopefully there will be no more whines about "hateful agendas" in the future. Even though the spoof wasn't motivated by hate, but only done for fun.

As for "Irrational Delusions", why I created it was explained with my introductory post. rAtional claimed I had a "hateful agenda", which I did (and do) not consider a spoof blog to represent, which is why I decided to create a proper "agenda" blog to replace the spoof one.

Anyway, the point of this commentary (in addition to explaining and responding to this "obsession of 3" comment by Mr. Nation, is to show that this whole dedicated blog thing (the "obsession of 3") started (in part) as a response to requests by the rAtional fEllow. First, he asked me to do something about the comment thread on the page I set up on SWTD getting long... so I created OST.

The spoof blog was created in response to Nation saying I already had a blog for him (when I did not). So I made one. This final blog came about when Nation referred to a spoof/joke blog as "hateful"... which it wasn't. Although, it was the blog for Dennis that came first. So he bears more responsibility for the "obsession of 3" than the rAtional gUy.

Anyway, the spoof sight is done (probably. I am not going to promise that it will never be revived), so I needed this one to replace it. In order to maintain the "obsession of 3". Given that it's a waste of time to argue with Nation about there not being an obsession - he will believe what he wants no matter what I say... so, instead I will do my best to fulfill the obsession. Or at least make a good effort to live up to what Nation believes to be true.

 IDB #3 

Irrational Delusions Blog "Welcome Post" Addendum

In my previous commentary I said that I created this blog as a response to an accusation by the blogger rAtional nAtion that I have an "agenda" in regards to him (and so I created this blog in order to vaildate his accusation). Now, if anyone reading the first commentary I put up for this blog had also read a comment thread located here on Mr. nAtion's blog... they might have said "wait a minute"...

Why? Because what I wrote in my "Welcome" post is not the entire story. As it turns out, Mr. nAtion's comment in regards to my "agenda" concerns some other blog that looks as if it might have been set up to spoof him (possibly). Mr. nAtion believes (perhaps with good reason) that I am responsible for this blog that might be spoofing RNUSA. I, of course, emphatically deny any involvement with this other blog.

OK, so even though I deny involvement with this blog, or that I know who is responsible for it, I still (in this discussion on Mr. nAtion's blog that took place recently), offered to take it down. How is this possible if it is not my blog, you might ask. In regards to this I say "no comment". Perhaps I was just yanking Mr. nAtion's chain? I mean, he keeps blaming me for this blog, even though many people suspect he is spoofing himself.

Yeah, that's right, Mr. rAtional nAtion himself is behind this blog. Or so some people say. Personally I think this websight is rip-roaringly hilarious, and that if Mr. nAtion is behind it... he is likely very proud. Proud of how funny it is, and also proud of how he tricked the blogger Octopus into thinking I am behind said blog (which may or may not be a spoof).

In any case, full partial disclosure here; this other blog (which might belong to yours truly or possibly Mr. nAtion, or even someone else) is the reason why Lester says I have an agenda in regards to him. Although, if it is his blog, then he might have an agenda against himself? No, I think his agenda is to make me look responsible for it. And then smear me as an "attacker" who "is on par with Lisa". (Lisa is Far Right blogger with a racist fanbase that has a bad rep).

Which, IMO, is a very nasty thing for him to be doing (if he is framing me). But I have no idea who is behind this blog that so angers Mr. nAtion (or so I say). Anyway, when I offered to take it down (which I may or may not be able to do), he said I should do so, but only if I wished to. Meaning he wanted it to stay, because I think this blog is quite cool, actually... and I would like it to stay no matter who is behind it. So my wish is for it to remain.

In any case, this blog (Irrational Delusions, not the other one) is definitely not a spoof. It is, in my opinion, a proper "agenda" blog. Which I decided I needed, due to my agenda against Mr. nAtion (the one he says I have). Also, the nature of that other blog is very different from the nature of this blog (or "sight"). This one is like the ones that exist for Dennis Marks and Willis Hart. Those are two blogs I admit belong to me. As well as this one. And that is something I will not do in regards to that other blog.

Anyway, this rAtional fellow clearly likes it that I have an agenda against him, because he refused to say if he wanted that blog removed or not. Which is why my assumption is that he does not. He proffered a lame excuse of "not bargaining", but it was clear he was refusing to simply say "yes, I'd like that blog gone". Possibly because he's the one behind it (this is what I think is most likely). Or possibly just because he's a huge fan.

Either way, he had a chance to get rid of it (as far as he knew/provided he isn't the one authoring the commentaries on it), and he declined. Even so, I imagine there will be further (feigned) belly aching about it in the future. I'd say you can count on it.

IDB #2

Welcome To The Irrational Delusions Blog. Websight Post #1

The "Irrational Delusions Blog" is a sight dedicated to laughing at the utter nonsense spewed by the Objectivist/Libertarian blogger known as Lester Nation, but whose real name is "Les Carpenter". Although his blogger ID is rAtional nAtion uSA (and some refer to him as "RN").

For the record, "Lester" (or alternately "Less") are two variations that will, if you use them, cause Mr. Nation to fly into an insane rage. In regards to these rages, use of "Less"... that I can understand. But "Lester" is just the not-abbreviated version of "Les". It's like a dude whose name is "Jonathan" getting angry if someone calls him "John". Perhaps they might prefer "Jonathan", but being called "John" is hardly a reason to Hulk out on someone. In my humble opinion, at least.

In any case, back to my reason for starting this blog, which is because I thought it would be a hoot to (have a place to) point out some extremely absurd comments I've noticed from this blogger who calls himself a fan of the founder of an evil ideology known as Objectivism. This is an individual who describes himself as a "fiscal conservative".

Hence his subscription to Libertarianism, as that ideology is often thought of as being for people who are fiscally Conservative but socially liberal. Meaning they are generally for a woman's right to choose (although Libertarian Randal Paul is not. In fact he supports the totally nuts idea of giving Constitutional Rights to human eggs as soon as they are fertilized. Likely because the fundy Republican base would reject him completely if he had some other view... like supporting a woman's right to choose).

But this is something, I would guess, most Libertarians, including Lester, reject. Libertarians also generally favor marriage equality, although I've run into some Libertarians who SAY they support equality for gay people, but then say it's OK if business owners decide they want to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Again, this is an idea that the supposed Libertarian Randal Paul supports (in regards to gay people as well as African Americans). As for Lester Nation, I couldn't tell you where he stands on this issue. If I had to guess, I would say that he stands with business owners. Why? Because this is the standard Libertarian position. Businesses belong to their owners, and owners (not government) should decide how those businesses are run (we're talking about private property, after all).

Nevermind the fact that businesses licenses are granted by the State and that, as a condition of such a license being granted, the owners must agree to operate in a non-discriminatory fashion. Or we can (and should) ask them to, at least. Because we live in a democracy and We The People set the rules for business (and non-discrimination SHOULD be a priority in a democracy).

But Libertarians are generally distrustful of democracy and want it minimized. Business licenses should be done away with. Want a business? You should be able to start one without going begging to the government. Or being taxed on your profits. Because these costs (Libertarians say) will simply be passed on to the consumer.

Not that I, as a Progressive Democrat leaning toward Democratic Socialism, agree with that. I do not. I think it is absurd nonsense. But that was not the absurd nonsense of Lester's I was referring to earlier.

Specifically I was referring to comments in which Lester says he supports things of a more Socialistic nature. And his support for these policies/laws/whatever of a more Socialistic nature are, given that he says he's a "fiscally conservative" Libertarian who admires Ayn Rand, make absolutely no sense.

These absurdities are what is going to be the primary focus of this blog. Or one of its focuses at least. It was one of the reasons I decided to start this blog. That, and the fact that Lester accused me of having an "agenda" regarding him.

rAtional nAtion: It has been increasingly obvious you do indeed have an agenda with respect to Will, dmarks, and me. And, it is again getting tiring as well as distracting. Your point has been made, you know Will is not going to change his views on the issue, and by continuing any further on this post you certainly are not going to force agreement. (6/8/2015 AT 07:38:00 PM EDT).

This issue I was trying to "force" concerned Willis Hart's climate change denialism and his continual reference to temperature readings of the troposphere by "luminaries" John Christy and Roy Spencer that they messed up. By "messed up" I mean their research was invalidated. But the climate change denying blogger still cites this research anyway.

I was attempting to get a response from him, but he chose to ignore me. Likely because the cognitive dissonance this caused (Christy and Spencer being wrong) was too much for this brain to handle. It made his head hurt so he chose instead to scurry back to his echo chamber (his blog) and compose another angry commentary concerning the conspiracy of (a majority of) climatologists who are deceiving us with their "alarmist" "warmist" agenda. Although that there is majority consensus is a part of the conspiracy. Other scientists (the handful not in on the conspiracy) were tricked into agreeing that climate change is real. (See SWTD #288 for my full commentary on this matter).

But, enough on that. Back to the comment from Lester. A comment in which he claims that it's "obvious" I have an "agenda".

This caused me to think... if I have an anti-Les "agenda", then shouldn't I have a blog to support this agenda? This might not sound logical at first, but I also have an agenda against Willis Hart as well as Dennis Marks (or dmarks as he prefers, because this is his Blogger ID).

And for these two fellows, my agenda against both of them is supported by a blog dedicated to refuting the nonsense spewing from each of them (one blog for each nut for a total of TWO blogs). But I have no blog specifically dedicated to refuting Mr. nAtion's nonsense. Yes, I have written some commentaries on my primary blog that specifically addressed things Mr. nAtion has written, but only on my primary blog (where I primarily cover other, non-Les related topics).

That is why I decided to start this blog. If I do have an agenda against Les as I have one against these other fellows, surely it is an agenda deserving of a blog dedicated to him solely? So... that is why this blog exists. As for how much activity might be seen here (in terms of commentaries posted), right now I'm expecting not much. Why? Because I would prefer to focus most of my attention on my primary blog. And I already have two other "agenda" blogs.

There is only so much time in the day and therefore only so much time for blogging. That said, I do intend to update this blog at least once in awhile and do not intend to let it die. Probably with shorter commentaries, as they will take less time.

By the way, I may often spell certain words incorrectly. Like "site" (as in website) as "sight". Or "guilty" as "quilty". This is in tribute to Lester, an individual who frequently tosses a mean word salad, which is something else that makes me laugh... and remember, laughing at Les is another reason I gave for starting this blog.

So, there you have it. The reason why this blog exists, that is. And why the subtitle for this blog is "An Anti-Les Agenda Blog" (he he). Because if I do indeed have an agenda, the agenda DESERVES a blog to support it.

I hope Lester appreciates my validating his accusation with the creation of this blog (should he visit it and read this post). I surely would not want him to feel slighted because Willis and Dennis each have blogs supporting my agenda against them while he does not. Now he does. So, hopefully (if he discovers this blog) it causes him happiness instead of irrational anger.

 IDB #1