On Dennis Marks & Barbara Lee

Barbara Jean Lee, the U.S. Representative for California's 13th congressional district and a Democrat, "gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of congress to vote NO on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), stating that she voted no not because she opposed military action but because she believed the AUMF, as written, granted overly-broad powers to wage war to the president" (blurb via Wikipedia).

Because of this, Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) remarked "Lee is the one who voted like the Taliban slipped her a check. She is also a devout racist" (comment from the blog "Contra O'Reilly"; made on 1/11/2014 at 4:28am).

Correction: the "Taliban slipped her a check" was due to her AUMF vote; and the "racist" crack was due to... who knows? I'm going to guess it's because she's Black. Whenever Dennis accuses someone of racism, it seems as though they are always Black. I certainly cannot think of an example of him calling a White person a racist (except for David Duke, and that's a no-brainer).

In any case... Barbara Lee deserve mucho kudos for being the ONLY one who recognized the FACT that the AUMF granted WAY to much power to the president. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and with the AUMF Congress ceded it's power to the president (who then abused it and started two illegal wars, one with a country whose leader was an enemy of bin Laden).

TADM #32. See also SWTD #244.

Dennisism #2: Backstab

This is the second installment that examines words or phrases that Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) has rewritten to serve his own purposes. See here for the first installment and here for the post in which I explain (in greater detail) what a "Dennisism" is.

Dictionary.com defines "backstab" (verb - used with object), as an "attempt to discredit (a person) by underhanded means, as innuendo, accusation, or the like".

Dennis redefines "backstab" to mean an attempt to discredit a person (him, specifically) by telling the truth about them. Or by quoting him and allowing said quotes to speak for themselves... as this truth-telling blogger does here.

This new definition for "backstab" was used by Dennis in the following comment...

Dennis Marks: [in regard to comments on another blog, that person] is not here to read this. However, this is not the "backstabbing" that [another progressive blogger I hate] and WD engage in: it is a compliment to the man. (3/22/2014 at 1:34pm).

In regards to the other progressive blogger that Dennis hates, I am unsure what "backstabbing" or truth-telling Dennis is referring to. This other blogger does not interact much, if at all, with Dennis. I do know that the "backstabbing" that comes from this blogger that enrages Dennis is my truth-telling about him. The posts on this very blog (as well as others) have caused many tantrums to be thrown by the doofus named Dennis. Although, when the tantrums are thrown on the blogs of Lester Nation or Willis Hart, Dennis is protected by the respective blog proprietors from being called out on his lying.

Hence my truth-telling about Dennis here. It isn't allowed on the two other blogs that Dennis frequents. On those blogs "the management" appreciates (and cheers) the dissembling of the delusional dummy.

TADM #31

Dennisism #1: Dictionary Rewriting & Synonym

Dennis Marks has a, shall we say, "unique" way of looking at the world that differs from that of ordinary people. The purpose of this series of posts is to define what I have decided to call "Dennisisms". They could also be called "dmarkisms", if you prefer (given the fact that dmarks is Dennis' Blogger ID).

If one finds him or herself involved in a conversation with Mr. Marks, confusion regarding this fellow's use of terms might result. You think he's talking about one thing, but you've got it wrong. The reason being that Dennis invents his own definitions and uses his own terminology. Yeah, that tripped me up at first too.

Problem is, this is something that Dennis is not even aware that he's doing. As far as he's concerned, his dictionary rewriting, personal definitions and phraseology is normal. He just makes this stuff up and believes it applies to everyone! Unbelievable, but true.

For this first installment the Dennis re-terminology I am highlighting is "dictionary rewriting", which Dennis may accuse a detractor of if said detractor quotes the dictionary to prove him wrong.

Yes, you got that right... an EXACT dictionary quote - complete with a link to ensure no words have been changed - is "rewriting" according to this delusional doofus.

Dennis last accused me of this when I cited Dictionary.com, which defines a synonym as "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another". Dennis' argument is that since "create" and "invent" are synonyms, that Al Gore actually did claim to have invented the internet, as "create" (the word he actually used) is a synonym of "invent".

Obviously Dennis defines synonyms as words that always have EXACTLY the same meaning (Dennis rewrites the dictionary definition by removing the "or nearly the same meaning" portion).

TADM #30

Dennisism: Definition

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks has a, shall we say, "unique" way of looking at the world that differs from that of ordinary people. The purpose of this series of posts is to define what I have decided to call "Dennisisms". They could also be called "dmarkisms", if you prefer.

If one finds him or herself involved in a conversation with Mr. Marks, confusion regarding this fellow's use of terms might result. You think he's talking about one thing, but you've got it wrong. The reason being that Dennis invents his own definitions and uses his own terminology. Yeah, that tripped me up at first too.

Problem is, this is something that Dennis is not even aware that he's doing. As far as he's concerned, his dictionary rewriting, personal definitions and phraseology is normal. He just makes this stuff up and believes it applies to everyone! Unbelievable, but true.

But you'll have to wait for the first installment to see what I'm talking about. Then all shall become clear. And you'll certainly be scratching your head, thinking, how the hell can one person be THIS deluded?

TADM #29

Was Osama bin Laden A Hero to Dennis Marks?

According to a delusional moron known as Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks), OBL is a "hero" to your's truly. The following Dennis' comment is in regards to a post by Willis Hart on "reforming" the Pentagon...

Dennis Marks: What makes it harder is that there are some (WD sides with) who want such reform not to save money, but to make the nation weak and strengthen our enemies such as his hero Bin Laden. (3/13/2014 at 3:12am).

Actually, I think the evidence points to bin Laden being Dennis' hero. Or having been his hero. It isn't clear from the comment above if Dennis knows bin Laden is dead. In any case, the former al Qaeda leader is (or was) surely more a hero to Dennis then to me. I favored bringing him to justice 10 years before Obama located him and gave the order to take him out.

The Taliban actually offered to turn bin Laden over to a neutral third party for trial, but Dennis (as well as his buddy Willis) rejects the idea that such a court would have convicted OBL. In fact, they LOL and insist that such a tribunal would have set bin Laden free.

That is despite the experts saying otherwise. Gareth Porter, an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy, believes trial by an Islamic organization would have arguably reduced the appeal of bin Laden and al-Qaeda enormously throughout the Islamic world. Also, having Osama tried by Islamic jurists and by an Islamic international organization would have been an enormous advantage, in that the Islamic world would have accepted the verdict as legitimate.

Surely we could have tried this route, which could not have worked out any worse than what we did end up doing, which was to allow OBL to escape at Tora Bora. And this argument of Dennis that allowing OBL to be tried by a neutral third country would have been completely unacceptable points to, I believe, Dennis' strong desire that OBL be allowed to remain free.

Given Dennis' preference that OBL be free over a chance to bring him to justice, I find it much more likely that bin Laden is Dennis' hero. The only question now is, did Dennis cry when OBL was killed?

TADM #28. See also TADM #33 and SWTD #240.

The Racially Biased Dennis Marks Calls Out Another Black "Racist"

In regards to the Senate rejecting President Obama's nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the DOJ's civil rights division (afterwhich Adegbile announced he was withdrawing as a nominee and going into private practice), the following comment was offered by our friend Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks)...

Dennis Marks: The seven Democrats who voted him down were heroic: bucking party to go with principle to keep a racist out of a high office. (3/6/2014 AT 5:11:00pm EST).

This is Dennis calling out another Black person "racist". "Racist" in quotes, because, as his buddy rAtional nAtion points out "I have neither read or heard anything that would lead me to believe Adegbile is a racist".

The reason Dennis accuses Adegbile of racism? His reason is the same as that proffered by the Repubs (who all voted NO).

U.S Senators from both parties objected to Adegbile's signing of an appeal for Black Panther member Mumia Abu-Jamal who was convicted in 1982 for the first-degree murder of Daniel Faulkner, a Philadelphia police officer, on 12/9/1981. Mumia Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death, although the death sentence later was vacated because of problems with jury instructions. Adegbile and other lawyers filed an unsuccessful amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in 2009, arguing that the conviction was invalid because of racial discrimination in jury selection. (Wikipedia/Debo Adegbile/Nomination to be Assistant Attorney General).

Only in the mind of Dennis (and other racists) are concerns about racial discrimination racist. As Media Matters points out "The legal arguments of the NAACP LDF on behalf of condemned prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal were not in regards to his innocence but rather to unconstitutional death sentencing jury instructions".

Under our system, EVERYONE (even guilty people) is entitled to the best defense their lawyer can mount. Adegbile was simply doing his job as a lawyer, not unlike Chief Justice John Roberts, who "helped represent Florida death row inmate John Ferguson, convicted in the murder of eight people".

The racism charge is completely bogus and ONLY being made because Adegbile's skin color is the same as the person he signed a brief in defense of. And then, only because that skin color is Black. If Adegbile were White, or if they (lawyer and defendant) were both White? There would have been no accusations of racism. The accusations were only made for political/racially-biased reasons.

rAtional nAtion is obliviously unaware (or simply doesn't care), but Dennis has a long record of accusing Black people of racism. Attorney General Eric Holder, American civil rights activist and Baptist minister Jesse Jackson, attorney and author Van Jones, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (the Democrat representing California's 13th district), the 65th US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Reverend Al Sharpton, MSNBC personality Toure, the rapper Common, and many more (I'm sure).

Likely there are others, but these are the ones I've recorded Dennis commenting on. Dennis is the kind of White person who spends most of his time (when he's thinking of racism) worrying about the "racist Blacks".

I'd also like to direct your attention to a comment from dmarks concerning Barack Obama. While he did not use the word "racist" to describe our current POTUS, Dennis did use a bunch of dog whistles that racists use.

Dennis Marks: You should have looked at his career [Obama's] before he ran. His appointment to his Harvard Law post by supposedly well-meaning racists not because he was qualified at all, but explicitly because of his skin color. His involvement as a "community activist" in which he encouraged people not to work for a better life, but instead to beg for handouts from those who did, teaching people to blame others for problems they brought on themselves. His listless and lazy and by any objective standard, unremarkable legislative record. (1/14/2014 AT 5:26pm).

So, Dennis belives our president to be lazy by "any objective standard", huh? I don't know about you, but my objectivity tells me that this dmarks fellow is a racist. Although he apparently believes there are some "good ones" (like former House member Allen West).

TADM #27

Dennis Marks: A Hypocrite With Absolutely Zero Integrity

In regards to integrity, Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) laughably believes he is chock full of it, according to this recent comment he shat on the blog Contra O'Reilly...

Dennis Marks: I can with clear conscience [look in the mirror]. [Another blogger] complains when she is the target of the fakers, but specifically applauds WD when he does it. In this she has no integrity. I have no problem, now as always, condemning those who are doing this to [the other blogger]... and also WD, who does something quite similar. If [the other blogger] really did have "integrity", she would have condemned W Sanders ID games instead of enthusiastically endorse them. (3/17/2014 AT 3:52pm).

As I have proven on this blog, Dennis lies, and Dennis lies constantly. The lies are outrageous and often vile. The vileness of his lies will become apparent if you should dare speak against the ridiculousness of his disinformation. And this piece of shit has the nerve to talk up his integrity?

This sack of excrement has NONE. A person with integrity wouldn't spew vile lies about someone he disagrees with politically, but this is exactly what Mr. Marks does when he lies about this truth-teller citing Joseph Stalin as a hero. This blogger never said anything of the sort, and Dennis knows it. Yet, despite knowing this fact, Dennis persists with his lies. And that is only the latest one.

An individual with integrity would argue honestly and NOT lie in this manner (vilely). Dennis is a man with zero integrity, and his criticizing the integrity of others is an utter joke. When you are completely devoid of integrity, you have absolutely no authority to criticize others in this regard AT ALL.

So, in regards to Dennis' criticism of this truth-teller's "lack of integrity", and in regards to the other blogger that Dennis says has no integrity - he can stuff it. Dennis is the one with no integrity - this is something he proves on almost a daily basis.

This anger that Dennis is displaying in regards to the other blogger - the one who "specifically applauds" - is just Dennis throwing a tantrum. He absolutely can't stand it that someone he despises pulled one over on him.

TADM #26

On Dennis Marks, Al Gore, Sarah Palin & Snopes

According to the Christian Science Monitor "Everybody knows that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. But like many things that everyone knows, it's not actually true". And, as I revealed in my previous post, Snopes (in addition to others) have debunked it. Al Gore NEVER said he invented the internet.

None-the-less the certifably insane Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) actually believes Al Gore said he DID invent the internet. And he does not think Al Gore misspoke. Dennis is sure Al Gore meant he literally invented it, as per this quote from the delusional nutter...

Dennis Marks: I am being completely factual here. The bullshit is coming from you for claiming that there's some substantive difference between someone claiming that he invented the Internet and that he created it. I suggest you read Gore's actual quotation before you make as much of a fool of yourself as the boob who took false credit for creating the Internet. (6/23/2011 AT 3:56am).

In the Christian Science Monitor article, the Gore quote comes in at number 9 in their list of "The 10 most famous things never actually said". At number 10 is another misquote that Dennis lies about. The quote "attributed" to Palin that "I can see Russia from my house!" which Sarah Palin never actually said, although SOME people think she did (when it was actually SNL's Tina Fey). But, according to dmarks it was "leftists who went around claiming that Palin said she could see Russia from her house" (dmarks quote from 6/18/2011 at 1:02pm).

Dennis said that after I pointed out to him that people who believed Palin said that are likely politically uninformed and not "Leftists". Then he went on to quote Snopes (debunking the Palin quote)... even though when I quoted Snopes to prove Al Gore never said he invented the internet - dmarks said Snopes was wrong!

In fact, fact checking sites are just fine with Mr. Marks - except when they disagree with him - then he slanders them with accusations of being "self-appointed pressure groups" who are disseminating "false claims". OK, so Dennis was talking about another fact he did not like at the time, as well as another fact checking organization. But if Snopes was wrong about Gore, and their wrongness is as obvious as you say it is, then isn't Snopes a "pressure group" as well.

And, if Snopes is a pressure group, what are you doing citing them to "prove" your claims about "Leftists" thinking Sarah said she could see Russia from her house? Not that it matters, as Snopes only debunked the quote as being from Sarah Palin instead of Tina Fey. Snopes never said Leftists were responsible for getting it wrong.

My point is to point out the ridiculousness of Dennis quoting Snopes to buttress a claim of Leftists saying the quote came from Sarah (even though Snopes didn't say that) and thinking Snopes is right, while arguing Snopes is wrong about Gore. Huh. Doesn't their being a "pressure group" result in their claims being suspect. And why the hell would they slander Leftists by saying they're responsible for the misattribution?

Obviously the individual making a fool of himself here is the big boob who calls himself dmarks (AKA the individual everyone else knows as Dennis*).

*Note: Everyone else does not know dmarks as Dennis... but this truth-teller is working on it. And, while everyone may not know him as Dennis, virtually everybody knows that dmarks is a boob. That much I am absolutely positive about.

Correction 10/6/2014: "Virtually everyone" does not know dmarks is a boob, only a LOT of people know this. Turns out a Progressive blogger who calls himself Octopus is completely in the dark regarding Dennis' boobism. Unfortunately.

TADM #25

Dennis Marks Caught Red-Handed Lying

Seems that Dennis Marks has a real problem with me telling the truth about him on this blog. I know this because several times I have linked to a comment or two by Mr. Marks, and only a few days later Dennis deletes them...

Dennis Marks: I've deleted these quotations, not because I withdraw anything I've said, but to "yank WD's chain" when he links to material here in order to beat dead horses back to life. I am considering his propensity to fabricate blog quotations, however. (3/14/2014 AT 4:59am).

WTF is this moron talking about? I quoted him on 3/7/2014 saying that he drops by my blog. This was a comment Dennis made on 3/4/2014 and deleted on 3/14/2014. In 10 days this maroon thinks his comment is a "dead horse" that nobody is allowed to refute?

Maybe I should try that... I make a comment and anyone who disagrees is "beating a dead horse". As I pointed out previously, this is a tactic Dennis uses because he believes it guarantees him the last word. He can continually bring up topics debated long ago (topics he was proven to be wrong on many times), and nobody can object. If they do *they* are "beating dead horses"! Or gnawing on old bones.

The truth of the matter is that it is Dennis who loves beating dead horses. And he also lies about me "fabricating blog quotes". This he THINKS he can claim because he deleted his comments. If he truly was not withdrawing anything he's said, then why not allow the comments to stand? That way, if I did "fabricate" anything, the allegation could easily be proven.

Instead the dishonest dope deletes comments and then lies about fabrications. I think that is proof enough that Dennis lies. He deletes the very comments that could substantiate his "fabricating" charge... if it were true. Which, clearly it is not. So (as Dennis likes to say)... caught you lying Dennis. Although this is an actual lie Dennis has been caught in - as opposed to the fictional "lies" he catches me in.

TADM #24

Dennis LOL, Classics Edition #1

Welcome to the first in a new series here on "The Truth About Dennis Marks". This new series of postings will highlight classic Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) LOLs from the past.

For this first entry we will be traveling back in time to 2012. This highly LOL-able comment was proffered by Mr. Marks when I asked him about his support for the invasion of Iraq by preznit bush...

Dennis Marks: I was always opposed to the Iraq War. It was senseless for Saddam Hussein to start it in the first place by invading Kuwait. And it was senseless for him to re-ignite it by breaking the cease-fire in so many aggressive ways. (7/22/2012 AT 1:36pm).

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

That's still funny, even 2 years (almost) later. Originally I said "that was a good joke dmarks... about Saddam starting the war. Although I'm laughing at you and not with you".

Indeed. That is an observation that still proves to be true to this day. Dennis makes many LOL-worthy comments, but they are always of the "laugh at" and never the "laugh with" variety.

If it were true that Saddam started the Iraq war, then why did bush go to the UN (send Powell to make his case)? Why would he need to convince the UN to go along with starting a war if it had already begun?

The Dennis argument is, of course, completely illogical. But then, most of what Dennis says is illogical, and only good for LOL-ing in response to. But some seem to disagree. Like his buddies Lester and Willis. Why they put up with his insanity is a mystery to me. Sure, they suffer from their own delusions, but still, Dennis' nuttery outstrips even their own.

Update 7/1/2014: Dennis, as he often does when I link to comments of his, deleted his idiocy about Saddam "starting" the Iraq war. Also, the Google cached page was updated with a newer version, thus removing his comment permanently. But he said it, of this you can be positive. In any case he admits to deleting comments, claiming he does it "for the amusement factor".

In any case, in my response I said "LOL. That was a good joke dmarks... about Saddam starting the war. Although I'm laughing at you and not with you". So, I did not quote him, but this response CLEARLY concerns the delusional Dennis claiming that Saddam started the war. (So this is pretty solid proof, I think, that Dennis said what I say he did).

TADM #23

Dennis Marks Lies Concerning the Clinton Surplus

Regarding the surpluses of the Clinton-era, FactCheck.org says "there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased.

But Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) says "checking Treasury Department figures, it was solid debt all the way through Clinton and Bush. Clinton at the end ran unusually low deficits... but was never in the black".

What the lying Dennis is doing is substituting overall debt figures for budget figures. Dennis is correct that the total national debt continued to increase under Clinton, but that was because of interest payments on the National Debt. For Dennis to give Clinton any credit, the entire national debt (ran up primarily under Reagan) would have to have been erased. Completely ridiculous, of course, which is why Fact Check confirms that President Clinton ran surpluses during the last two years of his presidency.

But, according to Dennis, when I agree with a professional fact checking organization - I'm lying. Even George W. bush recognized the fact that the Clinton surplus was real. Shortly after assuming office the new prez said "we recognize, loud and clear, the surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money. And we ought to trust them with their own money".

And then bush frittered away the surplus by sending out rebate checks, knowing it would make the people happy and that they would credit bush for the "free money" (money that should have been used to pay down the debt). bush realized the surplus was real, and instead of using it responsibility he used it to purchase political capital.

But, when I brought up what GWb had to say regarding the surplus, Dennis simply ignored me and went back to calling me a liar who was relying on "accounting fraud" to arrive at a surplus.

And, when Dennis' buddy Will pointed out that the national debt went up every year under Clinton, Dennis felt validated and said (about me)...

Dennis Marks: [He is] the liar with the black crayon who arbitrarily scribbles out parts of the actual historic budget in order to create a fake picture of what happened to try to make Clinton look better. (8/31/2012 AT 7:48am).

That would make bush a liar with a black crayon as well. Although he only wanted to make himself look better by giving money away. But AGAIN, I was referring the the Clinton BUDGET surplus, not whether or not Clinton wiped out the entire national debt (and therefore no interest payments were necessary).

If fiscal responsibility is to be measured, looking at a president's budget (and not whether or not he did the impossible by completely paying off the national debt ran up mostly by Reagan) is what should be looked at. In this instance Dennis does not want us looking at who is responsible for the debt up to that point in time (Reagan).

When such things are looked at Republicans look bad and Democrats look good, which is why liars like Dennis seek to shift some of the blame from a fiscally irresponsible president (Reagan) to a fiscally responsible president (Clinton)... while ignoring the facts (as determined by a professional fact checking organization). It's transparent and shameful.

Fortunately very few fall for it. Sane people agree Clinton ran a BUDGET surplus, even if he did not pay down the entire national debt which was accumulated by every president that came before him (mainly Reagan). That is why only stupid people (like Dennis) make the argument that there was no surplus.

TADM #22

Dennis Marks Sez Ron Paul Speaks With One Voice Alongside The Terrorists

While this truth-teller strongly believes the Libertarian who served as a Republican Representative in the House Ron Paul is very wrong on many issues, there is one area in which he believes the elder Paul has it right. What follows is Mr. Paul speaking about our so-called "war on terror"...

Ron Paul: 9/11 "was blowback for decades of US intervention in the Middle East". And he was also correct when he said "the last thing we needed was the government's response: more wars, a stepped-up police and surveillance state, and drones". (Excerpt from a 9/11/2013 HuffPo article by Nick Wing).

In regards to to Ron Paul on "blowback", the blogger Willis Hart (who calls himself a fiscally Conservative "small L Libertarian") wrote a commentary in which he expressed his disagreement with former Rep. Paul on this matter...

Willis Hart: For Mr. Paul or anybody to think that 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings, and Benghazi wouldn't have happened had only our troops not been placed in Saudi Arabia for a spate is a little bit silly and naive in my estimation. (3/9/2014 AT 12:44pm).

This view of Mr. Hart is, of course, complete bullplop. Although he does not go as far in insulting Mr. Paul as the delusional idiot Dennis Marks, who replies with the following...

Dennis Marks: I'm sure those like WD, with a "hate Americans first" attitude and who speaks with one voice alongside the terrorists on this will disagree. Strongly. Remember, he wanted Bin Laden to be turned over to a kangaroo court of fellow terrorists so he could get something between a slap on the wrist or a pat in the back... but not justice at all. (3/11/2014 AT 12:44pm).

Yeah, his intention is to insult me with this vile lie, but if what Dennis says applies to me, then it assuredly applies to Mr. Paul as well. And, Marks is also fiscally Conservative in his thinking, same as Mr. Hart. But both of these morons have allowed their Islamophobia and thirst for vengeance to blind them to the anger our killing of Muslim innocents has seeded.

Illegal invasions and drone attacks have caused Muslims worldwide who wouldn't have joined up due to a desire for "jihad" and to convert infidels or kill them - joining up for REVENGE. That's blowback. People cautioning against it are NOT "speaking with one voice alongside the terrorists". Willis Hart is the naive one here. And Dennis Marks is an extremely sick lying sack of shit.

Dennis so depraved in his desire to KILL KILL KILL "the terrorists" that he eagerly slanders people concerned about the cycle of violence (and not at all on the side of the terrorists) with sick vile lies. And with no shame at all. Willis Hart should be embarrassed that his commentary elicited such vile filth. But it appears these two half-wits think - if not exactly - then very much alike.

TADM #21. See also OST #2 and SWTD #239.

Dennis Marks Fiddles

In my previous commentary I said - regarding posts about another blogger Dennis Marks he announced on the blog "Contra O'Reilly" - that I suspected there may be no posts at all. Turns out I was right.

dmarks [MARCH 10, 2014 AT 9:21 AM] Speaking [of] "pranks", I played Barlowe/Dervish/Lickshitz whatever he uses like a fiddle, and spent very little time doing it. The "truth about Dervish" post on my blog, the mere title of which caused WD to have a major tantrum on several blogs, was just a couple of paragraphs on the historic Whirling Dervishes. The posts about Dennis were about the cartoon character Dennis the Menace. The posts with Sanders in the title were all about the fast-food magnate. My most recent post about Gore and Sanders was this time about Gore Vidal (a man who, like Al Gore, never created the Internet), with an unrelated pic of Col. Sanders. All of these posts on my blog took about two minutes to write, just some quick cuts and pastes. All of them generated multiple false accusations/assumptions, along with extremely time consuming whiny posts at WD's blog based on the false assumptions. None of my blog posts or posts or content have ever involved W Dervish/etc, now or ever. Most of them have elicited some interesting comments from participants. I've decided to stop, for the reason that there is only so much that can be said about Col. Harland Sanders and Dennis the Menace. I have no doubt WD will easily find other reasons to have conniptions, such as recently when he whined and moaned at great length because RN sent to spam some of WD's below-standards comments at "Rational Nation".

No, Dennis, you played no one "like a fiddle", but dream on. I strongly suspected you did not write these posts you were announcing, as you have never written anything of substance for your boring blog. Just pictures of postcards and moronic musings on Sleestaks. That you had actually sat down and taken the time to write something that required a little time and thought (when you never had before) seemed unlikely to me.

Yes, I made some assumptions and authored some posts - so Dennis got some of the attention he was looking for. I will give him that. There were no "major tantrums" or whining in post form or "conniptions", however. Only truth-telling about what a lying scumbag Mr. Marks is.

Perhaps I should just delete all posts here in which I made assumptions about what Dennis might have said about me on his blog. That way it never happened. Or Dennis seems to think that's the way it works, at least. When I authored a post about his delusions regarding former VP Al Gore, Dennis deleted all the comments of his I linked to.

Finally, in regards to "below standard" comments rejected by rAtional nAtion - This actually caused zero "conniptions", only inspiration for "the management" at SWTD to author a post that he believes turned out quite well.

But the delusional and vainglorious Dennis obviously thinks everything he (or his buddies) does has me "spittle flecking" or throwing tantrums or having conniptions. To hear him tell it, I do it every time I read a Dennis comment.

By the way, I wouldn't put it past Dennis to try a double fake out (meaning his posts aren't as he describes them), but I doubt it. For the same reasons I doubted he wrote any posts about me to begin with.

TADM #20

Dennis Marks Thinks He Settles the Fight Once and For All With The Last Word

The title of the post is in reference to two Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) love letters from his blog, one from 2/24/2014 titled "Dennis Settles the Fight Once and For All", and the second from 3/9/2014 titled "Sanders and Gore: The Last Word".

Well, I guess I just hang it up then, huh? If the fight is settled and Dennis did it with "the last word", then what is the point in me continuing to blog, right? That said, this will be the last post here on "The Truth About Dennis Marks". I probably should have just went away quietly, instead of writing a commentary announcing the end of this blog. I mean, this post surely counts as another word, does it not?

Good thing, then, that I was speaking facetiously. The deluded Dennis did not settle any fights or have any last words. The blog author is not shutting down TADM. He'll continue to publish many more words that will settle the question of whether or not Dennis is a delusional lying POS as well as a pathological liar.

The answer is YES, HE IS. By the way, the links attached to the posts of Dennis above are to his announcements of said posts (on the blog of Willis Hart). The actual posts are currently hidden and may not actually even exist. The author of this blog has taken into consideration the possibility that Dennis has composed no posts, but simply is making announcements as a way of yanking the blog author's chain.

TADM #19

Dennis Marks Lies About Lying About Al Gore

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is a lying blogger who likes to accuse others of "gnawing on old bones" or "beating dead horses". Those two phrases are employed by the delusional Dennis whilst bobbing a weaving in a futile attempt to avoid criticism when he is caught continuing to lie about topics which he argued about in the past (and which he was proven to be wrong on long ago).

No surprise, but Dennis (who saw this truth-teller's previous post on Al Gore and Dennis lying about him saying he invented the internet) is lying and mischaracterizing his previous (and on-going) lies about Mr. Gore, as the following comment gives testament to...

Dennis Marks: I did drop by WD's blog. My occasional and accurate offhand summaries of Gore's Internet gaffe inspired him to spend who knows what huge amount of time trying to refute it (usual dictionary re-writing, ignoring what Gore said). A lot of gnawing of old bones by both participants, and not by me. I reserve the right to make occasional accurate summaries of Gore's gaffe. But I don't feel it necessary spend hours making a blog post to refute fiction. (3/4/2014 AT 3:41am).

The blog post in question relates to a lengthy debate the author and Dennis got into back in March of 2012. Dennis goes on to lamely attempt to slime this truth-teller by saying he wasted a huge amount of time "trying" to refute the lies of Dennis - but Dennis also spent a huge amount of time in that debate telling his laughable lies.

The blog author knows this because he spent a lot of time refuting those lies. So, if time was wasted, it was wasted by both of us. (Conclusion? Insult fail).

As for the "dictionary rewriting", this is another lame-o slur, as the post in question only contained dictionary QUOTING, with links to back up the fact that the dictionary definitions provided were EXACT quotes. There was no "rewriting". And the blog author also refutes Dennis' claims of "ignoring what Gore said", which is actually what Dennis does.

The Al Gore quote in question...

AG: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. (from an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 3/9/1999, via Snopes).

What Dennis ignores (completely) is every sentence after the first one. Mr. Gore CLEARLY references the legislation he sponsored which created the environment that lead to the internet as we know it today. He was talking about legislation he was responsible for and not the literal creation of the internet, you moron!

That being cleared up, it should be noted that Dennis did get ONE thing right with his comment (quoted above), which is that my post, while I am not sure how much time I spent on it (less than "hours", I'd guess), does refute Dennis' fiction. Kudos to Dennis for admitting that, at least. Although, oddly, with everything the delusional nutter says up to the point of the admission are in defense of his lies about Mr. Gore (and suggest he believes they aren't fiction).

I guess we can chalk that up to Dennis being a delusional nutter and nothing more. Stand by for Dennis to delete his comment if he finds out about this commentary.

In case Dennis does delete any of what he said, I have reproduced the full comment thread below (6 comments as of 3/16/2014). What follows is from the blog "Contra O'Reilly" and in response to a post titled "On People Like Noam Chomsky, Francis Boyle, Bill Ayers, And that Crazy Lady from Code Pink".

Begin Comment Thread 7 COMMENTS

01. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 4, 2014 AT 3:41 AM] Tenacity is one thing. Someone consistently hating Jews (like Boyle) or always lining up to defend genocide as long as it is committed by some sort of socialist (like Chomsky) is another. No, I don't respect them. I'd respect them if they went after either side from a point of view of rationality, pragmatism, and sanity.

Speaking of the lack of such... I did drop by WD's blog. My occasional and accurate offhand summaries of Gore's Internet gaffe inspired him to spend who knows what huge amount of time trying to refute it (usual dictionary re-writing, ignoring what Gore said). A lot of gnawing of old bones by both participants, and not by me. I reserve the right to make occasional accurate summaries of Gore's gaffe. But I don't feel it necessary spend hours making a blog post to refute fiction.

02. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 4, 2014 AT 3:41 AM] By the way, Chomsky's defense of genocide even went as far as him to defend Serbia as it invaded and waged war against Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo during the 1990s.... killing a hundred thousand for the crime of not being Serbian.

According to him, Serbia "was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs".

A truly nutty conspiracy theory. He used the same sort of language when he lavished praise on the Khmer Rouge for their reforms in Cambodia... trying to find reasons that didn't exist instead of looking at why things happened and taking any sort of principled stand.

A typical telltale sign of unhinged musings is the use of the term "neoliberal", which isn't related to liberalism, but is often a term used by those of the statist/fascist/control-freak bent to condemn the idea of reforms in which the people make more economic decisions instead of the government.

03. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 4, 2014 AT 3:51 AM] I didn't mean to imply any sort of admiration for these folks (the first 3, especially), just that they weren't driven by partisanship the way that certain other individuals obviously are.

04. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 4, 2014 AT 3:43 PM] I know...it's obvious you don't endorse them. Quite unlike WD's endorsement of a deplorable quote by the worst mass murderer in human history (and his half-baked later attempt to distance himself a little from Stalin... while still embracing the deplorable quote).

But still, Will, I'd much rather have cheap but relatively moderate and harmless partisanship than "principled" nutty zeal.

05. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 4, 2014 AT 4:31 PM] Thankfully neither sector (and when I say, partisan, here, I'm talking about the lunatic fringe version and not guys like Chuckie Schumer) has a lot of sway politically.

06. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 14, 2014 AT 4:59 AM] I've deleted these quotations, not because I withdraw anything I've said, but to "yank WD's chain" when he links to material here in order to beat dead horses back to life. I am considering his propensity to fabricate blog quotations, however.

07. dmarks [MARCH 17, 2014 AT 5:53 AM] It takes but seconds to delete my comments, but who knows how long it takes for WD to write one of those massive long jeremiads where he whines and cries over me having done so.

It's worth the seconds, just for the amusement factor.

End Comment Thread

Update, 7/1/2014: As predicted, Dennis deleted his comments. But I have retrieved the Google cached page and updated this post with all the comments (7 as of this update).

In regards to Dennis saying I have a "propensity to fabricate blog quotations", that is a flat-out lie. I have never fabricated a quotation. Not once. The comments above are presented EXACTLY has they originally appeared (before Dennis deleted them), and that can be verified by looking at the Google cached page... at least for as long as it lasts.

TADM #18

Half-Baked BS From Dennis Has Him Hating Quote While Giving Murderer A Pass

Another Dennis Marks comment to file under "pure delusion"...

Dennis Marks: [WD made an] endorsement of a deplorable quote by the worst mass murderer in human history (and his half-baked later attempt to distance himself a little from Stalin... while still embracing the deplorable quote). (3/4/2014 at 3:43pm)

So, it's only the QUOTE that is "deplorable"? Must be, because he says it TWICE, and not even once does he attach the adjective to Joseph Stalin. Figures Dennis would be more offended by the quote then by Stalin himself, as the quote points out an uncomfortable truth for those who worship wealth like Dennis...

Joe Stalin: Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.

Joe Stalin DOES identify a fundamental fact, one that Dennis is completely abstracted from. Also, Dennis will fight to his dying breath for the plutocrats' "right" to exploit workers, although Dennis calls this exploitation "fair pay". No wonder the dude goes after the QUOTE instead of the deplorable Stalin himself.

The "distancing" Dennis refers to is my acknowledgement of the accuracy of the quote while condemning Stalin. I condemn him because he lied - he identified a problem but then did nothing to fix it. All Stalin did was transfer the property to himself and a ruling elite. The antagonism and exploiting between rich and poor continued, now with Stalin and his ruling elites taking on the roles of the rich exploiters.

Also, it should be noted that Stalin made things much worse with the murdering, which Dennis uses the adjective "worst" to describe. So, looks like Dennis is against murdering, but not against exploitation and concentration of wealth.

Probably because he sees how successful tricking people into accepting a wealthy elite has been here in the US. The gullible citizenry believes that maybe one day they too will be wealthy. Therefore taxes on the rich shouldn't be too high, as the fools who vote Republican think that maybe, just maybe, they might have to pay that tax rate one day.

These are the kind of fools like Dennis who vote against their own interests. And worship wealth. Although Dennis lies and tries to distance himself from that reality - but laughably suggesting that our elected representatives are the "rulers" who steal from us (by way of taxes).

Frankly, I find both deplorable. Those who take advantage by promising equality but not delivering it (as well as murdering), like Stalin. And those who promise YOU TOO can be rich. All you have to do is work hard... and get taken advantage of by the wealthy elites who will underpay you for your labor in order to further enrich THEMSELVES.

Those who worship wealth like Mr. Marks are deplorable as well, in my book. Deplorable too that Dennis continues to lie about how I feel about Joe Stalin. File that in the "vile lie" category.

TADM #17

Dennis Marks Thinks He Can Hide Lies By Deleting Them #1: Al Gore

Dissembling Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is obviously monitoring my truth-telling about him, as the dumbass recently deleted all his delusional comments from a thread on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog which I linked to in the commentary "Severe Conservative Delusions: Al Gore & The Invention of the Internet Edition".

Obviously Dennis was so embarrassed that I highlighted his nuttery that he had to remove his insane comments out of shame. That, or the paranoid nutter thinks he can claim I "lied" and he never authored the demented claims concerning Al Gore REALLY having claimed to be the inventor of the internet.

Problem is, now all the links in my commentary go to Dennis comments that say "this comment has been removed by the author". There is a Google cached page that I can link to in order to prove the Dennis quotes in my post are genuine, but Google cached pages don't last forever. Eventually the Google spiders trolling the internet replace cached pages with new versions, and the new versions will eventually show "this comment has been removed by the author".

So, in order to preserve Dennis' comments and the integrity of my truth telling, I have decided to copy and paste the entire comment thread from the "Contra O'Reilly" blog (the cached version) into this post. That way, even after the Google cached page is updated, there will still be a record of Dennis' inanity. I suppose (after the Google cached page is gone) Dennis can claim that I fabricated his comments, but this is the best I can do, as a paranoid nutter deleting his comments is something I have no control over.

In any case, what follows is a COMPLETE record of all the comments from the "Contra O'Reilly" blog, made in response to a 3/32/2014 post titled On Noam Chomsky 2 (post not reproduced because it hasn't been deleted).

Note: This reproduction of the Google cached page contains one "comment has been removed by the author" notation, but that comment was removed a long time ago by Dennis, likely due to spelling errors or another reason that caused him to want to correct what he said (Comment No: 7). The Comments Dennis deleted in response to me posting my commentary concerning his lying about Al Gore are comments: 4, 9, 11, 17, 19, 21, & 23 (total of 7 removed comments). Although 4 and 9 have nothing to do with Al Gore, so I don't know why he nixed those...

Begin Comment Thread 24 COMMENTS

01. dmarks [MARCH 24, 2012 AT 11:25 AM] Don't forget that this is the man who has lied about and supported the Khmer Rouge genocide, deeming it "acceptible"

02. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 24, 2012 AT 1:07 PM] According to the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, 1.7 million people were either slaughtered or starved to death by the Khmer Rouge and, yeah, you're right, if you read Mr. Chomsky's 1979(?) book, "After the Cataclysm", you certainly get the impression that it was much, much, less, and that America was the perpetrator.

03. w-dervish [MARCH 24, 2012 AT 2:48 PM] I've been an admirer for awhile... and I'll leave it at that. I could go through all your points one by one, but it would be a waste of time, as... [1] you clearly don't like the guy and nothing will convince you otherwise [2] You have some valid criticisms, but nobody's perfect... at least I know I'm not, although Will Hart may be.

As for what dmarks says should not be forgotten... I'm not even going to remember it, as I usually try to avoid memorizing false facts.

04. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 24, 2012 AT 4:34 PM] Will: Not only did he lie about the totals (the equivalent of a Holocaust denier saying only a couple hundred thousand Jews died in WW2), he also went as far as to claim that the few casualties were an OK price for all the good the Khmer Rouge was doing for Cambodia. Chomsky is a passionate left-fascist, consistently arguing for hardline, authoritarian control of the state, and an uncritical dupe when it comes to the statements of the Khmer Rouge and other socialist endeavours.

WD: You are really good at remembering false facts, as you regurgitate them readily. However, I am telling the truth about Noam Chomsky.

05. w-dervish [MARCH 24, 2012 AT 6:22 PM] dmarks: You are really good at remembering false facts, as you regurgitate them readily. However, I am telling the truth about Noam Chomsky.

False facts are your speciality dmarks. You'll never see me regurgitating any of the untruths you're constantly spouting about people like Bill Maher, Rahm Emanuel, Al Gore, Noam Chomsky, etc.

06. dmarks [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 4:50 AM] Name one fact I got wrong about any of them. You can't

07. dmarks [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 5:49 AM] This comment has been removed by the author.

08. w-dervish [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 8:10 AM] dmarks: Name one fact I got wrong about any of them. You can't.

Name one fact you got RIGHT about any of them. You can't.

09. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 9:29 AM] Amazing. WD can't even name one. He copped out.

10. w-dervish [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 9:38 AM] dmarks: Amazing. WD can't even name one. He copped out.

You couldn't name one you got right. YOU copped out.

What you got wrong was...

Bill Maher: didn't say mentally challenged people are sub-human.

Rahm Emanuel: Intended to insult Liberals by calling them f**king retarded. He didn't intend to insult mentally challenged persons.

Al Gore: didn't say he invented the internet.

Noam Chomsky: didn't support the khmer rouge genocide or deem it acceptible.

11. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 10:04 AM] "Bill Maher: didn't say mentally challenged people are sub-human."

He said they weren't people. Well, that might leave the choice of super-human vs sub-human. But he did say they were like pets. That implius sub-human. Animals. So yes he did say this.

"Rahm Emanuel: Intended to insult Liberals by calling them f**king retarded. He didn't intend to insult mentally challenged persons."

But he did in fact insult them. He equated "liberals" to this group, which he mentioned in the sentence and used a very disparaging term for.

"Al Gore: didn't say he invented the internet."

Actually, he did. That is a correct paraphrase. The word he used is "create". "Create" and "invent" are synonyms.

"Noam Chomsky: didn't support the khmer rouge genocide or deem it acceptible"

He did. He used false numbers for the deaths in order to downplay it, as part of his support, and he said that it was an OK price for the good the Khmer Rouge were doing.

You didn't even try.

12. w-dervish [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 1:42 PM] dmarks: He said [mentally challenged children] weren't people.

No he didn't. Bill Maher said, "dogs are like retarded children". (This is an exact quote from the YouTube video). Saying they were LIKE dogs isn't the same as saying they should be treated like dogs or that they aren't human. Nor did he ever suggest euthanization (another outrageous claim you've made in the past). Criticize him for what he actually said (which I agree is insulting). There is no need to make stuff up (which is what you've done and continue to do).

dmarks: But he did in fact insult them. He equated "liberals" to this group...

His insult was directed at Liberals. Also, he apologized to mentally challenged people (and the head of the Special Olympics accepted his apology), but he never apologized to Liberals.

You completely ignore the reality of what he meant (he intended to call Liberals dumb) and focus on his use of the R-word. I assume because you agree with his feelings regarding Liberals? Otherwise why not criticize him for his insult to BOTH groups?

dmarks: Actually, [Al Gore] did [say he invented the internet].

No he didn't. Snopes debunked it. They say FALSE. According to Snopes, "Al Gore did not claim he 'invented' the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way".

dmarks: The word he used is "create". "Create" and "invent" are synonyms.

Snopes disagrees. They say "Gore never used the word 'invent', and the words 'create' and 'invent' have distinctly different meanings; the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea".

Al Gore sponsored legislation that helped create the environment that lead to the internet as we know it today. That is what he was talking about.

dmarks: [Noam Chomsky] used false numbers for the deaths in order to downplay it, as part of his support, and he said that it was an OK price for the good the Khmer Rouge were doing.

No, he didn't. The source of his numbers was a survey by Michael Vickery. The numbers were not "false", although they have been disputed. But that's not the same as saying they were fabricated. Nobody has said Michael Vickery outright fabricated his numbers.

Also, Noam Chomsky's co-author, Edward Herman, (while referring to the Khmer Rouge as "villains"), said he and Chomsky "went to great pains to stress that there was no doubt that the Khmer Rouge was committing serious crimes..."

So, Noam Chomsky's book says the Khmer Rouge committed serious crimes, and you interpret that as support? I interpret your interpretation as lying.

13. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 2:10 PM] wd, according to the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, 1.7 million people were either slaughtered or starved to death by the Khmer Rouge. I think that I'll take the word of them over a person who has consistently stated that Democratic Capitalism is far more despicable than Communism.

14. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 2:15 PM] And I'm sorry, wd, "Dogs are like retarded children" - there just aren't a lot of ways to justify that bad boy. Maher is an idiot and he should be shamed and shamed harshly.

15. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 2:30 PM] BB Idaho, consider me open to the suggestions in that article, especially the one on catastrophic care/coverage.

16. w-dervish [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 4:04 PM] Will: according to the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, 1.7 million people were either slaughtered or starved to death by the Khmer Rouge.

I didn't say I agreed with either Michael Vickery or Noam Chomsky (for going with the former's numbers). What I was pushing back against was dmarks' implying that either outright fabricated their numbers or that Chomsky "supported the Khmer Rouge genocide".

Will: Democratic Capitalism is far more despicable than Communism.

Noam Chomsky said this? Do you have a link to an article? I'd be interested in reading it.

Will: ...there just aren't a lot of ways to justify that bad boy.

OK, but I never tried to do that. I only pointed out that it didn't mean Maher thought they're sub-human or that they should be euthanized. In any case, that statement is quite old. Show me a recent statement (or any other) where he says something insensitive about mentally challenged persons. I doubt there is a pattern. If there is I might go along with you on this "shaming".

17. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 4:47 AM] "only pointed out that it didn't mean Maher thought they're sub-human"

He simply said it, by saying there were like pets, and weren't even people.

Whether or not they were to be euthenized, ground up for dog food, or other such things as happens to animals only follows from such thinking. Check the history of African American slaves, who weren't considered to be people and were talked of in condescending way also.

"Al Gore sponsored legislation that helped create the environment that lead to the internet as we know it today. That is what he was talking about."

We went over this before. Gore said he "created" the Internet. He lied, because it already existed before he even got to Congress. As for the rest, Snopes got this wrong. Check the thesaurus.

Snopes statement was careless ("Al Gore did not claim he 'invented' the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way"). In the CNN transcript, Gore clearly said he created the Internet. While the first half of what Snopes says in that statement is correct (because Gore did not use the actual word "invent"), the second part of Snopes statement is incorrect. This is because Gore used the word "create"... a synonym. And synonyms of course fall into "reasonable interpretation". Your mention of the legislation Gore sponsored that changed the Internet long after its creation or invention is irrelevant, becuase it is not what Gore said.

As for Maher, you are ignoring the rest of his rant when he said that the mentally disabled weren't people because they had retarded brains.

18. w-dervish [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 7:41 AM] dmarks, why the hell would Al Gore say he invented the internet? Anyone watching would know he was wrong, or at least strongly suspect it (and be able to look it up and confirm he didn't invent it). Al Gore isn't stupid, yet you insist he was dumb enough to think people would believe he invented the internet? I say you're dumb. He was CLEARLY referring to the legislation he sponsored.

dmarks: [Bill Maher] simply said it, by saying there were like pets, and weren't even people.

No he didn't. He meant mentally, not literally. This is something any rational person hearing that comment would know immediately. They may very well still be offended, but they'd never reach the conclusions you've reached, which are completely wacky, IMO... and include a bunch of over-the-top conclusions that do not "follow".

Also, Bill Maher is a strong supporter of PETA, a group that believes animals have rights... and according to Bill Maher, comparring a person to an animal is a COMPLIMENT.

19. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 8:46 AM] "dmarks, why the hell would Al Gore say he invented the internet?"

Don't know. Maybe because politicians say stupid things? But the fact remains he did say it.

"Anyone watching would know he was wrong"

I've watched that clip many times, and yes he was wrong.

"He was CLEARLY referring to the legislation he sponsored."

Now that is a flat out lie. You are defending Gore on what you think he said, not what he actually said. He CLEARLY took credit for bringing the Internet into being. Which in fact he never did: it existed before the point in time in which he claimed to have invented it (exact word "Created").

"No he didn't. He meant mentally, not literally."

I take Maher for what he said. Not what I wish he said.

"which are completely wacky"

That radical said that the mentally disabled weren't people. If anything is wacky, it is your denying he said it.

"IMO... and include a bunch of over-the-top conclusions that do not "follow"."

There's nothing over the top in "following" with a description of the rights people would lose if it was indeed decided that they weren't people anymore.

"Also, Bill Maher is a strong supporter of PETA, a group that believes animals have rights... and according to Bill Maher, comparring a person to an animal is a COMPLIMENT."

Yet, he chose to dehumanize only the mentally challenged.

20. w-dervish [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 10:08 AM] dmarks: Now that is a flat out lie [that Al Gore was referring to the legislation he sponsored when he said he took the initiative in creating the internet"].

No, it's the truth. Snopes agrees.

dmarks: I take Maher for what he said. Not what I wish he said.

No you aren't. You're taking him for what you think he meant.

21. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 10:57 AM] "No, it's the truth. Snopes agrees."

I am looking at the actual statements, not the conclusions. Why not judge Gore on what he actually said, instead of what some wish he said?

"You're taking him for what you think he meant."

No. His equating people with pets/dogs and then later saying they aren't even people is bad enough.

22. w-dervish [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 1:26 PM] dmarks: I am looking at the actual statements, not the conclusions.

There's your problem. You're skipping the most important part. For ideological reasons, I'd guess. You don't like Al Gore's politics... so you ignore the whole story, focusing on his words and ignoring what he really meant. Snopes is right and dmarks is wrong.

dmarks: [Bill Maher] later saying they aren't even people is bad enough.

But he didn't say that. I just watched the video again to be sure. You're lying or delusional.

23. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 4:30 PM] I am skipping nothing. I am looking at Gore's actual statement. And his intention, which can only be discerned by his actual words.

Nothing ideological. If Bush had taken credit for the internet, I'd criticize him for the false statement also (neither Gore nor Bush created the Internet: it existed before they were on the scene).

But I suppose ideology would play a role here. If Bush had lied as Gore had, you'd be savaging him for it.

As for Maher, watch the video again. Perhaps you are watching an edited/shorter video that cuts off before he says they aren't people due to their retarded brains.

24. w-dervish [MARCH 29, 2012 AT 6:02 PM] dmarks: If Bush had taken credit for the internet...

bush didn't sponsor legislation that helped create the internet as it exists today, Gore did. We should all thank Gore for helping set up the environment that lead to the internet as we now know it.

Gore only took credit for what he did (sponsor legislation that directly lead to the internet as we know it today). If bush had made a similar claim he would have been lying, so yes, I would be savaging him for it.

Because, coming from Gore the statement is truthful, while if bush had said the same thing it would have been a lie.

I watched the entire Maher video clip (they went to commercial at the end). He never said mentally challenged persons "aren't people due to their retarded brains". You're lying or imagining it.

End Comment Thread

Deleted comments 17 and 19 are the two I linked to - and included excerpts from - in the post "Severe Conservative Delusions: Al Gore & The Invention of the Internet Edition". Comments 4 and 9, as I already pointed out, have nothing to do with Dennis' lies about Al Gore - so I don't know why he got ride of them. Comments 11, 21 and 23 mention Al Gore, although I did not link to them in my post. Dennis probably deleted them to remove all evidence of his nutty lies concerning the ex-VP.

TADM #16. See also TADM #15 and SWTD #236.

On Dennis Marks & Al Gore #1

Another one to file under the category of "pure delusion"... Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) thinks Al Gore actually claims to have invented the internet. No, I'm not joking. The delusional nutter actually makes this case (on multiple occasions), even though the claim has been debunked by Snopes.

What follows is an example of the nuttery I speak of...

Dennis Marks: Gore said he "created" the Internet. He lied, because it already existed before he even got to Congress. As for the rest, Snopes got this wrong. Check the thesaurus. Gore used the word "create"... a synonym [of invent]. (3/28/2012 at 4:47am).

Nice try, Dennis, however, While it is true that "create" and "invent" are synonyms, Dictionary.com defines a synonym is as "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the [English] language". In the context of Al Gore's quote, the meaning is not exactly the same, only nearly the same. There is a difference in this context, as Snopes points out...

Snopes: Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions...

Exactly. Al Gore used the word "create", in that he helped bring about the internet as we know it today, which HE DID. He didn't invent it, which is why he did not use that word, you lying idiot, Dennis!

(Note: See here for my expanded commentary on the subject).

Update, 3/5/2014: Dennis deleted his comment about Al Gore. Clicking on the link above will take you to a comment on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog that says "This comment has been removed by the author". But the comment is still viewable via the Google cached page. Also, I have preserved the entire comment thread here. See comment #17.

TADM #15. See also TADM #16 and SWTD #236.

Lying Delusional Hypocrite Dennis Marks Begs for Mercy He Won't Get

It looks like Dennis Marks has had enough of my truth telling and is now begging for mercy. Previously Dennis was running and attempting to hide; but clearly he realizes these attempts (which include hiding his blog AND his Blogger profile) are futile. People are catching on to the truth about Dennis (which is that he is a lying scumbag).

Although Mr. Marks couches his cries and pleas that I stop telling the truth about him as polite and reasonable requests for "decorum, politeness, and civility", I understand what he's REALLY saying... which is "PLEASE, stop telling the truth about me!"

Specifically I refer to the following comment from Dennis...

Dennis Marks: The one you [Willis Hart] deem "a moron who seemingly lives in his own little black and white universe/crawl space" has demanded that I issue retractions of past statements. It did inspire me to make my most recent blog post: http://inaholdingpattern.blogspot.com/2014/03/retractions.html. I will let him read this, and any post on my blog, if he promises (not to apologize or do anything in regard to past disputes... a man like him never admits any wrong), but to conduct himself with decorum, politeness, and civility from this point forward. An offer of a clean slate. (3/2/2014 at 1:56pm).

First of all, Mr. Hart refered to the author of this blog as "the idiot" and not "a moron". Secondly, I never "demanded" a retraction of any kind. I asked a question which was "if Dennis is retracting his previous comments about my "arrogance" then perhaps an apology is in order?"

Dennis previously accused me of "arrogance" whenever I commented on how I thought the voters decided wrongly or were mislead by Rightwing lies. Most recently I said "The American people (or a large portion of them) bought the Rightwing spin about the ACA being bad". Dennis jumped on that and, as ususal, proclaimed "typical. The American people, who know their own lives better than Mr. Sanders, make a decision according to the facts and their best interest. Mr. Sanders arrogantly and ignorantly thinks he know their lives better than they do".

Following this particular "arrogance" accusation (not the first), Dennis' pals Willis Hart and Lester Nation authored posts of their own saying they thought the voters were dumb (words to that effect). Willis Hart wrote "Yes, I DO think that the American electorate is quite stupid and quite irrational", and Lester Nation said he believes "that Americans will once again get exactly what they (in their apathy) vote for". and that "America, with its dismal voter turnout, low information voters, and political sound bite junkies, will pull the levers once again for those politicians with the slickest slogans..."

So, when a commenter on Lester's blog (Jersey McJones) basically agreed with him (insulting the voters) by saying "It makes me question the IQ of the average American" - Dennis' reaction was to jump on him with an ad hominem insult, declaring that Jersey asked "a question which apparently is rooted in your partisan bias. i.e. the smart people vote like me and the idiots vote otherwise".

A hypocritical response, given that the "insulting of the voters" from his two buddies got no reaction at all from him. When I first pointed out this lack of a reaction from him when Willis "insulted the voters", Dennis' response was to say my pointing out that Willis insulted the voters (by saying the "Yes, I DO think that the American electorate is quite stupid") was an "intentionally false summary of what Will said on his blog".

Then when I persisted Dennis replied that "When... caught lying, his reaction is to tell the same lie more stridently".

What a moron. QUOTING someone is not lying, "stridently" or otherwise. Now this delusional dumbass, when I raised the issue of his hypocrisy a second time (after he attacked Jersey and ignored Lester's insulting of the voters) was first to respond with an insult, saying "Who let Capt. Crapfest in?".

Then when I asked if Dennis was "retracting his previous comments about my arrogance", given the fact that he FAILED to take his buddies to task for their insults, Dennis did some bobbing and weaving to avoid the question and muddy the waters in regard to the fact that he was acting hypocritically - by declaring my comments a "dead horse" and saying Jersey could defend himself. Finally the dummy says I was referring to a "discussion from long ago and who-knows-where".

"Who knows where"? No, we know where... on the very blog Dennis made his last comment (the blog of Lester Nation). And the discussion wasn't from "long ago" either, but only about a month old. A month since I pointed out Dennis ignoring Willis' "insulting of the voters". The insulting of the voters by Lester Nation JUST HAPPENED!

A reference to a post only hours old (one on which me and Dennis were both commenting) is NOT "long ago" OR "who knows where". Honestly, I don't know why Dennis' buddies let this degree of extreme idiocy and delusion pass while saying nothing. No, wait... I do know. It's because of their dislike for me. And because of this (their ignoring of their buddies idiocy), that they are hypocrites themselves.

In any case, Dennis' lying has been going on for far too long for him to get a "clean slate" now. And the jackass has some nerve saying "a man like him never admits any wrong" when referring to ME. Dennis is the sort who will never admit any wrong. Because he's so delusional that he truly believes the utter nonsense he writes. And, given that Dennis is incapable of "decorum, politeness, and civility" I refuse to show him any. There will be no one-sided surrendering by me, Dennis.

Can you believe anyone would be so audacious as to both plead for mercy (in regards to my truth telling about him) AND also demand complete capitulation... while at the same time admitting that the lying (on his side) will NOT stop (insults me in the VERY comment where he asks for MY politeness and civility)?! Yeah, right. I think Dennis knows where he can stuff his "clean slate".

TADM #14

Love Letters From Dennis Marks (A Two-Sided Bromance)

In a previous commentary I revealed that the truth presented on this blog is refered to Dennis Marks as "Love Letters" from me to him. This is very strange, IMO, as these truths about Dennis are not in the least bit flattering. In fact, what I'm doing here is revealing Dennis for the bigoted scuzzball that he is. Surely no one but a severely deluded idiot could classify such commentaries as "love letters".

Another inaccurate word Mr. Marks uses when referring to my truth-telling efforts is to say we have a "one sided bromance". According to Wikipedia "a bromance is a close non-sexual relationship between two (or more) men, a form of affectional or homosocial intimacy".

Looks like Dennis changed the definition to mean two (or more) people who have a strong dislike for one another and often criticize one another (me, by telling the truth about Dennis, and Dennis by lying about me). And, apparently only commentaries on your own blog counts, as Dennis has been lying about me in comment form for quite some time... yet he says the "bromance" is one-sided.

Well, it seems that Mr. Marks has decided to return my "affections" by writing about the author of this blog on his own site... in full length commentary form. Given this new development, it can now be said that the bromance is two-sided... which is more than a little icky, given the fact that I strongly dislike the dishonest, racist and anti-Semitic slime (and those are but a few of his negative qualities).

Fact is, the more I tell this sicko that I dislike him, the more frequently he insists we are in a bromance and that I've been writing him "love letters". How wack is that? In any case, if commentaries on one's own blog could possibly described as "love letters", then it seems that the blogger with the ID of "dmarks" has been quite busy professing his adoration for me - which creeps me out.

Even though Dennis hide his blog from view, selecting the Blogger option that only allows "invited readers" to view it, he has made announcements (mainly) on the blog of Mr. Willis Hart. Why? Because Willis is another deluded liar like Mr. Marks; and Willis appreciates Dennis' efforts to dissemble about me.

And, via these announcements, it appears as though Dennis has composed (as of today) 8 "love letters" describing what he purports to be "the truth" about me (most likely lies). What follows is a list of said love letters, followed by a link to the polemic (which will take you to a page that says you can't view said love letter because the blog not public), followed by another link, which is to the announcement...

1. The Truth About Dervish, 2/14/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "By the way, my blog is back".

2. Col Sanders and George Bush, 2/17/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "By the way, welcome to my reviving blog. I have a new post from early this morning, too...".

3. Sanders and Plutocrats, 2/18/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "It's been great with the comments from about 9 or so people over there".

4. Dennis Speaks, 2/20/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "...my latest, with the same level of attention to WD as my recent Col. Sanders and Truth posts".

5. Idiot of the Day: Mr Sanders, 2/21/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "By the way, Rusty, I'm looking to invite you to my blog. The latest post is here..."

06. Dennis Settles the Fight Once and For All, 2/24/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "By the way, Russ, looking forward to you joining me on my blog. My latest post settles controversy..."

07. Sanders And Racism, 2/27/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: NA.

08. Stalin Worship, 2/28/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: NA.

TADM #13