Dennisism #6: Neologism

The following is the definition of "neologism" according to the dictionary...

Dictionary.com, neologism: [1] a new word, meaning, usage, or phrase. [2] the introduction or use of new words or new senses of existing words. [3] a new doctrine, especially a new interpretation of sacred writings. [4] Psychiatry. a new word, often consisting of a combination of other words, that is understood only by the speaker: occurring most often in the speech of schizophrenics.

It is the 4th definition that applies to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). A Dennisism *is* a neologism, or a word that is only understood by the speaker (in this case, Dennis). But that is NOT how Dennis defines "neologism".

A while back I used the word "truthy" in a conversation with Dennis. Dennis objected to the word, declaring it to be created by Stephen Colbert, and therefore new and a "neologism".

But, as it turns out, Dennis was wrong, as I pointed out to him originally, the term "truthiness" existed before Stephen Colbert used it. In regards to "truthiness", Wikipedia notes the following...

Linguist and OED consultant Benjamin Zimmer pointed out that the word "truthiness" already had a history in literature and appears in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), as a derivation of truthy, and The Century Dictionary, both of which indicate it as rare or dialectal, and to be defined more straightforwardly as "truthfulness, faithfulness" (Source: Wikipedia/Truthiness.

Therefore "truthy" is not a new word because it has had a dictionary entry for quite some time. And, therefore, it is also not a "neologism".

So, when Dennis claimed that "I avoid trendy neologisms", he must have been talking about "new words" created or used by others (or words he incorrectly perceives to be new, even when they are not). I say this because he surely comes up with a LOT of his own. Specifically I refer to the neologisms of Dennis I have documented here (using the term "Dennisism").

But I didn't know until now that the schizoid was redefining neologism as a putdown that only applies when people use words he doesn't like in arguments against him. "Truthy", in the example previously cited. But Dennis thinks coming up with his own new words and redefinitions is just fine. Although, in regards to the redefinitions, I'm just about positive he does not even know he's doing it. He actually believes that the dictionary agrees with him!

However, in regards to these invented words - the ones based on "canard" that I covered in my last Dennisism installment - those he has got to know aren't real.

Or, maybe he does think they're real. Apparently his buddy Lester Nation does, because when I pointed out that "canardo" is not a real word, Lester responded with the American Heritage Dictionary definition for "canard".

And, in response to that, the delusional Dennis imagined a victory (Lester proving to me that "canard" is a word, when we were actually talking about "canardo"), and voiced his agreement with Lester's imagined victory... exchange as follows...

rAtional nAtion: American Heritage Dictionary: ca·nard: Top Home >Library >Literature & Language >Dictionary (kə-närd') pronunciation n. An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story. A short winglike control surface projecting from the fuselage of an aircraft, such as a space shuttle, mounted forward of the main wing and serving as a horizontal stabilizer. An aircraft whose horizontal stabilizing surfaces are forward of the main wing. [French, duck, canard, probably from the phrase vendre un canard à moitié, to sell half a duck, to swindle, from Old French quanart, duck, from caner, to cackle, of imitative origin.] Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/canard#ixzz38Qcj71sQ Well Dervish, looks like there is a reality here you wish not revealed eh? :-) (7/24/2014 06:44:00 PM EDT). dmarks: Enlightening, RN. I expect a lot more self-righteous whining in reaction to this... (7/24/2014 07:34:00 PM EDT).

Obviously Dennis the dumb thinks Lester got the better of me with his response proving that canard is a word, even though I never said it wasn't. What I think we're actually dealing with here is a reality that Lester and Dennis "wish not revealed". Not even to themselves.

That reality? That they're both nuts. Enlightening? Not really, no. Those of us who aren't nuts realized this about Dennis and Lester long ago. This is nothing to whine about, however - self righteously or otherwise. It is simply a fact I have discerned by (perhaps foolishly) engaging these two in conversation.

TADM #53

Dennisism #5: Canard, Canardo, Canardish, Canarding, Canard-bait, El Canardo

This is the fifth 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.

In this case, the term "Canardo" originated with the blogger Lester Nation. (AKA "rAtional" nAtion uSA). This blogger is the one who originally came up with the term (in reference to yours truly). Or he was the first to use it in regards to me. He claims he read it elsewhere, but refuses to cite a source. (Note: see update below. The source has now been discovered).

None-the-less I am attributing "canardo" to Dennis, as he took Lester's creation and ran like the wind, making it his own, as well as coming up with MANY derivatives. Variations on the word such as "canardish", which is an adjective to describe something that has the characteristics of a lie or the quality of one who is a liar; "canarding", which is the act of lie telling; "canard-bait", which is a "truth" that might elicit lies from another; "El Canardo", which is an insult name you might call someone you're accusing of lying, and, finally, the term "frying up in canardo oil", which (I guess) would be the same as telling someone you caught them red-handed lying.

All these variants of the word "canard" - all to accuse ME of being a liar - which is ironic, given the fact that it is Dennis who lies (as documented on this blog)... and which is why I recently declared Dennis to be the King Canardo.

Given Dennis' status as the king of canards, it is quite LOL-able that he is always complaining about ME starting a "crap-fest" (which is another neologism Lester invented and and Dennis ran with). A "crap-fest" being back and forth insult-trading, as opposed to healthy constructive debate.

But, that one person works so hard to invent his own "canard"-based pseudo neologisms in order to call another person a liar; is that not crap-festing of the highest order? Anyway, what this points to, I think, is that Dennis is QUITE obsessed with lying. Falsely calling others on it when he's the the one who is actually guilty of it (in that he lies all the time).

(for the record "canarding" might not be a variant that Dennis actually used, as I could not find an example; which is why there is no link. I could swear I saw him use it somewhere, however. Possibly in a deleted comment. Dennis has a habit of deleting comments whenever he notices me linking to them).

6/19/2015 Update: rAtional nAtion said previously (in a 7/25/2014 comment)... "In was in that context that the word Canardo, picked up from another fine wordsmith and operator of another blog was used. ... RN did not create Canardo, I, the owner of RN, simply borrowed and used Canardo in the manner it was intended".

I did not, at the time, know who the hell he was referring to... so I ignored what he said. Only recently, whilst visiting the blog Who's Your Daddy, did I notice another blogger using "canardo" (another blogger beside Lester and Dennis). In fact, this other blogger used/uses it quite frequently. That blogger? FreeThinke (see here for one example of a Freethinke use of "canardo").

What is odd about rAtional borrowing this pseudo neologism is that, while rAtional compliments FreeThinke, FreeThinke hates rAtional's guts (here Freethinke refers to rAtional as "Nursie Pooh"... because RN, while standing for "rAtional nAtion" also is an abbreviation for "Registered Nurse").

Anyway, the mystery is now solved. rAtional, the dude who refers to FreeThinke fawningly as "another fine wordsmith", was originally coined by Freethinke (although he may have picked it up elsewhere). I will continue to refer to "canardo" as a "Dennisism", however, due to the many (and I'm talking MANY) variants Dennis came up with (on his own). Neither rAtional nor Freethinke have (to my knowledge) used any of these other variants.

TADM #52

In Regards to Deleted Comments by dmarks (AKA Dennis Marks)

Dissembling Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is obviously upset by my truth-telling about him, as the dumbass often deletes his delusional comments whenever I link to them. Be it here or on other blogs, which I sometimes do when making a point in regards to him lying or saying something hypocritical (which is something that occurs quite frequently).

Obviously Dennis was so embarrassed when I highlight his nuttery (and/or hypocrisy and/or lying) that he has 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 and or false comment.

Problem is, when this happens my links go to Dennis comments that say "this comment has been removed by the author". So, even if I save them and restore them after he deletes, or even if I link to the Google cached page, he can claim I "lied" (because Google cache pages are eventually updated with new information. They do not last forever).

That is the reason behind this commentary. I'm NOT going to stop linking to comments by Dennis which prove his his nuttery (and/or hypocrisy and/or lying) simply because he deletes them when I do. Because that is what he wants. He absolutely can not stand that I dare call him out on his nuttery (and/or hypocrisy and/or lying).

It's obviously driving him (even more) crazy. And so I shall continue to do it. And when he deletes I'll restore his comments when I feel it is appropriate. And link to this commentary to explain what is going on. That way, if anyone clicks on a link to a Dennis comment (provided by me in a comment or blog post), they'll know what's going on.

I did not lie, Dennis did. And he deletes to cover up his lies. Although he says he does it "for the amusement factor", but I know that is complete bullroar. In his mind, perhaps he does it "for the amusement factor", but unconsciously he does it to cover up his lies. Or the "amusement factor" is an outright lie and he knows it.

Although, one would think that if he believed what he wrote then why delete it? It does not look good no matter the excuse. It makes him look like a liar... which he is. And perhaps that is why I maintain this blog, because calling out scumbag liars provides amusement FOR ME... and has nothing AT ALL to do with delusions of Dennis that his deleting results in "whines and cries over [him] having done so".

By the way, Dennis, if you should read this... I take deletions as retractions. If you delete I will assume you are admitting what you wrote was wrong and, in deleting your comment, you are admitting this (you were wrong or you lied). Make any excuse you like (that you are deleting for the "amusement factor" or any other BS reason), I do not give a shit. A deletion is an ADMISSION that what you wrote was wrong (and/or a lie) and that you removed/retracted it FOR THAT REASON.

Which, I believe, is a completely rational and reasonable interpretation of such actions.

TADM #51

Dennis Marks: King Canardo & Old Bones Champion

Acorn-Style (Old Bone/Canard #1)

"Old Bones" is the term Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) likes to use when he wants no dissent to his tired old lies. For example, Dennis recently brought up the long-debunked nonsense concerning ACORN participating in "election theft".

Dennis Marks: [The Koch Brothers] haven't tried to suppress in real vote. But those who engage in and support election fraud (ACORN etc) are understandably defensive when people try to end their crimes. (7/12/2014 AT 04:10:00 PM EDT).

Dennis is referring to "crimes" that ACORN was cleared of by Congress.

The Seattle Times: The Congressional Research Service says in a new report that it couldn't find any instances in which people improperly registered to vote by the activist group known as ACORN showed up at the polls on Election Day. The report also found no instances in the past five years of the group misusing federal funds. Both houses of Congress voted to cut off money to the group after the release of videotapes showing employees advising two conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute. (Congressional report clears ACORN of voter fraud by Jonathan D. Salant, 12/24/2009).

After my comment disputing the Dennis' canard concerning the Koch's "ending of crimes" by a community organizing group that "filed for Chapter 7 liquidation on November 2, 2010, effectively closing the organization", Dennis responded with ad hominens and further canards...

Dennis Marks: I see WD is frying up old bones in canardo oil. In a kettle heated by his own pants-on-fire. I am not interested in a taste of this sordid brew. The record and facts on ACORNs voter fraud racket, and the Koch Bros' lack of any voter suppression are well established. (7/12/2014 AT 11:08:00 PM EDT).

Dennis was the one who brought up the "old bone" canard of ACORN being involved in "election theft", not I... yet this fool has the audacity to accuse me of "frying up old bones in canardo oil".

If anyone's pants are on fire, they are the pants of the lying Dennis. And, as we know the term "old bones" is an ad hominem Dennis brings up when someone calls him on his bringing up old topics and spinning his old canards in regards to them (TADM #49). Old canards he demands go unchallenged... because he can't handle the cognitive dissonance such challenging (with FACTS) produces in his addled brain.

Pro-Khmer Rouge Views (Old Bone/Canard #2)

And the exchange above is but one example of why Dennis is surely the King Canardo as well as the "old bones" champion. But that isn't the end of the "old bones" hypocrisy! A few hours prior to Dennis accusing me of "frying up old bones in canardo oil" he posts the following old lies on the blog of Willis Hart (in response to a blog post about yours truly titled "On the Assertion that Bowles-Simpson is a Conservative Plan").

Dennis Marks: Don't forget his defense of Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views. You left out one of the extremes. (7/12/2014 AT 3:30 PM). Dennis Marks: ...you can also remember WD's defense of Mao worshipper Van Jones..in which WD equated Maoism to ending police brutality. I did look it up, and police brutality under Mao was, by the numbers, worse than anything in history. (7/13/2014 AT 2:55 AM).

Note that the hypocrite submitted that first "old bone" to Willis' blog a few hours before he made the "frying up in canardo oil" comment, and the second one was submitted a few hours after.

As for the comment concerning "Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views", this is an old bone Dennis has been gnawing on for years... as this comment from 2012 shows...

Dennis Marks: Noam Chomsky is a real piece of work. I recently dug into his writings in which he revealed himself to be just about the only person in the civilized world who supported Pol Pot's "Killing Fields" genocide. (1/18/2012 AT 7:17am).

But Noam Chomsky never supported "Pol Pot's Killing Fields genocide". Michael Brull, writing for "The Drum", says "the boring truth about Chomsky [is that] he does not support Pol Pot". [What he did do was say] that the US had no right to invade a country on the other side of the planet to install its own preferred puppet government... (Source: The Drum website. "The Drum" is an Australian enterprise).

Chomsky, in other words, focused his criticism on HIS OWN government... because as a US citizen and journalist, it was more likely he could get his own government to listen than the Cambodian government to listen (BOTH governments were killing Cambodian citizens).

Both regimes were killing Cambodian citizens, but Chomsky felt that those who focused on the atrocities of Pol Pot were doing so in order to provide cover for OUR government's atrocities against the Cambodian people.

Between 1970 and 1973, during the Vietnam War, the United States bombed much of the countryside of Cambodia and manipulated Cambodian politics to support the rise of pro-West Lon Nol as the leader of Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge used the United States' actions to recruit followers and as an excuse for the brutal policies they exercised when in power. (Source: The Holocaust Museum Huston website).

This is why Chomsky is attacked by the Right (and these vile lies told about him)... because he had the audacity to speak against the US government's bombing of Cambodia (Nixon's Cambodian Campaign).

It was the United States bombing of Cambodia under then-president Nixon that gave rise to the Khmer Rouge and THAT is why the Right attacks and lies about Mr. Chomsky. Not because he ever supported Pol Pot, but because he spoke against our bombing of Cambodia.

To say that Chomsky supported genocide is a canard, and, in regards to Dennis bringing it up - and lying about my "defense of Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views" - it is an old bone that is a huge canard.

So I never defended Mr. Chomsky's "pro-Khmer Rouge views" - because HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY!! And for this reason (as well as the other canards and old bones discussed above) I crown Dennis Marks the king canardo and the old bones champion.

TADM #50. See also SWTD #266.

Dennisism #4: Old Bones

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) frequently objects to discussing topics he deems to be "old bones". What he means by this is that, in his estimation, the topic at hand has previously been discussed, an impasse was reached, and therefore further discussion is pointless.

Or, that is what he would like you to believe. That way he can continuously refer to old topics, spew his lies about them, and go unchallenged. He'll lie about Russ Feingold being in favor of infanticide, for example... and if you call him on it by presenting him with the truth, Dennis pulls the "old bones" card (or canard).

He can lie, but nobody can call him on his lies. I mean, HOW DARE anyone call Dennis out for the liar that he is? "Old bones", in other words, is a deflectionary phrase that means "how dare you call me on my spewing of lies"?

In addition, as I previously revealed on this blog, "old bones" is a coping mechanism that allows Dennis to deal with the cognitive dissonance that hurts his head.

As per this prior example, Dennis lied about Russ Feingold, and when presented with the truth (Russ Feingold saying "once a child has been born, there is no conceivable argument that would suggest a woman's life or health would any longer be at risk or an issue") he simply continued to lie.

Then, when I pressed the issue, Dennis said "I hear the sound of old bones being knawed, and... this time, turn away".

Dennis turned away because his mind couldn't handle the cognitive dissonance his insisting Feingold wants to murder babies and this statement by Feingold caused.

"Dennisism", BTW, refers words or phrases that Dennis Marks has rewritten to serve his own purposes (see here for the post in which I explain in greater detail what a Dennisism is).

Here the "Dennisism" is his rewriting of "old bones" to mean [definition 1] "how dare you call me on my lies! I get to lie with impunity. If not, I shall whine about bogus old bones".

And, [definition 2] "how dare you cause me cognitive dissonance! I shall now distract from you revealing me to be a liar by calling your pointing to facts as old bones, thus eliminating the cognitive dissonance".

Is this not sad and pathetic? Obviously it is both. Unfortunately the proprietors on the blogs Dennis frequents support their delusional buddy due to them having cognitive dissonance issues of their own.

TADM #49

Vile Lie Concerning Russ Feingold From Dennis Marks, Then Cognitive Dissonance When He Is Confronted With the Truth

That former WI Senator Russ Feingold wants abortion doctors to be able to murder babies is a vile lie Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) clings to.

Dennis Marks: Feingold has a lot of statist, anti-liberty views, including his support of abortionists killing already-born US citizens without any due process. (7/4/2014 AT 7:38:00 PM EDT). Dennis Marks: Here is a transcript where Feingold says killing a born child is up to the "doctor". Yes, Santorum has out of the mainstream views on this issue, to say the least. But so does Feingold. (7/5/2014 AT 10:04:00 AM EDT). Dennis Marks: The [Russ Feingold/Rick Santorum] situation involved a born child (a legal US citizen under the constitution). This is the extreme, and unpopular one, of the abortion debate. If the government wants to appoint abortionists as ad-hoc executioners of American citizens, lets see legislative action and the appropriate judicial review in relevance to due process, etc. (7/5/2014 AT 05:21:00 PM EDT).

Dennis refers to an exchange between Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) that took place on the Senate floor on 9/26/1996 in which the Religious Right Nutjob Santorum puts forward a ridiculous scenerio in which, during the performance of a late term abortion, the head of the baby "slips out". This is, of course, would mean the baby was born; and abortions, as we all know, only take place before birth... by definition.

A "surgical method for terminating a pregnancy" can't apply to a woman who isn't pregnant, which she is NOT once the baby is born. Also "removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus" can't apply since a born baby can't be "removed" from the uterus.

Anyway, what Dennis objects to Feingold's reply...

Senator Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

Do a Google search for this statement and you will find it spread across the interwebs far and wide as "proof" that the former Senator supports murdering babies (just as Dennis claims).

Problem is, Dennis' link contains another transcript of an exchange between Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and NRLC president Douglas Johnson took place in a joint hearing between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, on 3/11/1997. And those remarks make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that Senator Feingold does not think doctors should be allowed to kill babies once they are fully delivered (born).

Russ Feingold: Once a child has been born, there is no conceivable argument that would suggest a woman's life or health would any longer be at risk or an issue. This distortion of our exchange is the kind of tactic which undermines efforts to reach an agreement that would ban late-term abortions, except for the most narrow circumstances where a woman's life or health was at stake...

That sounds pretty definitive to me. "No conceivable argument". Why he did not say this during the earlier exchange with Santorum, I don't know. I suspect it might have been because he was thrown for a loop due to the ridiculousness of the nutjob Santorum's setup. During the performance of an abortion, has a baby EVER been "delivered accidentally" because "the head slipped out"? EVER?

I mean, late term abortions usually involve vacuuming out the brain and crushing the skull in order to make the fetus easier to remove. In which case it is dead, regardless of the head "slipping out" or not. If the fetus "slips out" and is alive... then it is born and killing it then would be murder. Unless it is going to die shortly (for whatever reason) and killing it would be an act of mercy. I would be supportive of that. But, that specific situation was never discussed. Santorum was, I presume talking about a viable birth (AKA "slipped out").

In that situation Feingold is clear (in the later exchange)... there is "no conceivable argument".

In any case, as I said, the Feingold quote that "proves" he supports infanticide can be found in many places on the interwebs; and most of these pages do not also include the second "no conceivable argument" quote. Strange that Dennis would make his tired claim about Feingold saying that "killing a born child is up to the doctor" AND link to a page that DISPROVES this.

So, what happened when I pointed out to Dennis that his own link disproved his claim that Feingold has "support of abortionists killing already-born US citizens without any due process"? Extreme (and hilarious) cognitive dissonance...

Dennis Marks: I hear the sound of old bones being knawed, and... this time, turn away. (7/6/2014 AT 05:55:00 AM EDT).

Dennis turned away because his mind couldn't handle the conflicting information. This, by the way, is the CLEAREST case of cognitive dissonance I have ever witnessed! Although, instead of pointing out the cognitive dissonance and laughing at Dennis, I said "you're the one who dug up the old bones! Now, having been called on doing so, you're running away".

An opportunity missed that I regret. Although, if I pointed out Dennis' cognitive dissonance the blog proprietor (this conversation took place on the blog of one rAtional nAtion uSA) may not have published my reply... as this "rational" fellow has a habit of rejecting comments he does not like.

A coping mechanism of his own to prevent any uncomfortable cognitive dissonance? Perhaps.

Supporting Documents
[DSD #6] Feingold's Views, Which Are Pro Infanticide (April 16 to April 20, 2012).
[DSD #7] Russ Feingold View Of Special Rights To Abortionists To Butcher Live Born Americans.
[DSD #17] Anti-Choice Extremism. (A catalog of many radical anti-choice comments from dmarks).

TADM #48

Dennis Marks "Fair Wage" Bullshit

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks), a Conservative individual who hates workers and loves plutocrats, OFTEN spews utter bullshit about low wages being "fair".

For example, the following exchange between Dennis and another blogger where the other blogger calls Dennis on his ridiculous idiocy...

Other Blogger: As for dmark's oft stated 'fair wage', IMO it is the minimum the employer can get away with: depends on available labor. (7/8/2014 AT 6:13pm). Dennis Marks: It is definitely a fair wage, since both the employer and employee agree on it. And not only is it the minimum that the employer can get away with, it is also just as much the most the employee can demand... it is the mutual agreement point between the two. (7/9/2014 AT 7:28pm).

The other blogger is telling the truth while Dennis lies. The "mutual agreement" he speaks of usually consists of the employer saying "take it or leave it" and pointing out that there are MANY others who will work for the low wage being offered.

And, to that proposal we usually have a worker saying "that is to low, but I'll take it, seeing as I have bills to pay and will be out on the street if I don't work... for any wage... even an unfairly low one".

The lie in Dennis' laughable "mutual agreement" canard is that people can only "mutually agree" when they have equal power. When there are more workers than positions to fill the EMPLOYER has ALL the power.

That is, excepting a situation where there is a UNION. A union is the only way to guarantee equal power in the employer/employee relationship. People who don't bow down to wealth and side against workers KNOW this to be true. But Dennis DOES these things.

Dennis bows down and worships at the oligarchic altar. His is a religion that says it is a worthy goal to further enrich those at the top (far beyond what they're entitled to) by stealing from those at the bottom (the workers that he hates).

The cherry on top of this putrid sundae is calling this screwing of workers with as low of a wage as possible "fair". It frankly makes me want to vomit.

TADM #47

1000 Percent Stupidity of "Joke" Involving Eurasian Georgia Eliciting A Lengthy Reply

The topic being responded to was John McCain calling for "for the faster integration of Georgia and Moldova into the structures of NATO amid the ongoing crisis in Ukraine's Crimea region", and the dummy know as Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) decided to reply with the following "joke"...

Dennis Marks: Might save Atlanta from being burned again, though. He might be onto something. (7/6/2014 AT 4:40am).

"Mistaking" the country for the US state is fricking hilarious. No, it actually is not, which is why, when I read this comment a few days ago, I ignored it. A dumb joke is not worth mentioning on this blog, although Dennis apparently did think I would notice and be "fooled" into thinking he actually had made a mistake and mixed up the two Georgias.

I know this due to the following exchange that took place after Dennis told his "joke"...

Another blogger: There is the Georgia of rednecks packing heat (in the heat) and there is the Georgia that gave birth to Joe Stalin. The latter is crawling with Chechens. You know, the guys that bombed the Boston Marathon. Both Georgias are quite similar, IMO. (7/6/2014 AT 1:00pm). Dennis Marks: BB: I know, I know. I was just tossing some red meat to Capt. Canardo so he can make a few thousand-word blog posts about how I don't know of former Soviet Georgia :) (7/6/2014 AT 3:26pm).

Now, did Dennis, when he initially make the joke, actually think I'd reply with a lengthy post in which I went on about Dennis' stupidity in regards to his "mixing up" the two Georgias, or is he simply covering for a "joke" that fell flat. Who knows? Either way the "tossing of red meat" line is pure stupidity. As is the claim that this "red meat" could elicit a 1000 word reply from me.

I've never written a 1000-word blog post and Dennis knows it. Although I know he exaggerates, again as another "joke", I suppose. A joke Lester Nation is eager to go along with.

But that isn't the end of the "hilarity" from the dumbshit Dennis. What comes next is a lot worse than telling a bad joke and then lying about why you told it and possibile (imaginary) responses it might elicit...

Dennis Marks: I've even seen people on the Left bash these states because (supposedly) more poor people are in them. I guess they would rather the states kick the poor people out or kill them off in order to improve their standings. (7/7/2014 AT 5:16am).

Dennis, which his lie about "bashing" of Red states and kicking out/killing poor people to improve standings refers to posts like this one and this one.

The second link is to a commentary from me in which I discuss how the South voting Republican has led to lower wages in that part of the country. The only "bashing" is my questioning of the wisdom in voting for your wages to be lower (which is what GOP lever pullers are doing in selecting candidates to represent them who then pass right-to-work-for-less legislation).

The answer is to vote Democrat and allow for unions. The answer is NOT to kick poor people out of these states or to KILL THEM.

Kill them? Yeah, Dennis really did write that "the Left" might want to kill poor people. I guess getting them to help themselves by convincing them that right-to-work is bad is a concept so foreign to Dennis that he can't concieve of it.

Foreign to him because the situation in which employers can pay as low a wage as possible is one he cheers. No, the despicable Dennis does not specifically want to kill poor people, but he does want them to stay poor.

Because if they're poor as a result of working for low wages the plutocrats benefit. No higher taxes on the oligarchs in order to pay for the Medicaid expansion (which Southern states have largely rejected) and no living wage either.

Both of which mean our wealthy overlords get a bigger piece of the pie. Even though this means poor people might die in larger numbers (from undiagnosed/treated medical conditions, higher rates of depression leading to higher rates of suicide, etc).

But Dennis has no problem with any of that. What's important is keeping poor people working for as little as possible so the already-wealthy can get even richer.

And that is something that truly disgusts me. And something I find worthy of a post. Unlike Dennis' stupid "joke" involving mixing up the two Georgias followed by a lie about the "joke" fooling me into writing a lengthy reply.

Classist moron.

TADM #46

Hilarious Dennis LOL #2: Extreme Views Never Expressed

The blogger known as Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) frequently says (writes) dumb things. Often very dumb. Fact is he says way too many idiotic things for me to chronicle them all here.

Sometimes, however, Dennis' stupidity and lies collide for a comment that is LOL-able in the extreme. Previously I had intended to do an "LOL of the week"... but didn't.

So, in continuing the series, I've changed the LOL to "of the week" to simply "hilarious". This is the second in the re-branded series.

Dennis Marks: I removed my comment on Dr. Carson being branded a failure out of the gate due to his skin color, because it was too off topic. Unrelated to issues involving Warren. My comment also contained a grammatical error, which made it canard-bait. I never remove my comments due to extreme/etc views, since I dont make such comments to begin with. (7/8/2914 09:12:00 AM EDT).

By "canard-bait" Dennis means he lied in the removed comment and he deleted his lies to cover them up. He fibbed about "racism" in a comment from me concerning the African American surgeon Ben Carson not being able to win a Republican primary due to prejudiced White Republicans.

Dennis thinks it's "racist" to point out the racism of others (Republicans, specifically). This is similar to how Social Conservatives complain about "intolerance" from the Left when they discriminate against gay people.

Not that Dennis does this. He says he is not anti-gay and I can't point to any comments from him that disprove this*... although he does seem to be obsessed with "weinergrams" (dick pix)... and lying about me sending him such pictures. I'm guessing that it is possible that Dennis is an in-the-closet gay man.

That, or Dennis is subtlety biased against gay people. What is not subtle, however, is his racism and antiSemitism. He is quite vocal about his hate for Black and Jewish people. Although he tries to cover it up by accusing others of racism and antiSemitism.

The way you know he's full of shit (and a racist anti-Semite himself) is WHO he accuses. In Dennis' world it's usually Black people who are racists and Jewish people who are anti-Semites. That, or he makes false accusations of these things against Democrats (or other people he doesn't like).

The comment above is an example of a false accusation. Here Dennis calls out the "racism" of pointing out racism. It's utterly ridiculous, of course. And quite sickening.

What is LOL-able about the comment is his lame excuse for why he deleted the comment. As well as the ridiculous claim that "I never remove my comments due to extreme/etc views, since I don't make such comments to begin with".

That bit deserves a very hearty LOL because Dennis makes such extreme comments all the time! Also he says he removed his prior comment because it contained a grammatical error, but then he replaced it with another comment that contained another grammatical error (forgot the apostrophe in "don't").

All I can say to this Dennis foolishness is "LOL". Although the false "racism" accusations from this racist are getting a little tiring. Still... LOL... he doesn't make extreme comments to begin with!!

*4/4/2015 Update: Dennis has now come out as anti-gay. In a commentary on another blog, the Libertarian proprietor stated that "I support the right of private business owners to refuse goods or services to whomever they wish".

This was in response to the Indiana "religious freedom" legislation that was written to allow homophobic business owners the "right" to discriminate against gay people (by refusing to sell goods or services produced with HIS labor to certain people).

In response to the blog proprietor's endorsement of discrimination Dennis strongly agreed. Although he threw in some lies about his agreement being due to other people thinking they have a right "to YOUR labor based on nothing other than their greed, covetousness, and a false and immoral attitude of entitlement" (his comment was nothing but dissembling in regards to the discrimination issue, as other words).

TADM #45

Financial Crisis Disinformation Disembled by Deluded Dennis Marks

What caused the Financial crisis of 2007–08 is a topic still debated by Democrats and Republicans. Conservatives, of course, blame the government. It was TOO MUCH regulation they say, despite the fact that this is total hogwash.

Just recently on the blog of a fellow who goes by the (ironic?) moniker of rAtional nAtion, the deluded Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) HAD to contribute (once again) some untruths, in response to another commenter bringing up the bonuses the bankster CEOs received post-bailout.

Dennis Marks: Yes... the top brass at Fannie and Freddie.. the government agencies that had a major role in the financial collapse, received tens of millions for a job well done. (6/22/2014 AT 05:55:00 AM EDT)

There are two lies contained within this statement. First of all, Fannie and Freddie did NOT have "a major role in the financial collapse". The bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which consisted of 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans, determined the blame lay elsewhere.

During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time. Wall Street firms such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these "private-label" securities - those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie - that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers. In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006. In an ill-fated effort to win back market share, Fannie and Freddie made a few tragic mistakes. Starting in 2006 and 2007 - just as the housing bubble was reaching its peak - Fannie and Freddie increased their leverage and began investing in certain subprime securities that credit agencies incorrectly deemed low-risk. Fannie and Freddie also lowered the underwriting standards in their securitization business, purchasing and securitizing so-called Alt-A loans. While Alt-A loans typically went to borrowers with good credit and relatively high income, they required little or no income documentation, opening the door to fraud (which was often perpetrated by the mortgage broker rather than the homebuyer). These decisions eventually contributed to the companies' massive losses, but all this happened far too late to be a primary cause of the housing crisis. (excerpt from a 9/6/2012 Center for American Progress article by John Griffith, "7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac").

Fannie and Freddie "began investing in certain subprime securities that credit agencies incorrectly deemed low-risk". This is the "systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics" referred to in the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report. Ratings agencies lied about the risk of subprime securities.

Credit rating agencies (CRAs) - firms which rate debt instruments/securities according to the debtor's ability to pay lenders back - played a significant role at various stages in the American subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008 that led to the Great Recession of 2008-2009. The new, complex securities of "structured finance" used to finance subprime mortgages could not have been sold without ratings by the "Big Three" rating agencies - Moody's Investors Service, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings. A large section of the debt securities market — many money markets and pension funds - were restricted in their bylaws to holding only the safest securities - i.e securities the rating agencies designated "triple-A". The pools of debt the agencies gave their highest ratings to included over three trillion dollars of loans to homebuyers with bad credit and undocumented incomes through 2007. Hundreds of billions dollars' worth of these triple-A securities were downgraded to "junk" status by 2010, and the writedowns and losses came to over half a trillion dollars. This led "to the collapse or disappearance" in 2008-9 of three major investment banks (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch), and the federal governments buying of $700 billion of bad debt from distressed financial institutions. (Source: Wikipedia).

In this respect Fannie and Freddie were victims of the CRAs that lied about the risk involved and gave false ratings of "triple-A". That is what necessitated their bailout, although the majority of the bad securities were of the "private-label" variety and "not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie".

F&F suffered as a result of the crisis, but DID NOT CAUSE IT. Instead of playing a "major role" F&F's contribution to inflating the bubble was "very little". And, it was not "over regulation" but under regulation that is to blame. Don't hope and pray that people act ethically, make sure they do via regulation. That is just common sense.

Secondly (in regards to the other lie I said Dennis told), the top brass at Fannie and Freddie did not receive "tens of millions for a job well done".

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government regulator for Fannie and Freddie, approved $12.79 million in bonus pay after 10 executives from the two government-sponsored corporations last year met modest performance targets tied to modifying mortgages in jeopardy of foreclosure. (Excerpt from a 11/1/2011 Politico article by Josh Boak and Joseph Williams, "Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Executives Get Big Housing Bonuses").

I would, however, give Dennis a break on this one and deem his "tens of millions" an exaggeration instead of a lie. I WOULD, except for Dennis' track record of dissembling on the issue of F&F's role in the financial crisis at every opportunity presented to him. Given his history of lying, I'm going to go ahead and label "tens of millions" another Dennis Whopper.

That isn't to say that I approve of the F&F "top brass" receiving any bonuses at all. Why the hell should any executive receive a fricking bonus when their company needs a tax-payer bailout? I mean, even if there is no blame to assign to them, a bonus in such a circumstance is NOT called for.

But, F&F, being "partially private" acted exactly like all the other bankster-ran financial institutions that gave their CEOs bonuses. But that could have been prevented by nationalizing instead of bailing out. And THAT, I should note, is a course of action the deluded dummy known as Dennis disagrees with.

Although the Republicans in Congress would have disagreed as well, which is why a nationalization plan (the BEST course of action) would not have flown. So the Congressional Democrats (acting in the best interest of the country) along with a few Republicans who agreed to fall on their swords (for the good of the banksters) did the only thing that was possible and prevented a further descent (a descent that could have resulted in a depression).

Which is not to say that I am a fan of the bailout. I think it was the wrong course of action. In this I am in agreement with Dennis, but Dennis (apparently) believes nothing should have been done. With that I am strongly in disagreement. That is another delusion as ridiculous as believing that Fannie and Freddie "had a major role in the financial collapse" (or lying about it).

TADM #44

Dennis Marks Stupidity Re Tax Evading "Due Process" Ridiculousness

Is a person entitled to "due process" in the taxation arena? In a recent comment on the blog rAtional nAtion uSA, the mentally deficient Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) seems to be making the following anti-tax argument...

Some assert that the collection of federal income taxes constitutes a "taking" of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Thus, any attempt by the Internal Revenue Service to collect federal income taxes owed by a taxpayer is unconstitutional. (source: IRS Website).

The comment by Mr. Marks in which he proffers the same/similar argument...

Dennis Marks: I also don't feel it is proper at all to punish anyone like this as if they did anything wrong, without any evidence of wrongdoing or without any due process. (6/23/2014 at 01:32:00 PM EDT).

I am unsure what Dennis means by "like this". The discussion from which this comment is pulled started with talk of the estate tax, then shifted to the blog proprietor's endorsement of the flat tax. So, is Dennis arguing against the estate tax? I don't think so. Not with the quoted comment, in any case, as it directly follows a comment by the blog proprietor in which he defends his advocation of the flat tax. This is AFTER I point out that the flat tax favors the wealthy (and link to an article by Robert Reich in which he says the same thing).

So, Dennis is, apparently, speaking against the CONCEPT of progressive taxation (the system that we CURRENTLY have). It's a taking of property that is unconstitutional because it is done without due process... according to my interpretation of Dennis' comment.

If this is the argument Dennis is proffering (and I believe it is) then it is an argument has been shot down by the Supreme court, as noted on the IRS website...

IRS: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a person shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916), that "it is... well settled that [the Fifth Amendment] is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring upon the one hand a taxing power, and taking the same power away on the other by limitations of the due process clause". Further, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the summary administrative procedures contained in the Internal Revenue Code against due process challenges, on the basis that a post-collection remedy (e.g., a tax refund suit) exists and is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process. (Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595-97. 1931).

If Dennis is sure he's being taxed in violation of his 5th amendment rights - I suggest he not pay. I predict that aint gonna work out so well for him... if he tries it. Also, taxation has absolutely nothing to do with "punishing" anyone. This is a patently absurd argument.

TADM #43

Racist Dennis Marks Injects Race Into A Discussion Where It Is Not Relevent

The racially biased Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) responds to a blog post on the "Contra O'Reilly" site that has nothing at all to do with race by injecting his own racism needlessly into the discussion.

Blog post and the reply of Dennis as follows...

Willis Hart: "On that Douch-Bag Who Left His 18 Month-Old Child in a Hot Car for 7 Hours"... At the very minimum he needs to be put away for stupidity and to prevent that it never happens again. (7/2/2014 at 9:47). Dennis Marks: I hope the 'bag is white. Because if he/she is not, Rev Jackson will swoop in and try to obstruct justice, and call the perp the real victim. (7/3/2014 at 11:41 AM).

This is odd, given that the Rev Jackson has never done any such thing before. Also, the guy IS White. Dennis might have looked it up. Instead he decides to bash Rev Jackson for absolutely no reason; and with a racist comment about him defending an individual who, the police now say, intentionally left his child in his car.

Associated Press: Prosecutors say a man unhappy in his marriage exchanged nude photos with several women as his son died in a hot vehicle, in a criminal case that quickly gained attention across America. Justin Ross Harris, 33, faces murder and child cruelty charges in the death of his 22-month-old son Cooper, who police say was left in a vehicle for about seven hours on a day when temperatures in the Atlanta area reached at least into the high 80s. The medical examiner's office has said the boy died of hyperthermia, essentially overheating, and has called his death a homicide. (4/4/2014)

See the picture below... the perp is WHITE, and that information was easily obtained within seconds via Google. Information that Willis could have also easily obtained and included in his post, instead of assuming his readers would know WTF he was talking about.

In any case, why did Dennis make the comment about the "bag" hopefully being White and Rev Jackson possibly defending him if he was Black? It's because Dennis is a racist. The guy is suspected of doing it INTENTIONALLY and the police are investigating it as a homicide. The Reverend Jackson would NOT have "swooped in" to defend him if he were Black, Dennis, you racist!

TADM #42

Racist Dennis See Racism Where There Is None & Makes Bogus Politically-Motivated Accusations

Over on the blog rAtional nAtion uSA the proprietor, one Lester Nation, recently put up a commentary in which he called out "hypocritical" Democrats. "Hypocritical" because they're making (or being asked to make) large donations to fund Democratic political operations... while, at the same time criticizing people on the other side (like the Koch Brothers) for doing the "same" thing.

Article referred to by Mr. Nation as follows (excerpts)...

Politico... David Brock has a message for liberal millionaires: Don't sweat being called hypocrites. Brock, a former "right-wing hit-man"-turned-top-big-money-Democratic-operative, is part of a behind-the-scenes campaign to convince donors it's OK to attack the Koch brothers for spending millions of dollars while doing the exact same thing for the left. "You're not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I", Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, according to someone who attended the conference, but who declined to be identified because it was closed to the press. "Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want: keeping us quiet about what they're doing to destroy the very fabric of our nation", added Brock, whose deep-pocketed nonprofit groups are leading the charge to make the conservative megadonors Charles and David Koch an issue in the 2014 midterms. (Link).

First, let me say that I am in complete and total agreement with Mr. Brock. There is no "hypocrisy" as Mr. Nation alleges. It would be stupid for Democrats to unilaterally disarm. I am, for the record, strongly in favor of campaign finance reform that would limit the influence of the big donors - on BOTH sides. And given the fact that the candidate who spends the most usually wins, it can NOT be denied that the big donors influence elections. Some would say they BUY them.

I am in agreement with those who use the word "buy" and believe the voters should be allowed to decide without a constant barrage of propaganda to confuse them. Although I do believe that the propaganda from the Right is comprised of many many lies, while the "propaganda" from the Left is helpful in getting the facts out.

Still, I think that (to be fair), and also, because the Republicans would never accept a situation in which ONLY their side was restricted in it's spending - the ONLY way to achieve this reform would be to limit the spending of groups (or the donating by wealthy people/special interests) on both sides.

Lester claims that is what he is in favor of as well, but I don't quite buy it, given his "Democrats are hypocrites" angle. He just did a post on the Clintons... pointing out their "hypocrisy" for FOLLOWING THE LAW.

But that isn't the point I want to make with this commentary. The point I want to make concerns a certain blogger who OFTEN levies charges of racism against African Americans or against any Democrat. Black Democrats (primarily) and Democrats (in general) are the "real racists" in this deluded fool's mind (and I use the term loosely).

Dennis Marks (the racially biased individual in question) saw "racism" in the post about David Brock appealing to Liberal donors. Specifically the following line from the article (one that appears later than the excerpt above)...

Steve Phillips, a member of the secretive Democracy Alliance club of major liberal donors [said] "My sense for voters of color is that the issues of income inequality, housing, education, immigration reform, health care and criminal justice reform would resonate more".

In response to this line, the bigoted Dennis submitted the following...

dmarks: Brock is now blinded by the left. And the racism described (or pushed) by Phillips is creepy. (6/25/2014 AT 09:05:00 AM EDT).

What a (racist) dope! What Dennis describes as "racism" is actually a Democratic strategist seeking to win votes by addressing the concerns of a specific demographic. This is a strategy employed by both the Left and the Right (because it works). Although the demographic Republicans usually try to appeal to are (homophobic/racist/bigoted/anti-choice/anti-woman) White (male) voters (and they do a very bad job of appealing to Black voters).

This fact, I believe is Dennis' REAL objection. He doesn't understand (as most White Conservatives do not) why the majority of African Americans vote Democratic. And he also does not like it. In fact he HATES IT! Which is why a Democrat explaining how Democrats will win votes from the African American demographic elicits lies from Dennis concerning the getting of these votes being "racist".

How utterly ridiculous! But not at all surprising, given Dennis' blindness to racism on the Conservative side. A blindness that includes (for reals) his DEFENDING the Southern Strategy! And false attributions of "racism" for Democrats. That's another hallmark Dennis' racially biased modus operandi (he has an anti-Semitic modus operandi as well. See here for the scoop on that).

That someone could (and does very frequently) see racism in others (those he disagrees with politcally) WHERE THERE IS NONE, while not in himself (where it actually is) - and FREQUENTLY blather on about it - is what is "creepy" in my opinion. And the fact that he is never called out for pushing his racism is another thing that bothers me; hence this commentary. I call you out for the ugly racist that you are dmarks!

TADM #41

The Dennis Marks "Amusement Factor" Lie

Given that the focus of this blog is to expose Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) for the dishonest liar, racist, bigot and anti-Semite that he is, I often link to comments by Dennis made on other blogs.

Seems that Dennis does not like this. In fact, my exposing him for the scumbag that he is has left him quite upset, so much so that he has taken to deleting the comments of his that I link to - in a vain effort to thwart my exposing of him for the liar he is.

Although he SAYS he does it for the "amusement factor".

Dennis Marks: 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. (3/17/2014 at 5:53am).

Nope. I don't buy your explanation, Dennis. You may believe that is why you are removing your remarks, but deleting comments when someone takes exception to them because they're offensive makes you look like you're acknowledging that what they're saying is TRUE (which it is). And that is MY amusement.

Will he now delete his comment falsely claiming an "amusement factor" when we all know the scumbag is deleting so he can lie about me "fabricating quotes"?

Image Description: A screengrab of Dennis' weak excuse for deleting his comments which are either offensive or in which he lies.

TADM #40