Another "Fan" Comment From The Clown Named Dennis Marks (This Time Re "Mom & Pop Plutocrats")

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is a silly and inane mentally defective clown who is utterly obsessed with the proprietor of this blog. So much so, that just about every comment he submits to the blog he spends most of his time on, Contra O'Reilly concerns yours truly. Well, not every one, but a LOT of them. I'm not kidding. And they almost always consist of idiotic lies. Like the following, for example...

Dennis Marks: Some clown, no longer deemed fit to comment here, included typical school boards along with struggling mom-and-pop store operators in the "plutocrat" category. Silly and inane. (9/22/2014 AT 5:36pm via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

Ah, no. I never said any such thing. The "word" plutocrat HAS a definition and is an actual word. This despite the fact that fellow dumb-dumb Willis Hart places the word in quotes in a recent post titled Notes on the "Plutocrats" and says "I'm still not entirely certain who these individuals are" (this would be the same post the comment by Dennis above was left in response to).

A I said, the word DOES have a definition, and one would think that if Willis was "not entirely certain" what a plutocrat is, he could simply look it up at a dictionary website, of which there are quite a few...

Dictionary.com: Plutocrat noun 1. a member of a plutocracy... plutocracy 1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy. 2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules. 3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

Specifically I go with #3, which defines a plutocrat as someone with great wealth who seeks to influence the political process, for their own benefit, through the use of their wealth (which usually entails hiring lobbyists to influence regulations in their favor). Pretty simple concept, yet the obtuse Willis is "not entirely certain" who these people are. Although I believe the obtuseness is due to his worship of the wealthy, who, in his eyes, can do no wrong.

In any case, that is the definition I use (along with the vast majority of educated English-speaking people on the planet, I'd guess). People who aren't idiots, can read, and have a decent grasp of the English language. And don't worship wealth and therefore have a blind spot when it come to criticizing those who possess great wealth using it to benefit themselves (and hurt everyone else).

"Typical school boards along with struggling mom-and-pop store operators" obviously do not fit into the "plutocrat" category and I have NEVER once claimed that they did. I mean, the suggestion is clearly inane and worse than "silly". Yet the fool named Dennis has made this claim on more than one occasion, and never have any of his buddies called him out on this utter stupidity.

I actually did try to nip this idiocy in the bud at one point (having grown tired of Dennis bringing up this lie for the umpteenth time)...

Dervish Sanders: I never said [Mom-and-pop store operators are plutocrats]. But, for the sake of argument, let's say I did. I am now changing my mind. I categorically reject the idea that the operators of mom-and-pop stores are plutocrats. Will Dennis stop saying this now? (note: I'm asking a question, not requesting he do this). I predict no. (8/16/2013 at 8:50pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

As you can see my prediction was 100 percent accurate. I said I categorically rejected calling small business (or "mom-and-pop" operators) "plutocrats", and Dennis responds with, "I am glad WD changed his mind" (even though I couldn't "change my mind", as I never believed that to begin with)... but still Dennis repeats this lie (after this discussion). Now he adds the word "struggling", which never was a part of the fabrication before.

Categorical proof that Dennis is a liar. If I had used the word "struggling" in addition to "Mom & Pop" Dennis would not just be mentioning it now. It would have been included in the accusation every time, which it never has been, until yesterday. (for more examples and info regarding Dennis' absurd and ridiculous lie regarding me calling "struggling Mom & Pop operators" and "typical school boards", please refer to the "see also" link at the bottom of this post).

The bottom line is that Dennis Marks is a f*cking moron - but Dennis' idiocy is very much appreciated by the proprietor of the blog where most of his stupidity is published... that blog being the one run by the "small L" Libertarian (as he refers to himself), Willis Hart.

This is why I am "no longer deemed fit to comment" on Willis' blog... because I refuse to go along with the kind of stupidity he takes great pride in regurgitating. Primarily Libertarian stupidity, but also the butt-kissing stupidity of Dennis. Willis loves it when Dennis repeats (ad nauseum) his lies about the proprietor of this blog. Lies like the one being discussed, as well as many MANY others (as documented on this blog).

By the way, in regards to the comment of Dennis (above) being referred to as a "fan comment", that is in reference to Dennis referring to this blog (The Truth About Dennis Marks) as a "fan blog". The dumbass even thinks I have a man crush on him! Due to the many times I've referred to him as a "scumbag", no doubt. Because referring to someone as a "scumbag" means you're a fan of the person and have a "crush" on them, right?

But, given that the fecally obsessed Dennis refers to me constantly on the blog of Willis and also on the blog of rAtional nAtion, the delusional nutter must have an even BIGGER man crush on me and be my ULTIMATE fan. Not that it would be hard for him to have a bigger man crush on me than I have on him, as I have an EXTREMELY low opinion of Dennis and and absolutely do NOT "kind of idolize him" (as per the Urban Dictionary definition of man crush).

Nor am I a "fan" or have any "fan blogs" that speak of how I idolize the racist, antiSemitic confabulating a-hole with the Blogger ID "dmarks". But Dennis? He's the one lying about me pushing back against his lies (on this blog). Because I dispute his lies with this blog Dennis thinks I am a "fan" of his and have a "man crush" on him... while bringing me up and inserting lies about me into just about every conversation on a blog I'm banned from. Kind of indicates that the obsession goes the other way, I think.

TADM #58. See also SWTD #231.

Dennis Marks Frying Up Old Bones In Canardo Oil Re Elizabeth Warren Native American Controversy

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) hates Progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren and, although it didn't work for Scott Brown (Warren receiving 54% of the vote comparred to Brown's 46%), Dennis still brings up the "Native American controversy" quite often... for example...

Dennis Marks: ...Elizabeth Warren, who has fraudulently presented [her]self as a Native American for personal gain. It's a form of racism... (9/10/2014 AT 8:39pm).

So, did Elizabeth Warren "fradulently" present herself as a Native American for personal gain? Did the voters think she did but simply not care? "No", to the first question and "I don't know" to the second one. Obviously she was the better candidate, even if she believed some family stories that (apparently) later turned out to not be true, or at least not provable. But Warren did NOT lie, as saying something you believe to be true is not a lie, nor did she "gain" from believing she had a Cherokee ancestor.

Josh Hicks of the Washington Post: [Scott] Brown said that Warren "checked the box claiming she was Native American" when she applied to Harvard and Penn, suggesting the Democratic candidate somehow gained an unfair advantage because of an iffy ethnic background. But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her. The senator's debate comments also suggest Warren actively applied for positions with Harvard and Penn, but the evidence suggests the schools recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy. Harvard, in fact, did not give up on her after she first turned down a tenured position with the university. (Everything you need to know about Elizabeth Warren's claim of Native American heritage, 9/28/2012).

Senator Warren "personally gained" from her ACCOMPLISHMENTS and had absolutely no need to fradulently present herself as Native American...

WP (quote from same article as above): [Warren] did groundbreaking research while teaching at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law on how the nation's bankruptcy code was affecting average families. ... [Her] work put Warren at the cutting edge of a new school of legal thought that emphasized real impacts on people's lives rather than mere theory. It also led to her first book, "As We Forgive Our Debtors", which won the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award after it was published in 1989. ... Warren went on to write bankruptcy-related articles for The Yale Law Journal in 1992, and Michigan Law Review in 1993.

Now, it is true that various Native American groups have looked into Warren's (old) claims of Native American heritage and have not been able to verify she has any Indian ancestors, but Warren didn't personally gain from the claims, nor were her claims "fraudulent", as she believed them. Her belief based on "stories she says she heard from family members as a child".

Warren did not anticipate running for political office and therefore did not anticipate that her past would be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Otherwise she probably would have researched whether what she was told was true or not, instead of "stupidly" believing what grandparents told her and her brother, which was that "your grandfather is part Delaware, a little bitty bit, way back, and your grandmother is part Cherokee".

Also, as the WP article linked to above points out...

Undocumented claims of Native American ancestry, especially those based on family lore, are not uncommon in this country. That's especially true in places like Oklahoma, which ranks second in the U.S. in number of Native American residents and third in percentage of population of that descent, according to U.S. Census data.

So, did Warren make a mistake when she "listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory"? Perhaps. But she did so because she believed her grandparents. Also, as I already pointed out, Warren did not gain anything from doing this. So who really cares? Besides Dennis, that is. He's convinced she lied and did so to gain something.

But, as I have just pointed out, the evidence does not support this conclusion. Dennis continues beating this dead horse (or "frying up old bones in canardo oil") regarding Warren "lying" about Native American heritage she may or may not have due to hatred for Progressives - and not because the facts support this position. A dead horse for sure, due to the voters not rejecting her because she "lied".

And he ridiculously labels Warren's belief that her grandparents did not tell her the truth as "racism", which is outrageous given Dennis' own racist proclivities (which I have documented on this blog extensively).

Supporting Document
Elizabeth Warren Is A Lying Asshole, A Fake & A Contemptible Wannabe Who Boosted Her Career With A Fraudulent Claim Of Being A Native American & Who Supports The Evil Occupy Wall Street Movement, DSD #14

Update, 10/15/2018: DNA Test Reveals Elizabeth Warren Has Native American Ancestry, WYM #85.

TADM #57

Dennisism #7: Violent Felon

Who is a "violent felon" according to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks)? It's someone who has been accused of violence, but for which said violence has not been proven. As for the "felon" part, by "felon" Dennis means someone who has never been convicted of a felony.

The following idiot remarks from Dennis, in regards to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson MO on August 9, 2014...

Dennis Marks: Just like, in my view, I can't see any reason why the cop had to fire so many shots at the violent felon assaulting him. (8/21/2014 AT 4:11am).

First of all, Michael Brown has no criminal record, which means he was never even arrested, let alone charged with and convicted of a felony. Which is a REQUIREMENT for referring to someone as a "felon"... that they have been charged and convicted of a felony...

The Legal Dictionary: felon n. a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is a crime punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison. (Link).

No felony conviction. No record at all. Not a felon... to anyone but Dennis, that is. And the supposed strongarm robbery that Brown committed just prior to being shot is also disputed.

Michael Brown seems to have paid for his cigarillos... [surveillance] video [supposedly] shows Brown robbing the store, taking a box of cigars. However, the attorney for Ferguson Market says that it was not anyone from the store that called police to report a robbery. In fact, a customer called to report what he viewed as a robbery. ...the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead in the street. In their fervent effort to cast Brown in a negative light, [the police] missed that the video seems to show Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets. (article by John Prager, from Americans Against the Tea Party. via Crooks and Liars, 8/18/2014).

So, no felony conviction and also quite likely no act for which Michael Brown might have been convicted of a crime later. In any case, stealing a box of cigars wouldn't have been a felony but a misdemeanor... *if* that is what happened (and the evidence suggests that it is not).

As for the assault, the verdict on that is... possibly. That is the cop's version of events, but it should be noted that other witnesses dispute the assault. Wikipedia refers to what happened as an "altercation". CNN describes the incident as follows...

Rachel Clarke and Christopher Lett, CNN: Some witnesses say the teenager assaulted the officer at the outset and tried to grab his gun; other witnesses say Wilson was the aggressor. (What happened when Michael Brown met Officer Darren Wilson, 8/26/2014).

But this would not be the first time Mr. Marks has accused someone of being a "felon" who was never even charged with a crime...

Dennis Marks: Zimmerman was an armed neighborhood watch guy spoiling for a confrontation, and Martin was a drug-crazed berserker (a felon who should have been behind bars). A true Battle of Stalingrad: both bad guys. But one of them killed the other. (6/18/2013 AT 8:14pm).

Trayvon Martin, another unarmed African American teen who was shot and killed, was not a "bad guy", nor could any rational person describe his encounter with George Zimmerman as "a true Battle of Stalingrad". Because such a description would be truly idiotic. And Dennis saying "one killed the other" is also idiotic... because it was the one with the GUN who killed the other one!

Anyway, that Martin assaulted Zimmerman is something I am not convinced happened, as we only have Zimmerman's word for it. Some point to the witness John Good, but what Good actually said was he "couldn't be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom" and "he didn't see the person on top smashing the other person's head into the sidewalk". (quotes from Good's testimony).

And remember that Zimmerman has good cause to lie, given the fact that he was facing a murder charge. But it is the fact that both of these young Black men were unarmed while their killers both had a firearm. So, no surprise that the unarmed person in each situation died.

More importantly, I would say that in both cases it isn't known if either of these young Black men were violent. In Trayvon's case there was only one witness (besides Good, who, as I already pointed out, did not see what some think he saw) and that witness is a liar (Zimmerman lied about many other things).

With Michael Brown the fact is we don't know yet what the witnesses are going to say under oath, or how the trial (provided there is one) might shake out. So we can NOT say he was "violent". And he (like Trayvon) was never convicted of any crime, including a felony.

But dumb Dennis refers to both of these individuals as "violent felons". And they're both Black... which causes me to think that the racism of Dennis might be a factor here. Especially given Dennis' past history of racist accusations against other African Americans.

In any case... the Dennisism "violent felon" is obviously defined as someone who has never convicted or even accused of a felony. Although they (always a young African American male) have been accused of violence - albeit with scant or inconclusive evidence (or testimony from an untrustworthy source). Another sign that race could be a factor when Dennis reaches these conclusions? He was a young Black male... so OF COURSE he was violent!

Or so Dennis' thinking might go. Who know when it comes to this delusional nutcase?

TADM #56. See also SWTD #170 and SWTD #270.