Is The Phallophilic Dennis Marks Sticking His Firearm In His Naughty Place?

Awhile ago Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) revealed himself to have a sick obession known as fecalphelia, which (with Dennis) takes the form of him referring to my comments on other blogs as "defecation" and filtering out these "floaters" (my remarks) as "flushing". In another comment re removing my comments Dennis tells the blog host that "it is time to wipe". (a reference, yet again, to a toilet function).

In another comment that is even more disgusting Dennis says "WD is blowing shit out of his mouth". Sick, right? But that isn't the end of Dennis' many sicknesses.

In addition to his fecalphelia, Dennis is a confirmed phallophile, which (with Dennis) takes the form of an obsession with "weinergrams" and the delusion that I have sent him such images (photos of my genitalia), which I absolutely NEVER have.

This same phile has Dennis picking up on another blogger's use of the word "beef" (re the "feud" between dmarks and I) and using it in another connotation. One that reveals where his obsessions lie.

Dennis Marks: Mr Sanders' link to to his fanboy blog proves nothing more than his mancrush obsession, as he failed to find any lies to call me out for. His "long standing beef" is still hanging out. (4/10/2015 AT 7:38am).

The "fanboy blog" that Dennis refers to is THIS blog. He thinks my criticisms of him here amount to me being his "fan".

In any case, in reply to this comment in which Dennis imagines a "man crush" that does not exist, I said "you're imagining my beef hanging out RIGHT NOW, aren't you? I think dmarks needs to find himself a boyfriend".

It is comments like these have led me to believe that Dennis might be a closeted gay man. (probably self-hating).

Which brings me to the comment that caused me to believe that Dennis might be doing something inappropriate with his gun. Should he own one. Previously he indicated that he did not own one, but was thinking about making a purchase (from a gun show or private seller... so the government was unaware of his acquisition).

It was in the following comment where his phallophilia and gun nuttery collided, although (of course) he (again) projected his sick obsessions onto me. (Note: Comment by another blogger included, as what Dennis sez is in response to it).

Jersey McJones: I'd rather be a hoplophobe than a phallophile. ;) (7/29/2015 AT 1:06am). Dennis Marks: Dervish Sanders is both, while you are not, Jersey. (7/29/2015 AT 5:49am).

This comment, in which Dennis sez I have an "irrational aversion to weapons" (the definition of "holophobia") and sez I am also a phallophile, did not last long. Dennis quickly deleted it... likely because he realized it said more about his own obsessions than it said anything about the proprietor of this blog.

I was able to pull up the Google cached page and grab a screenshot, however. A screenshot that I have appended to the end of this commentary. (Note: Google cached pages are regularly updated, so the link I just gave may or may not show the deleted comment. It depends on how much time has passed between the date of the publication of this post and when you click the link).

In regards to the Jersey McJones comment... I think he makes a very good point. Which is that many of these gun nuts may be making up for an "equipment" deficiency with a big gun. A desire that presents itself as an obsession with, and a need to possess one or many guns.

Now, on the blog where this exchange took place, Libertas and Latte, the blog host focuses almost exclusively on defending gun rights against (what he calls) the "the gun control cabal".

Referencing the Jersey comment, the proprietor of the Latte blog (a blog where there are zero commentaries about coffee and only the "libertas" for anyone to as many guns as they desire) makes the same connection I just made (a connection between how some nutters might view firearms in a "homoerotic" light).

Constitutional Insurgent: ...the gun control camp cannot seem to proffer an argument without invoking laughable memes and buzz phrases about the "eeeevil NRA" or odd homoerotic projections comparing firearms to the phallus... (7/30/2015 AT 7:40am).

Homoerotic you say? All I've heard is that a gun might substitute a for straight man's insecurity regarding their manhood. But Latte's mind goes to "homoerotic". Maybe he's talking about himself without knowing it? Who knows?

I do know that Dennis has made many comments in the past that indicate to me that he may be a closeted gay man. In another comment on another blog Dennis said (referring to me) "he loves to compose graphic lube-dripping gay-sex comments". However this reference to something I've never done is (I think) more projection.

In fact it seems that lubing up that area (so something can be inserted) is an act that is on Dennis' mind constantly. In another discussion Dennis levied a bogus charge of anti-semitism against the Occupy movement based on a YouTube video starring someone who calls himself "Lotion Man". Dennis provided a link to this video in his comment, and I therefore assumed that he had looked at it and knew the "anti-semite" he was referring to called himself "Lotion Man".

However, when I responded to Dennis' comment linking to the Lotion Man video, he responded back with a comment that made it clear he had no idea who "Lotion Man" was. Even though this was the dude making the anti-semitic comments. In a video that Dennis linked to. Instead he assumes (when I refer to Lotion Man) that I'm talking about something else.

Dennis Marks: I have no idea about Mr. Sander's lotions. It's probably something perverted again, and I don't want to think about it. (2/1/2014 10:28:00 PM EST).

So why does his mind go there? Frankly I think it's because Dennis was (again) imagining my "beef". Imagining my "beef" with lotion on it and me inserting it somewhere Dennis would find pleasurable. Which, if that's Dennis' thing, is OK (or none of my business). Although I've informed him previously that it isn't MY thing and that he should stop including me in his fantasies. I mean, he CLEARLY was thinking about it, as that is where his mind went immediately. Despite the fact that I was talking about the subject in the video HE LINKED TO!

So... did Dennis finally realize that his fantasies regarding yours truly were just that... fantasies that were never going to happen? And did Dennis then look elsewhere to fulfill his needs? Clearly (being in the closet) he was too embarrassed to go looking for a boyfriend.

Instead (to fulfill these desires) he uses a gun instead of a dildo? I think so. I think Dennis' gun became an object of sexual attraction and he wanted his gun to "do" him. I conclude this based on the evidence as laid out above.

Obviously it would be better for Dennis if he came out of the closet and found himself that boyfriend he wants. Better because there wouldn't be a danger of him firing a bullet up his ass.

I assume he sticks his gun up his poop shoot with the safety OFF (and his finger on the trigger) because he finds the excitement of possibly killing himself necessary in order to climax.

I could be wrong... but I think there is a very strong case that Dennis is engaging in this exceedingly risky behavior. The gun-obsessed Latte man alludes to the "homoerotic" act, although I'm sure he does so with no thought in his mind about Dennis defiling his firearm in this manner. Even though that might very well be exactly what Dennis is doing.

Video: "You can go on YouTube and find me, The Lotion Man", the subject of this video says (near the end). This is the Clip that shows "Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest"... which Dennis thinks proves the entire movement is anti-Semitic (2:20).

Supporting Document
Perverted Phallophile's Homoerotic Homoerotica Featuring Noam Chomsky Nude, DSD #12.

TADM #76

Dennis Marks Borrowing A Page From The Joseph Goebbels Playbook

Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie...".

This is why Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) hates this blog and desperately wishes it was gone. Because Dennis tells big lies, while The Truth About Dennis Marks slaps them down.

Concerning Dennis' Big Lies, one of them concerns this blogger defending, having as a hero, or worshipping brutal mass-murdering murderous dictators. First it was Joseph Stalin who was my "hero" and whom I "worship". According to Dennis I was "caught praising" Stalin. Of course this accusation is complete and total bullshit.

Now Dennis posts lies concerning things I never said concerning Mao Tse-Tung, the Chinese Communist revolutionary and the founding father of the People's Republic of China (which he governed as Chairman of the Communist Party of China from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976). This would be the dictator who perpetrated systematic human rights abuses and was responsible for an estimated 40 to 70 million deaths through starvation, forced labour, and executions - ranking his tenure as the top incidence of democide (murder by government) in human history. (excerpted from Wikipedia).

Dennis Marks: [Dervish Sanders is] the same guy who defended Maoism with claims that Maoist rule prohibited police brutality. And of course he uses the phrase "the people" all the time when referring to the tiny group at the top of government, borrowing a page from Red China. (7/23/2015 AT 6:25pm).

Here is another example of Dennis lying his ass off concerning me and Mao.

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 2:55am).

Again, total bullshit. With the exception of the last line. But everything Dennis claims about me is a big BIG Lie. It is true that Mao came up in a discussion regarding Van Jones. And I did mention police brutality. But what I told Dennis was that Van Jones belonged to a group that read the writings of Mao and also protested police violence.

Wikipedia/Van Jones/Earlier activism: When he graduated from law school, Jones gave up plans to take a job in Washington DC, and moved to San Francisco instead. He became a member of a "socialist collective" called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) that protested against police brutality.

Van Jones (as a member of STORM) protested police brutality. The Maoist rulers of China (1949-1976) engaged in police brutality. I never said otherwise, you lying sack of shit!

Wikipedia/Mao Zedong/Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution/Paragraph 4: The authorities allowed the Red Guards to abuse and kill opponents of the regime. Said Xie Fuzhi, national police chief: "Don't say it is wrong of them to beat up bad persons: if in anger they beat someone to death, then so be it". As a result, in August and September 1966, there were 1,772 people murdered in Beijing alone.

Anyway, regarding STORM, Conservapedia says...

Conservapedia/Van Jones/Maoist Influence: STORM's own literature describes its "Maoist orientation" which conducted "a group reading of Mao's On Practice and On Contradiction". The group studied Lenin's theories of the state, revolution, the party, and "the political ideas of Mao Tse-tung".

Now, I don't know how much stock I place anything on Conservapedia... and their Van Jones page is basically a smear of the man... but I couldn't locate the info anywhere else.

In any case, how into the writings of Mao was Van Jones? That is information that is (apparently) lost to the ages. Van Jones' own website only addresses the rumor that he (presently) is a communist (and says nothing about Mao).

[Question] Are you a communist? [Van Jones answer] No, I'm not... For the better part of a decade, I've been the No. 1 champion of free-market solutions for poor people and the environment. ... Some people experimented with drugs and alcohol, I experimented with world-views and philosophies and I was an angry young guy, I was on the left side of Pluto. The great thing about America is, you can think whatever wacky thing you want to think, and you are free to change your mind once you get older. (The Truth About Van Jones).

So, there you have it... Communist or Maoist, Van Jones moved on a LONG time ago. He is now a champion of the free market. Point is, I never defended Mao and I never equated Maoism to ending police brutality. I only pointed out to Dennis that Van Jones absolutely is not a "worshipper" of Mao (presently) and that STORM protested police brutality (when Jones was a member).

And, FYI, I never defended Van Jones either (in regards to his past). I don't have enough info regarding what happened. Not that it matters, as it is in the past and Van no longer holds those views (whatever views he held).

I also never use the phrase "the people" when referring to the tiny group at the top of government. Those people are our representatives. The People are the citizens of the United States, you idiot! Also, The People, which IS a phrase I use, is a reference the opening phrase of the Preamble to the United States Constitution.

Dennis knows this (how could he not). Yet he lies away. Because that is just the kind of a-hole that he is. But this is hardly new information. Many people have known this about Dennis for quite some time... although most seem to ignore it for some reason. I refuse.

An example of dmarks' being an a-hole? I pointed out to him that I never defended Mao, and his response was to say "I'm glad Mr Sanders has done a 180 on this issue...". Although he surely was (and is) an a-hole to lie about me defending Mao in the first place.

Image Description: Mao, NOT a hero of the Left, despite lies from scumbags on the Right like Dennis.

TADM #75

Dennis Marks Blogging Demagogue

In my last commentary (TADM #73) I discussed remarks the racially-biased blogger Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks), made concerning comments made and actions taken by President Barack Obama in regards to the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy.

According to Dennis, "this whole beer summit matter had nothing to do with any issue of national importance" (as it would not have happened if Dr Gates wasn't one of his buddies). "It was all personal" and the president was "demagoguing it up" in the deluded mind of Mr. Marks.

Which, according to the definition of demagogue meant the president was "treating or manipulating a political issue in an attempt to obscure or distort with emotionalism or prejudice"... something I proved was total bullshit. First, because columnist Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times specifically asked Obama "what does it say about race relations in America?" Obama, put on the spot, made an extemporaneous remark that he later said he regretted.

Second, the Beer Summit occurred due to negative poll results that suggested a large number of (mainly White) people thought he handled the question badly. So - someone in the White House, most likely - put together this "Beer Summit" idea to try and smooth things over with the law enforcement community and the public. It was about optics and the "teachable moment" Obama mentioned, NOT demagoguery.

The reverse was actually the case, and suggesting racial demagoguery from a African American president is, in my opinion, racist. Very similar to when Dennis said that Obama is an "exceptionally indolent and lazy man". A sentence loaded with dog-whistles that even a dumb-dumb like Dennis has to be aware of. Seriously, I bet Dennis could go to the Stormfront website and post this comment and find a LOT of agreement.

In regards to that (Dennis hypothetically posting on the Stormfront site), I did a quick Google search and found a thread on a discussion board concerning how lazy Blacks are. One commenter wrote the following...

...in my past experiences, the blacks are the laziest of the bunch at work. My last few jobs... I was a minority. This is where you truly see how lazy, degenerate, and hateful to whites most blacks really are. Its like being trapped in the monkey cage at the zoo, just waiting for one of them to start flinging poop. (12/04/2008 AT 02:33am. Comment by "Twitchie" from StormFront.org).

Commentary that sounds like what that Boston cop Justin Barrett said in his email re Henry Louis Gates.

On 7/28, it was revealed... that Justin Barrett, a 36-year-old Boston Police Department officer who has been on the job for two years, and is also a member of the Massachusetts National Guard, sent a mass e-mail to fellow National Guardsmen and to The Boston Globe in which he referred to Gates as a "jungle monkey". Although the email was signed only JB, when he was asked about it, Barrett admitted to his BPD superiors that he was the author. According to an article in the Boston Globe, Barrett wrote the email... "in reaction to media coverage of Gates's arrest July 16", in particular to a July 22 Globe column by Yvonne Abraham, who expressed support for Gates. In the e-mail, Barrett wrote, "If I was the officer he [Gates] verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC [oleorosin capsicum, or pepper spray] deserving of his belligerent non-compliance". During the course of the message, Barrett used the phrase "jungle monkey" four times, three times in reference to Gates and once in reference to Abraham's column, which he characterized as "jungle monkey gibberish". (Wikipedia/Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy/Justin Barrett e-mail).

Yeah, these people are worse than Dennis, but just like Dennis, Barrett (who was fired) is in complete denial regarding his racism. In a TV interview Barrett said, "I have so many friends of every type of culture and race you can name. I am not a racist". Sure, that's why you used the term "jungle monkey", because you're NOT a racist. And, note that he used the "Black friend" defense. When Barrett sued (because his unemployment was denied) the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that his "egregious misconduct" was "obviously intentional".

Which I think might be true about about Dennis... his misconduct is egregious and intentional. I mean, how could he NOT know that his accusations (our Black president is "indolent and lazy" and guilty of "demagoguing it up") are racist? Although I haven't seen any comments by Dennis where he says he can't be racist due to all the Black friends he has.

But what he does do is (falsely) claim that many Black people are racists. To hear Dennis tell it, it's almost always Black people who are guilty of racism. One of the only times I can remember Dennis referring to a White guy as racist was when he compared Van Jones to David Duke!

Dennis Marks: David Duke is the Van Jones of the right. (4:48pm on an unspecified date sometime after 8/26/2011. From the blog Newspaper Rock).

Van Jone has NEVER used any rhetoric comparable to David Duke. Never. He is a strong champion of Middle Class and working folks, regardless of race. In any case, there is one other instance I can recall where Dennis referred to White people as racist, this time in conjunction with another bash against our president.

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 listless and lazy and by any objective standard, unremarkable legislative record. (1/14/2014 AT 5:26pm).

Even if these "well-meaning racists" selected Obama "explicitly because of his skin color" that does NOT mean Obama wasn't qualified. If this were the case, Dennis would have provided some evidence to show he wasn't. Instead he simply takes the fact that they may have been looking for a Black person to fill the position (in the interest of diversity) to make the idiotic suggestion that they did not select the best Black candidate.

Just because Obama may have been an "affirmative action appointment" does not automatically mean he was unqualified (nor does it mean that those who appointed him were "well-meaning racists"). Assuming this to be the case with no proof at all? I say that's racist.

So, that's two examples of Dennis calling out "white racists", but they are both within the context of bashing Black guys (Van Jones and Barack Obama).

What does this say about Dennis? You can draw your own conclusion, but I know what mine is, which is that Dennis Marks is one SERIOUSLY racially biased individual. As well as someone who is guilty of "treating or manipulating a political issue in an attempt to obscure or distort with emotionalism or prejudice"... or demagoguery.

Image Description: On 7/30/2009, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Professor Gates, and Sergeant Crowley met at the White House. ...Obama said he believed "what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart" and that after the meeting he was "hopeful that all of us are able to draw this positive lesson from this episode".

TADM #74

Dennis Marks Racism Apparent With Totally Bogus Charges Of "Demagoguery" Against Barack Obama Re His Response To Henry Louis Gates Getting Arrested For Entering His Own Home

Yet more ugly racism from the racially-biased blogger Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks), this time in regards to comments made and actions taken by President Barack Obama in response to the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy.

However, before I get what Dennis said that was racist, let me refresh your memory regarding the Gates controversy.

On 7/16/2009, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr, was arrested at his Cambridge, Massachusetts home by a local police officer responding to a 9-1-1 caller's report of men breaking and entering the residence. ...Gates was arrested by the responding officer, Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley, and charged with disorderly conduct. On July 21, the charges against Gates were dropped. The arrest generated a national debate about whether or not it represented an example of racial profiling by police. On July 22, President Barack Obama said about the incident, "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately". Law enforcement organizations and members objected to Obama's comments and criticized his handling of the issue. In the aftermath, Obama stated that he regretted his comments and hoped that the situation could become a "teachable moment". (Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy).

Note that Gates was arrested after showing the officer his ID, thus proving that he was in his own house. Also, when someone is charged with disorderly conduct, it is usually in regards to conduct in public. Which is why the officer asked Gates, who was inside his own home, to step outside. The charges were obviously bogus, in other words. Which is why they were later dropped.

If no racial biases were at play, I think this was clearly harassment. No matter how Gates reacted (the officer says he yelled at him, while Gates denies this), it is up to the police to de-escalate. Or should be, although it seems that MANY police officers are seriously lacking training in this important tactic.

As for what Dennis had to say about this incident, well, he had a problem with Obama's involvement, remarks and actions. And he used a term to describe Obama's involvement that does not apply.

Dennis Marks: ... the Henry Louis Gates Jr flap comes to mind. The less demagogueing, the better. (7/12/2015 AT 08:46:00 AM EDT).

Next, after Jersey McJones pointed out "Obama and Gates happened to be personal friends in the first place", Dennis replied with the following...

Dennis Marks: That makes it even worse. That not only would Obama be "demagoguing it up", but he would be doing so to help out one of his cronies. That is, pardon the expression, piss-poor Presidential leadership. Not good for a leader of all the nation. To justify this, Jersey, would imply you think that is is OK that a President use his power to bend the executive branch to help one of his buddies. And it is also an admission that this whole "beer summit" matter had nothing to do with any issue of national importance (as it would not have happened if Dr Gates wasn't one of his buddies). It was all personal. Like something a mafia godfather would do. (7/14/2015 AT 08:13:00 AM EDT).

A "demagogue" is a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. "Demagogueing" involves "treating or manipulating (a political issue) in an attempt to obscure or distort with emotionalism or prejudice".

This is NOT what the president did. It was entirely appropriate that Barack Obama, as our first African American president, say something concerning a situation that has something to do with race relations. To use it as a "teachable moment", as Obama said, which would be the opposite of obscuring or distorting, you dipshit!

In any case, it was NOT Obama who instigated his involvement in this controversy, but columnist Lynn Sweet (the Washington D.C. bureau chief for the Chicago Sun-Times), who asked Obama "recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?".

Obama was directly asked to comment on race relations! Later he said he "regretted his comments". Comments that were extemporaneous, as opposed to being thought out.

Wikipedia notes that "An opinion poll released by Pew Research found that 41 percent disapproved of Obama's handling of the situation, while only 29 percent approved, and support from white voters dropped from 53 percent to 46 percent".

Obviously the Beer Summit was an attempt to clean this up (the negative reaction to Obama's comments). There was zero "demagoguing". Obama was arbitrating or acting as a peacemaker (with the Beer Summit), which, again is the OPPOSITE of demagoguing.

Also false (and utterly ridiculous), is Dennis' accusation that Obama did something to "help out one of his cronies", or that he used "his power to bend the executive branch to help one of his buddies"... as the disorderly conduct charges were dropped! No helping of any kind occurred. Obama was trying to help himself (re the public perception problem) and help in the area of race relations (the "teachable moment").

In regards to the Beer Summit not happening "if Dr Gates wasn't one of his buddies", and it all being "personal"... this might be correct. The reporter might not have asked the president the question if Gates were not a friend. Then again she might have anyway. But the "personal" aspect is not relevant. Is Obama not supposed to have friends? Should he have refused to answer the question because (either) Gates was a friend or because he (Obama) is Black? If a White president has made the same comments would Dennis be accusing him of "demagoguery"? I very much doubt it.

In any case, the Beer Summit occurred because of the public perception problem. It was an attempt to fix that issue, although, with Dennis, it obviously had the opposite effect. Because of Dennis' strong racial biases, I believe. Anything Obama does in regards to the issue of race relations is likely viewed by Dennis (as it is by many racist Republicans) as "demagoguery". Apparently the very fact that Obama is Black is why he can't say anything on this topic (in the minds of racists like Dennis).

Image Description: Gates, arrested on the porch of his Cambridge home, with Sgt. Crowley (right) and Sgt. Lashley (foreground), 7/16/2009.

TADM #73

Dennis Marks Either Lies Or Simply Does Not Care About The Truth (Re: Who Defends TARP)

In my previous commentary (TADM #71) I claimed that Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) lied with the following comment...

Dennis Marks: Every instance of corrupt crony capitalism, of government serving wealthy corporate elites, that Mr. Sanders is confronted on, he ends up defending. From TARP handouts to banksters to the costly auto bailout (paying them to build factories in China) to gifts to energy scamming companies to help them build stuff in China also. (7/8/2015 AT 1:05pm).

At first Dennis ignored my assertion that he lied about me defending the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). I posted a link to a comment to prove I did not defend TARP, but the blog host deleted my comment. Why? Damned if I know. My guess was (and still is) that he did it to protect Dennis (from my proof of his lie).

In any case, Dennis did publish a retraction the next day. Although he then said he must have been thinking about another Progressive blogger.

Dennis Marks: When I listed the multiple examples of welfare to wealthy interests that Mr. Sanders defended, I erroneously included TARP. I was thinking of either Jersey or Ducky in that instant. I admit this error, and was wrong to accuse Mr. Sanders of supporting this one particular handout. (7/9/2015 AT 10:19am).

So, it was Jersey or Ducky who defended TARP? I wonder which one did it. Reading the following comment by Dennis, it looks like he meant to say (that of Jersey or Ducky) the culprit is Ducky.

Dennis Marks: ...with WD and others on the left defending the handouts to the rich people running the Solyndra unsistainable eneergy scam, the corporatist auto industry bailout, and TARP (one of Ducky's fav policies), you will find that while support for squandering the tax money forcibly taken from Americans on wealthy corporations is strong from the Right.. .and even stronger on the Left. (7/29/2014 AT 07:20:00 PM EDT. From the blog Rational Nation USA).

So it was Ducky! Damn him. Or was it?

Ducky's Here: Now as far as I can tell, we are GIVING money to the capitalist pukes that did boom-boom all over the economy. No? Then what's TARP all about? (4/21/2009 AT 1:24pm).

Capitalist pukes? Does not sound to me as if Ducky is a TARP fan, or it was ever one of his "fav policies". So, even though Dennis has accused Ducky of being a TARP fan (at least twice), I think the evidence shows he is not.

So, what about Jersey?

Jersey McJones: ...remember, TARP or any of those other bail-out programs, was not foisted on anyone. They came hat in hand and the congress gave it to them. Government borrowing, the Fed, the military, public pension and insurance, all these big expensive things exist at the bequest of people who want them and the congress gives it to them. It is up to voters to set the priorities – or it is up to congress without them. As long as we bleat around like sycophants, crooked people are going to raid our tax dollars in the name of things we really don't need. (11/16/2014 AT 1:58am).

TARP money was lobbied for by "crooked people"? These crooked people "raided our tax dollars"? Does this suggest that Jersey is a TARP fan? Again, I say the evidence indicates NO.

By the way, I looked at EVERY comment I could find where either Jersey or Ducky mentioned TARP (by doing a Google search on both their Blogger IDs + TARP). I looked at EVERY ONE and found no comments where either Jersey or Ducky defended TARP.

I therefore stand by the assertion I made with my previous commentary. Dennis Marks is a f*cking liar. That "fav policy" charge levied at Ducky is especially egregious, given the fact that Ducky actually said that the TARP money went to "capitalist pukes" (although this is from a comment thread where Dennis did not participate). It sounds to me that Ducky is STRONGLY against TARP, as opposed to it being a "fav policy" of his.

Jersey's comment about "crooked people raiding our tax dollars" also sounds to me like he is STRONGLY against TARP. But, obviously, Dennis will tell his lies regardless of the facts. Although he may (occasionally) admit he was wrong. But it was a MISTAKE, he sez. No, you got caught this time, Dennis!

Usually nobody calls him on his lies, which is why he does it so often (lies). Most of the time he gets away with lying, and (many times) the host of the blog he is lying on will defend him... as the Constitutional Insurgent (the host of the blog Dennis lied about me defending TARP on) did when he chastised me for linking to a comment on another blog that proved Dennis was being dishonest.

Update 8/1/2015: Dennis deleted every comment he made in the thread that contained the 3rd comment above. Clearly he is attempting to hide the fact that he lied, which I refuse to allow him to get away with. The Google cached page can be viewed here, and a screenshot I grabbed and uploaded can be viewed here.

TADM #72

Proof Positive That Dennis Marks Is A F*king Liar (Sez I Defend TARP Even Though He Participated In A Discussion In Which I Did The Opposite)

This post references comments made on the blog Libertas and Lattes, another Libertarian site where the liar Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) has ingratiated himself with the proprietor by sucking up to him. In this case the sucking up (appreciated by the blog host, Constitutional Insurgent) caused him to delete my comment when I linked to proof (a comment thread on another blog) that proved Dennis lied.

Dennis Marks: Every instance of corrupt crony capitalism, of government serving wealthy corporate elites, that Mr. Sanders is confronted on, he ends up defending. From TARP handouts to banksters to the costly auto bailout (paying them to build factories in China) to gifts to energy scamming companies to help them build stuff in China also. (7/8/2015 AT 1:05pm).

It just so happens that dmarks participated in discussion on the rAtional nAtion blog in which I did the opposite of "defending TARP handouts"... I pointed out that Bernie Sanders voted NO on TARP (which I noted due to my view of this being a positive thing). I also pointed out, when Dennis claimed that MOST Republicans voted NO on TARP, that "123 out of 247 Republicans voted NO, which is 49.8 percent". (See the following links to confirm the votes in the Senate and House)

For "most" to be true, the percentage would need to be more than 50 percent. In RESPONSE, Dennis said "good point, though, MR. Sanders on TARP being bi-partisan. It also made strange bedfollows: REP. Sanders and the Tea Party guys".

Proof that Dennis knows I did not "end up defending" TARP and that he lied when he said I did.

But Dennis did not see this comment (where I linked to the discussion that proves he is a liar), because the blog host deleted it, reasoning as follows...

Constitutional Insurgent: Nope. If you wish to continue your obsession with commenters from blogs that you're banned from... do so on one of your many fetish sites. (7/8/2015 AT 3:58pm).

The "blogs you've been banned from" (in this instance) being rAtional nAtion, and "fetish sites" being a reference to THIS blog. Although the link was to a comment I made on rAtional nAtion uSA. Which I have NOT been banned from. Proof being my 5/1/2015 comment (I could not comment if I were banned).

When I pointed this out to the Insurgent, he deleted that comment and refered to my pointing out he was wrong as an "infantile tantrum".

Dennis (appreciating the blog host deleting the proof of his lies) said "It's your blog, your rules. Quite fair". Then he ignored my refutation of his accusation that I defended TARP.

So Dennis lies and, when called on the lie, stands by it. And he gets the hosts of blogs he lies on to go along with his lies by sucking up to them (Constitutional Insurgent/Libertas and Latte in this case). Pathetic.

And Dennis refers to the Mitt Romney Politifact "Lie of the Year" concerning Jeep moving its US production to China. According to Politifact this was the "most significant falsehood" of 2012, and that the political ad his campaign ran (that contained this lie) "was brazenly false". Yet Dennis repeats it and defends it. Something he has before.

Update 7/9/2016: Dennis has retracted his assertion that I defended TARP.

Dennis Marks: When I listed the multiple examples of welfare to wealthy interests that Mr. Sanders defended, I erroneously included TARP. I was thinking of either Jersey or Ducky in that instant. I admit this error, and was wrong to accuse Mr. Sanders of supporting this one particular handout. (7/9/2015 AT 10:19am).

An extremely rare instance of Dennis admitting an error. Even though he ignored my initial comment in which I refuted his assertion that I defended TARP. But he goes on to slander "either Jersey or Ducky"... he isn't sure which, but one of these two defended TARP (he thinks). So he's right about me defending "every instance of corrupt crony capitalism, of government serving wealthy corporate elites"... except TARP. No, Dennis' comment is still false. I've never defended crony capitalism. Not one instance, let alone EVERY one.

My Anti-TARP Comments
[1] 07/29/2014 08:38:00 PM EDT: TARP was a total giveaway to the wealthy...
[2] 05/01/2015 AT 08:06:00 PM EDT: TARP was proposed by the bush administration and signed into law by the former Republican president. John Boehner, the current Senate Majority Leader, voted YES. A majority of Congressional Republicans (50.2 percent) voted YES. Barack Obama, a self described Blue Dog, supported it.

TADM #71

On Dennis Marks' Claim That Libertarianism Dates Back To The Age of Enlightenment

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is a Conservative blogger who has (of late) been allowing himself to be indoctrinated into the "Libertarian" ideology (via blogs such as Contra O'Reilly, rAtional nAtion uSA and Libertas & Latte).

As someone fairly new to Libertarianism, Dennis is quite uninformed as to where "Libertarianism" originanted. According to him, Libertarianism can trace it's roots back to "schools of thought" that date back to the Age of Enlightenment, which was "an era from the 1620s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority".

Dennis Marks: If one researches the history of libertarianism, you will see schools of thought dating to the Age of Enlightenment: intellectuals, revolutionaries, great thinkers, those who railed against the entrenched aristocracy. I tried to find any sort of "plutocrat" among them. I should have known that looking for them was a waste of time. (7/4/2015 AT 11:30am).

Libertarianism does not go back to the Age of Enlightenment. Libertarianism does not emphasize reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority... although I can see how modern Libertarians might think this.

Libertrianism was actually invented in 1946 by the Foundation for Economic Education, which was the first Libertarian think tank. FEE was put together by a number of large corporations as a lobbying/propaganda organization to indoctrinate people into "Libertarianism". This new ideology advocated that government be run in a manner that benefits the plutocrats.

Back in 1946 (and today still) the "traditional lines of authority" that Libertarians didn't/don't like is democracy. Libertarians hate "rule by the people" and emphasize "individualism"... the individuals they defer to being those who are wealthy.

"Reason" and "analysis" tell Libertarians that wealthy people (by virtue of being wealthy) are better than ordinary folks, and thus the ruling should be done by them... and NOT our elected representatives. Which is why Libertarians demonize "the state" and wish to see it shrunk. This is, BTW, something Libertarianism has in common with Prospertity Theology, which is a bullshit idea started by greedy Christians that says "financial blessing is the will of God for Christians".

Ayn Rand's idea that greed is a virtue and that the world is made up of "takers and makers" is prosperity theology for greedy atheists. The difference is that (with these "Objectivists" or "Libertarians") the being at the center of the universe telling them "greed is good"... is themselves instead of an omnipotent being.

This is why Libertarians wish to get the hated "state" out of the way. So those who are wealthy can do as they please without regulations or taxes put in place by The People (via their elected representatives). The only liberty that Libertarians are concerned about is liberty for the wealthy to not have to be subjected to democracy. Instead we should be ruled by (and subjugated to the greed of) the plutocrats.

(See The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda by Mark Ames for more information on "Libertarianism". FYI: the Salon article is an adapted version of an article that first appeared on NSFWCORP).

In any case, dmarks failed to find any plutocratic Libertarians because he started out his search not knowing the true history of Libertarianism. He could not, in fact, be more wrong. Of course he found no plutocrats, as the idiot wrongly thinks the ideology is somehow linked to the age of enlightenment. The "enlightened" thought being that rich people (such as the Koch Brothers) are special ("makers" or "job creators") and these individuals should be allowed to "create jobs" (i.e. exploit workers for their own gain and The People's detriment).

As Dennis himself says, "they gain = we lose". Although he was talking about our those who represent our interests (or are supposed to, at least). But instead of fixing that problem (the plutocrats bribing our elected representatives), Dennis wants to put another group in charge (trade politicians for plutocrats).

But plutocrats only represent themselves, and plutocracy is the antithesis of liberty... a truth the dupes who have been indoctrinated into "Libertarianism" are blind to.

TADM #70

"You're Not A Racist" Dennis Consoles His Fellow Racist, Then Lies About Proprietor Of This Blog

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is an extremely racially biased individual. As such, he likes to comment on the blog of his like-minded fellow blogger, the Libertarian Willis Hart.

Willis, after getting severely butthurt (in response to Octopus calling him out for his racism on the rAtional nAtion blog) had to run back to his blog and compose a bunch of commentaries in which he said (basically) "am not!".

In one of these commentaries he whined about "those who would wish to come here and make cryptic, and not so cryptic, comments that I'm a racist". To these people (who are telling Willis truths he does not want to hear), he said "you are not welcome here". Who is welcome (i.e. what kind of comments would Willis publish in response to his whining)? Comments that said "oh, no... you're not a racist". Which he got two of.

BB Idaho said "Contrarian, yes. Racist no". To which Willis replied "That means a lot. Thank you" (thank you for telling me the lie I want to hear, in other words).

Of course Willis' good buddy Dennis had to jump in an console his friend - especially given the fact (as I already pointed out), these two are both more racially biased than average.

Dennis Marks: I've read you for years. Never seen you be racist. It is easy enough to be racist, and easy enough to avoid (through a yes or no of matters of believing that the different races are superior/inferior to other races... and/or favoring politics, outlooks that treat members of different races as per such ideals of superiority/inferiority). I do, however, know at least one person who calls you a "racist" not for any logical reason, and never with any support, but because he happens to dislike you and is just so very peeved you don't let him insult you on your own blog. (6/26/2015 AT 9:02am).

The one person Dennis knows of who calls Willis a racist is me. I've done so on my blog, and for an extremely logical reason that has absolutely nothing to do with Willis not allowing me to insult him on his own blog. The logical reason is because he keeps referring to Black men as "minstrels". An exceedingly racist term that he (just recently) used a second time (here). I mean, there is no f*cking way you're going to tell me this ISN'T racist. It absolutely is. And Willis is a racist for doing it.

Neither Al Sharpton nor Tariq Nasheed (the two men the lowlife Willis has called "minstrels" thus far) are making fun of their fellow African Americans to earn a living (by playing up African American stereotypes). The charge is complete bullpucky. And racist as hell. I mean, prior to his use of this term I simply thought the Hartster's racial biases were above average, but I would not have said (flat out) that Willis is a racist. Now I will with no hesitation (for this and other reasons, including what Octopus said about Willis being accurate).

Dennis' judgment means nothing on this matter, given his own racist proclivities - proclivities that have him calling African Americans (almost exclusively) racist. I do recall him calling David Duke a racist a few times, but only when slandering Van Jones! (dmarks: He's the equivalent of David Duke).

Anyway, Dennis (in addition to being a racist like his buddy Willis) lies when he says I call Willis a racist "not for any logical reason". And Dennis lies when he says I call Willis a racist "never with any support". And Dennis also lies when he says I call Willis a racist "because he happens to dislike you and is just so very peeved you don't let him insult you on your own blog".

I just gave the "support". And it was completely logical. This has nothing to do with me insulting Willis on his own blog. Which I never did (or did not do very much) when I was allowed to comment on his blog. Something Willis allowed for several years. If I were insulting him all that time I seriously doubt Willis would have allowed me to comment for as long as I did. No, the "insulting" (if that is what you wish to call telling stark truths and holding no punches) started after he banned me (for no good reason).

I am certainly not obligated to be polite after getting banned (and for a very dumb reason). I would never expect that Willis would allow me to comment while continually insulting him. That is just stupid, and so I would not be "peeved" for that reason. Dennis is just making shit up. Shit that does not even make any logical sense. So, go ahead and console yourself (and your racist buddy) with transparent lies, Dennis, but you're still a racist.

TADM #69