Dennisism #11: Lie

You're probably not aware of it, but an opinion that is not true is a lie. This according to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). Although what he really meant to say (IMO) is that "an opinion that I disagree with is a lie". Given the fact that opinions often can't be proven to be right or wrong (at least not unequivocally).

If the world were that Black and White nobody would hold differing opinions, as the truth would be self-evident, and anyone who attempted to put forward a wrong "opinion" would immediately be called on it.

In any case, what we have here is another of Mr. Marks' word re-definitions. The REAL definition of lie is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood". A definition that directly contradicts the definition made up by Marks.

Given the fact that an opinion that is wrong lacks the "deliberate intent to deceive". Although Marks' re-definition does allow him to call anyone who holds an opinion that is contrary to his own a "liar". Which is clearly the entire point of this Dennisism.

BTW, sometimes opinions can be proven wrong, although that doesn't stop some people from holding them; believing what they want despite the facts. Often due to cognitive dissonance (which is something Dennis suffers from, big time).

I would say that this sometimes borders on lying (if someone is intentionally ignorant of the truth), but that isn't what I'm talking about in regards to Dennis Marks. Or, what I mean is that isn't what I'm talking about in regards to him saying others are "lying" (with their incorrect opinions).

Mr. Marks tells very many of these "lies" IMO. It is demonstrable that he has a GREAT number of opinions that are wrong, and (for him to hold them) borders on lying (as it requires an intentional ignorance of a significant magnitude).

Anyway, that an opinion that is wrong is a lie... I might use that.

TADM #85

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.

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