What Is Dennis Marks' Agenda Re Bernie Sanders Positive Comments When He Previously Spoke Negatively About Sanders?

This commentary concerns past comments regarding Democratic potus contender Bernie Sanders from Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). Past comments regarding Sanders that have all been negative (and extremely so), until just recently. Now when Dennis comments on Sanders the remarks are usually positive. My question is, what explains this sea change?

According to Mr. Marks, who at first brushed off me asking "what gives" in regards to his new position on the Vermont Senator as "old bones", eventually said "I have changed my mind about him in some ways".

To which I say... you lie, Dennis. And I have a theory concerning why he is now talking positively in regards to Sanders when he previously only spoke negatively about him.

But first a look at the negative comments (which are VERY negative).

Dennis Marks: And speaking of Bernie Sanders, the greediest member of Congress, he has announced plans to steal the contents of the Social Security trust. No lock box is safe from a greedy thief who is good at plundering. (5/6/2013 AT 5:06pm). Google Cache. Screenshot.

WTF was Dennis talking about? I surely have no idea. I do know that Bernie Sanders NEVER announced any such plan. Although, Dennis, as "proof" that Bernie Sanders does have such a plan, linked to a video in his comment. I presume the delusional dummy believes this video contains the "announcement". Although (if you watch the video) you will find no announcement.

In any case, I wrote about this previously (SWTD #145). Please see that post for my guess as to why Dennis made this absurd comment. In short my conclusion was that Dennis is on the side of the REAL greedy thieves who wish to steal from the Social Security trust fund. As opposed to Bernie Sanders, an individual who fights to protect the fund and our seniors.

Another pair of extremely negative comments that stood out for me when Dennis made them concerns the democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders. Both comments are from a thread on the Libertarian Contra O'Reilly blog, attached to a post concerning Kim Jong Un.

Dennis Marks: He [Kim Jong Un] is the face of socialism in its purist form. Now that Pol Pot is dead, anyway. But isn't North Korea more advanced according to the standards of the American hard left anyway? After all, it has single-payer healthcare, no corporate (private-sector) mass media, and no profiteering capitalists. Bernie Sanders paradise. (4/22/2013 AT 8:27pm). Dennis Marks: Bernie Sanders and [Kim Jong] Un are like peas in a pod. The difference being that Un likes to kill a lot of people in order to bring about an oppressive super-State. Sanders uses corruption and deception, but at least he does not kill people as he fights to make government more powerful and less accountable. (4/27/2013 AT 1:08pm).

The takeaway from these comments is that Dennis views Senator Sanders as a corrupt liar who wishes to transform America into a oppressive dictatorship where the rights of the people are trampled on. I also think it is quite reasonable to assume Dennis believes (because Bernie and Kim are "like two peas in a pod") that senator Sanders wishes this because he is a power mad tyrant (or that he'd like to be a power mad tyrant).

Dennis spews this total nonsense because he hates socialism in ANY form. Which explains why he equates democratic socialism with rulers such as Kim Jong Un, Pol Pot, and Stalin. Rulers who promised socialism, but delivered autocratic, undemocratic, totalitarian and authoritarian governments (that killed and imprisoned it's citizens) with a thin socialist veneer.

And there are MANY more, which (if you wish to take a gander) can be viewed here. As you can see (if you check out this collection of Dennis Marks comments re Bernie Sanders), the vast majority of Dennis' past comments concerning Sanders are extraordinarily negative (as well as extraordinarily nutty).

However, ever since Bernie Sanders has been running for president, Dennis has had VERY different things to say concerning the democratic socialist from Vermont. Very different, in that these comments are now POSITIVE!

Dennis Marks: There's a line that divides real candidacy from the clowns who run vanity campaigns for an ego trip or cash (Sharpton, Keyes, etc). Bernie Sanders is on the right side of that line, I believe. It's a real candidacy, and like Les here, I believe it is good for the election overall. (4/30/2015 AT 10:16:00 PM EDT).

Bernie's is a "real" candidacy, huh? (this, a reference to many on the Republican side who are running knowing they have no chance, but doing so anyway because it raises their profiles and will allow them to charge more in speaking fees and possibly get book deals or Fox Nooz gigs.

Question is, why is Dennis now saying things like "I am liking his candidacy more and more" given his past negative comments? I think the following comment sheds some light on his motivations.

Dennis Marks: Ideology aside, Bernie Sanders is great campaigner, sincere, energetic, has a strong resume, and is fighting like the underdog. All in contrast to Hillary. (8/20/2015 AT 08:39:00 PM EDT).

My theory is that Dennis does not want Hillary Clinton to get the nomination and is talking up Bernie Sanders... because he believes Sanders will be easier for the Republican nominee to beat. For example, when I said "my dream presidential team would be Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich" (on 9/4/2011), Dennis composed and published the following reply.

Dennis Marks: That's also the dream team of all of the Republican candidates. Romney, Perry, etc would struggle against Obama, but Sanders/Kucinich would make these Republicans salivate over very sure prospects of an 80%+ landslide. (9/4/2011 AT 10:03 AM).

And, here's another one from 2012.

Dennis Marks: Bernie Sanders, whose politics represent the interest of a tiny percent of Americans, would hardly get any votes if he ran for President. Sanders might have an initial burst of strength in the polls, but this would rapidly plummet down to the single digits of his base once people realize his first name isn't Harland and that voting for him wouldn't automatically mean free fried chicken. (5/23/2012 AT 10:22am).

Obviously Dennis thinks that if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee he will be crushed by the Republican.

Further proof that Dennis is NOW speaking positively on Sanders (when he previously was negative on him) because he thinks he would be easily beaten is the fact that he did the same thing back when it looked like Elizabeth Warren might possibly run.

Dennis Marks: How about Warren? A fresh face to a country wear of clintonbushclintonbushclintonbushclintonblush... And whatever Warren's distance from the center, she's pretty clean (other than the receding fake Indian claim, which was really a long time ago). I think there's that one skeleton in her closet, and it's rather dusty. Hillary Clintons got a dancing army of them. Warren could have a good chance at nomination, especially if something similar to Hillary hiding the emails comes up in the heat of the early primaries. (4/12/2015 AT 09:29:00 PM EDT).

But Dennis had an ENTIRELY different view re the "fake Indian claim" in the not-to-distant past.

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).

And, as with Bernie Sanders, there are a LOT more of these negative Warren comments. (See here for a catalog of Dennis' Warren-bashing comments and TADM #57 for my rebuttal to Dennis' claim that Elizabeth Warren "fraduently" claimed to be native american).

Previously Dennis referred to Warren as an asshole, a fake and a fraud, because she is "a white person of privilege falsely claiming to be a Native American to get more privilege".

So Warren went from being a racist to "a fresh face" whose "fake Indian claim [is] receding". This happened (I believe) because it looked like Warren might challenge Hillary for the Democratic nomination. And because Dennis believed Warren would be easy to beat.

Here is an example from July of 2014 in which Dennis predicts how Warren would do if she ran for president.

Dennis Marks: Warren's views are extreme, as in driving off moderates (as well as conservatives of course). She will capture the hearts of the "99% Movement" (which really represents only 20% or so of Americans, and as you can see, is rather self deluded). It would take a pretty bad Republican candidate to lose to either of these. (7/7/2014 AT 07:51:00 AM EDT).

He then added "I have no doubt that the Republicans will rise to the task and provide such a candidate", but I don't buy it. This, IMO, only represents a very small fear of Dennis'.

In fact I'm positive that Dennis wanted Warren to run because he was convinced the Republican (any Republican) would beat her. Another example of this thinking was expressed when the blogger rAtional nAtion said "the thought of a Sanders or Warren presidency gives me the shudders". This caused Dennis to reply with the following.

Dennis Marks: No worries. They represent a rather small percentage of the electorate, and certainly can't capture the conservatives, or even the middle. (12/30/2014 AT 07:48:00 AM EST).

See... he is NOT worried. He was convinced that Warren, should she be the nominee, would lose. Just as he is convinced that Sanders, should he be the nominee, will lose. This is why he talks up Sanders. Dennis wants Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic potus nominee so that the Republican will win the election with a "80%+ landslide".

And, this also explains why he whines and cries about "old bones" when I bring up his previous negative comments re Sanders. It is because he lies and has NOT "changed [his] mind about [Sanders] in some ways". And he does not want others to suspect he is lying.

Of course anything Dennis says (positive or negative) about Sanders will likely have no effect on whether or not Sanders secures the nomination. However, the same as some religious folks ask others to pray for something (and truly believe that there might be a positive benefit to getting as many people as possible to pray) - Dennis likely believes that the more people are speaking positively about Sanders, the more likely it is he will get nominated.

And, with this in mind, Dennis is doing his part. He is contributing (if only in a small way) to a narrative that could lead to Sanders being selected by the voters as the Democratic nominee. After which (in the mind of Dennis), he will be easily defeated by the Republican nominee.

This is part and parcel to the false narrative that says Hillary Clinton is "untrustworthy" and plagued by scandals... and therefore someone else should be the nominee. Someone the eventual Republican nominee can go against and win. Someone who isn't Hillary, as she would likely defeat any Republican.

Which is why Dennis desperately wants anyone but Hillary. And why he lies and posts his (fake) positive Sanders comments. But, as I said, I don't buy it. Dennis' MANY past comments represent how he truly views Sanders. He views Sanders as following the lead of past "evil socialist" dictators like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin. (In Dennis' mind) Sanders does this as a Senator and would do this (to a greater negative effect) as president.

Not that I believe that Senator Sanders would be defeated, easily or otherwise. If Sanders secures the nomination I think he has a decent shot, given the fact that he is a true Progressive and not a corporate Dem like Hillary. But the deceiving Dennis CLEARLY believes otherwise. Which is why Dennis (first) talked up Warren and is now talking up Sanders... because he is convinced that Hillary will be our next president if she is nominated in the Democratic primary.

Supporting Documents
[1] Bernie Sanders: Hero Of The Ruling Class, A Greedy Thief Who Is Good At Plundering. (A catalog of many Dennis Marks comments on Bernie Sanders. Note that most of the comments are negative, while only a few are positive).
[2] 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. (A catalog of many Dennis Marks comments on Elizabeth Warren. Note that most of the comments are negative, while I could only find ONE that was positive).

TADM #82

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