Evidence Shows Dennis Marks Might Be The Kind Of Person Who'd Assassinate A Doctor Who Performs Abortions

The following comment is one, IMO, that strongly shows what a completely wack nutjob Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is.

Dennis Marks: The abortion industry thrives on people not knowing what they do. PP is very extreme, and greedy: they demand tax money to to be used to harm unborn children all the way up to newborns. It's run by sickos who get their jollies killing as many of the unborn as possible. Do they need to engage in their deadly sadism on the public dime? (7/31/2015 AT 12:33pm).

A "newborn" is an infant that has "recently or only just born". Planned Parenthood docs do NOT kill newborns. If they did they would go to prison, as killing a newborn is murder. If Dennis truly believes this is happening, what is his proof?

Without asking or getting an answer, I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that there is zero proof. If PP was "run by sickos who get their jollies killing as many of the unborn as possible" (including newborns), there would have been arrests and prison sentences handed down.

And I find this allegation pretty disturbing, as what Dennis is alleging is that PP docs are evil. I mean, what else could a person be if they got their "jollies" in this manner except evil? BTW, this comment is even more disturbing because people who think doctors who perform abortions are EVIL are the kind of people who bomb abortion clinics or assassinate doctors.

Is Dennis such a person? Has Dennis ever thought of using a gun to shoot a doctor who performs abortions? I don't know. But if Dennis has ever protested outside an abortion clinic... if he's a part of that movement? Then I think he definitely should be on the radar of law enforcement as a possible assassin... an individual who might snap and decide he needs to kill PP "sickos" who "engage in deadly sadism".

Supporting Document
Anti-Choice Extremism, DSD #17. (A catalog of many radical anti-choice comments from the blogger dmarks).

TADM #79

Dennis Marks Anti-Choice Extremist Dipshittery Re Planned Parenthood "Chopping Up Kids And Selling The Pieces"

This commentary concerns serious dipshittery from the anti-choice extremist Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) in regards to the recent flap over the Planned Parenthood deceptively-edited and illegally-filmed videos. A comment that contains many factual inaccuracies and well as a revelation that Dennis is on the side of those who want to defund PP. (the War on Women side).

Dennis Marks: I read that this is all OK because the money that PP is making chopping up kids and selling the pieces is not enough for them to make a profit. A real weak defense. If we use this logic, we can excuse any other corporation for any sort of malfeasance if it is not making a profit (i.e. bungling business practices, poor management) at that time. Too bad the Hyde Amendment, put in place to stop the government from being involved in the business of harming the young, isn't interpreted to such direct subsidy to the abortion industry. But the funding could end up in danger. Remember ACORN, the election fraud scam, that got cut off finally. (7/31/2015 AT 12:31pm).

Wrong. The "defense" is not that the money they are paid is "not enough for them to make a profit", it is that they are legally prohibited from making a profit. And they are not.

But Dennis is obviously completely oblivious to why PP is "selling" the fetal tissue to begin with, what the law says, or that the Center for Medical Progress (the anti-abortion group that released the videos) is alleging there is profit involved.

Which they are alleging. But they're lying.

The president of Planned Parenthood [Cecile Richards] said her organization's clinics never adjust the abortion procedure to better preserve fetal organs for medical research and that the organization's charges cover only the cost of transmission to researchers. ... The videos were part of longer discussions, and Richards said the longer videos showed doctors repeatedly saying that Planned Parenthood does not profit from the tissue donations. (Planned Parenthood president says group doesn't profit from fetal organ research by Kevin Freking. Associated Press 7/26/2015).

Of course Dennis makes his allegations of "malfeasance" based on ZERO knowledge of the law or why it exists... which is because this tissue is necessary for medical research.

"This is actually laudable, that women and their families choose to make fetal tissue donations in order to potentially save the lives of other folks", Cecile Richards says (as quoted in the article excerpted above).

How exactly fetal tissue is used for medicine (excerpt from a 7/17/2015 CNN article by Carina Storrs) Fetal tissue has been used since the 1930s for vaccine development, and more recently to help advance stem cell research and treatments for degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease. Researchers typically take tissue samples from a fetus that has been aborted (under conditions permitted by law) and grow cells from the tissue in Petri dishes. One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year. There are also a number of clinical research studies that are investigating whether transplanting different types of fetal tissue into patients could help them recover from diseases, similar to the practice of organ donation. One such study is testing fetal eye (retinal) tissue as a possible treatment for retinitis pigmentosa, a disease that can lead to blindness.

So we're probably talking about millions of lives saved. I bet that, if all the benefits to society that have been gained by this research suddenly vanished (along with the people whose lives were saved), Dennis (as well as the "Center for Medical Progress" idiots) would beg for PP to "chop up kids" in order to get these benefits and lives back.

And, remember that, if the harvesting of fetal tissue for research were outlawed, abortion would still be legal. So all that valuable (for research) tissue would simply go in the trash. But, of course these nuts want to outlaw abortion. They're simply trying to shock people with this LEGAL issue of the sale (at no profit) of the tissue for research. Shock them by lying about PP making a profit, which they are not. And that is the very important "excuse", as that is the law... YOU MORON DENNIS!

As for this business that "harms the young" that Dennis refers to... no such business exists. One of the functions of the non-profit organization PP, is to provide a legal medical procedure to women who elect or require it. Zygotes and fetuses may be "young", but they have yet to be born (which may not even be possible for medical reasons) and don't have the same rights as a born person. Dennis may disagree with the law (even though I've never seen him say he thinks abortion should be illegal), but that law, as it currently stands, says abortion (with some limitations) is legal.

Dennis is utilizing "appeal to emotion", which "is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence". The factual evidence that is absent here is that PP is doing anything illegal.

And it's a really good thing that the Hyde Amendment, which was put in place to appease anti-choicers by stopping the government from being involved in assisting lower-income women get the medical care they require, isn't interpreted as a direct subsidy to the "abortion industry". Even though this "industry" doesn't exist. But if the Hyde Amendment were interpreted that way... it would be really bad for lower-income women. Because the result would be an increase in back alley abortions and women dying because of them. As well as women dying due to complications/complicated pregnancies.

But poor women dying is not something radical anti-choicers like Dennis care about. F*ck those women. They made bad life choices (being poor) and deserve to die. This is the mindset of those like Dennis... make no mistake about it. A mindset I disagree with strongly. Which is why I support getting rid of it. It's "too bad" the Hyde amendment exists at all, IMO.

But it does exist and it does prevent any of PP's federal monies from going toward paying for any abortions. Which is why PP subsidizes abortion services for poor women via private donations. Zero federal dollars are used to fund abortions... which represents 3 percent of what PP does, despite another liar on the comment thread (the one I pulled Dennis' comment from) saying "performing abortions are by far the majority of their services". No, sorry, that's a lie. (a lie repeated by O'Reilly in the video below).

As is this second comment from Dennis. A lie. Actually, this one is FILLED with lies.

Dennis Marks: The abortion industry thrives on people not knowing what they do. PP is very extreme, and greedy: they demand tax money to to be used to harm unborn children all the way up to newborns. It's run by sickos who get their jollies killing as many of the unborn as possible. Do they need to engage in their deadly sadism on the public dime? (7/31/2015 AT 12:33pm).

PP provides critical women's health services across the US to needy and lower-income women. That is the OPPOSITE of "sadism". PP is doing good work that I, as a Christian, support fully. Dennis is the one who does not know what PP does. As I pointed out above, the idiocy that spews from his pie-hole thrives on this extraordinary ignorance.

Killing a newborn would be murder, btw. And it is something no PP doctor has EVER (as far as I know) been charged with. (Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures and sentenced to life in prison, did not work for PP).

Video: Juan Williams acts as the voice of reason VS 2 other Fox dumb-dumbs who have no idea what Planned Parenthood does or how Obamacare Works. Video from Media Matters (8:11).

Update 8/2/2015: In regards to Dennis referring to the alleged ACORN "election fraud scam"... Dennis is lying, as usual. See my debunking of his baloney here. (SWTD #300: ACORN Target Of GOP Lies Because They Registered Voters).

TADM #77

The Strange Alternate Reality Inhabited by Dennis Marks (Re Obama "Freeing" Gitmo Terrorists)

The truth means absolutely nothing to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). If he doesn't like it he simply bends, twists and outright fabricates utter bullshit in order to slander those he dislikes. This time the alternate reality creating has to do with a campaign promise made by Barack Obama in regards to the prisoners being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp...

Dennis Marks: Freeing the terrorists from "Gitmo" was one campaign promise I think it was good Obama dragged his feet on. (8/25/2014 AT 5:01pm)

First of all, President Obama never said a damn thing about freeing terrorists held at Gitmo. Obama said he would close Gitmo by transferring or releasing those being held there. Transfer those for whom we had evidence for bringing to trial (and then do that), and release those who were cleared for release. Cleared for release because we didn't have the evidence to try them. Or determined they were innocent, as many are.

Suggesting that Obama would actually want to free terrorists is slanderous bullshit. It's an implication that Obama sides with the terrorists. This from someone who SAYS he rejects conspiracy theories of the lunatic Right that say Obama is a Muslim and a "Manchurian candidate" in league with our enemies.

Secondly, Obama did not "drag his feet". This is another lie in which the delusional Dennis blames the President for Republican obstruction. PolitiFact confirms this...

For most of Obama's time in office, Congress has made closing the prison difficult through various pieces of legislation, including bans on sending prisoners to particular countries and tough requirements for the government to meet in order to transfer detainees from the prison. As a result, the prison stayed open, and progress towards closure ground to a halt. (PoltiFact 2/27/2014).

Although PolitiFact does say this is a "broken campaign promise" because they're measuring "outcomes and not intentions"... so they're also blaming Obama for Republican obstruction. As if candidates EVER qualify campaign promises by saying what they're talking about is only possible IF the other side cooperates. Non-idiots know that goes without saying.

But the idiot known as Dennis goes farther than blaming Obama for Republican obstruction, adding lies about him wanting to free terrorists. A "promise" made in order to secure the terrorist-coddling Leftist vote, Right Dennis? Gee, I wonder why Sarah Palin only criticized Obama for his "ties" to domestic terrorist Bill Ayres if he was actually promising to free Muslim terrorists (given the Islamophobia of the Right)?

What a dope Dennis is. And possibly an Islamophobe, which would not surprise me at all. I mean, Dennis does assume that everyone in Gitmo is guilty - without a trial - and should be kept locked up forever. Could this be because they're Muslim?

TADM #55

Hilarious Dennis LOL #2: Extreme Views Never Expressed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TADM #45

Dennis Marks & The Frances Delusion: Disagreement Equals Agreement

The anti-Semitic racist known as Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is also a deluded liar. But that isn't exactly new information; if you've visited this blog previously you know it was set up to catalogue the delusions and lies of Dennis. With my prior post I (again) addressed one particularly bonkers delusion of Mr. Marks that I have labeled the "Frances delusion".

This delusion entails me misspelling the name of a Jewish man named Francis Boyle (when it was actually Dennis who misspelled his name first, and I accidently repeated his misspelling once), and me supporting views of Mr. Boyle that I specifically said I didn't...

Me, in reference to Francis Boyle's criticisms of Israel: I said I disagreed with his views on Israel. (12/8/2012 AT 8:22pm). Dennis: I only tell the truth. And the criticism of Israelis you are defending (Fraces, etc) is the criticism of their basic right to live. ... I opposed "Fraces" demand that Jews be expelled from Israel. You supported it. (12/9/2012 AT 2:28pm) #10.

Here Dennis spells Boyle's first name "Fraces". He puts it in quotes because he THINKS he's doing a spelling flame on me due to my mistyping of "Francis" as "Fracis" (typo causing me to miss the "n" when I wrote "I never mispelled Fracnis as Frances") earlier. If you're going to mock someone for a typo the LEAST you can do is get the misspelling right. Instead he types "Fraces" multiple times ("mocking" me) even though I never mistyped it that way ONCE. Dumbsh!t.

Also, I CLEARLY said I disagree with Boyle's anti-Zionist views, yet the delusional liar says "I opposed Fraces demand that Jews be expelled from Israel. You supported it".

First of all, Boyle never made any such demand. As for the Jewish Boyle's ACTUAL views... he has referred to Israel as Jewistan and said "when Israel collapses, most Zionists will have already left or will soon leave for other states around the world".

With that statement (and his anti-Zionist views in general) I DISAGREE. Like I said in my comment previous to the one where Dennis lies about Boyle "demanding" that Jewish people be expelled from Israel. He predicts it. Wrongly, IMO... but he has never "demanded" it. Ugh.

Note: Dennis deleted his quote above. For the "amusement factor" he says. The comment can still be found, however, by viewing the Google cached page here. The comment in question is the 10th in the thread).

TADM #38. See also SWTD #233.

email To An Anti-Semitic Racist Lying Sack of Shit Know As Dennis Marks

More lies from the scumbag anti-Semite racist Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) published on the blog of Willis Hart. Why? Because the a-hole knows he can get away with his outrageous dissembling on this blog. Fact is, most of the regulars on "Contra O'Reilly" snarf up Dennis' crap with great enthusiasm.

Dennis Marks: Dude has started to email me private love letters too. I read the first one (antisemitic crap in which he defended someone who wanted to get all the Jews out of Israel). ... I set the email spam filter to move it down the sewer. Easy to do in email clients. (6/23/2014 AT 4:31am).

First of all, let me say that me referring to Dennis as a anti-Semite and a racist is NOT ad hominem. These assertions are both factual, and I've produced the evidence to back them up (here and here). Secondly, let me say that Dennis lies. I've never emailed him a single "love letter". Not one, let alone one that contained "antisemitic crap". That is Dennis' purview.

As usual, however, there is a small kernel of truth at the center of Dennis' novella of confabulation. I did send Dennis an email. It was in regards to a ANOTHER comment he shat out on the blog of Willis Hart. Another comment in which he lied about yours truly.

Dennis Marks: Yeah, to be a "moderate" to WD you would have to be someone like "frances" Boyle, and advocate wiping out the Israelis. (6/14/2014 AT 7:25pm).

Frances Boyle (or Francis Boyle, which is how the man actually spells his name) is a Irish-American man that Dennis has accused of being anti-Semitic, along with the Jewish-American Norman Finkelstein. For the following reason...

Dennis Marks: Forget his genocidal hatred of Jewish Israelis. This man is one of those Holocaust-deniers. The kind of person WD defends, probably with the usual "calling people who dare criticize Israelis antisemitic" canard..... Yeah, these people are antisemitic because they criticize Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens (12/8/2012 AT 7:25pm). screengrab.

Neither Mr. Boyle nor Mr. Finkelstein are Holocaust deniers. In fact, the parents of Mr. Finkelstein (to whom Dennis specifically directed this vile comment) are Holocaust survivors! Finkelstein's mother "grew up in Warsaw, Poland, survived the Warsaw Ghetto, the Majdanek concentration camp, and two slave labor camps" and his father "was a survivor of both the Warsaw Ghetto and the Auschwitz concentration camp".

Now, it is true both Boyle and Finkelstein are strong critics of Israel. And Boyle (unlike Finkelstein) holds anti-Zionist views. However, while someone who has anti-Zionist views might be anti-Semitic as well, I do not believe that this is ALWAYS the case. I certainly do not believe applying the "anti-Semitic" label to a Jewish person simply because they are critical of Israel is reasonable.

But Dennis goes EVEN FURTHER than "simply" slapping on the anti-Semitic label (to a Jewish man) just because he's critical of Israel. He Obviously subscribes to the nonsense known as "new antisemitism", which equates ANY criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitism".

However, I agree with the critics who "argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of anti-Semitism, and exploits anti-Semitism in order to silence debate".

This describes EXACTLY what Dennis is doing... conflating, attempting to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and trivializing the meaning of the meaning of anti-Semitism. And on top of that Dennis adds a VILE lie about Boyle and Finkelstein wishing their fellow Jews to be murdered in a new Holocaust. Frankly, that is the comment that convinced me that Dennis' views cross the line into anti-Semitism. There is simply NO excusing such a despicable fabrication, in my strong opinion.

And it was Dennis' defense of Nixon's Southern Strategy, btw, that convinced me beyond a doubt that the slimeball is a racist.

For the record, the email I sent to Dennis was to dispute his assertion that I referred to Francis Boyle as "Frances". This is an old lie that has become quite tiring. Fact is, it is Dennis who misspelled "Francis" and "Frances". And I also nailed him on getting Francis Boyle's gender wrong! (6 "shes" and 5 "hers" to be exact... see swtd-233 for more information).

So, given that Dennis did not even know Boyle's gender, I did NOT take his criticisms seriously. Also not to be taken seriously is Dennis' claim that I defended Boyle's or Finkelstein's anti-Zionist views. Fact is, I repeatedly said I did NOT agree with them or Finkelstein's views on "Holocaust exploitation". Both go quite a bit too far for me.

I've repeatedly related to Dennis my disagrement, but he ignores me and lies about me "defending" anti-Semitism anyway.

I did say that the Jewish Boyle never advocated "wiping out" Israeli Jews, which he has not. But pointing out factual information is "anti-Semitism" in the scumbag Dennis' deluded imagination and the lies from this sack of shit never stop.

Finally, I only sent Dennis ONE email. Dennis says he "read the first one", implying there were others that followed, but there was not. I only sent one. Why? Because I could not respond on the blog of Willis Hart due to his banishment of me. So I shot him an email to let him know I'd seen his lie.

I didn't send any others, nor will I, given that the fecally obsessed Dennis "set the email spam filter to move it down the sewer".

Update 10/24/2014: Dennis read this post and decided to delete his anti-Semitic comment I quote above. If you click the first link you will see a message that says "This comment has been removed by the author". Click the second link for a screenshot of the comment that I saved before the deletion. btw, I did not use photoshop to create a fake comment, even though Dennis has previously accused me of "fabricating" comments.

Not that I think Dennis would deny making this comment, as, in his view, he's "calling out anti-Semitism" by making this vile accusation against a Jewish man. The reason for the deletion was not that Dennis realized it was anti-Semitic and got embarrassed when I linked to it, but because he finds deleting comments when I link to them "amusing".

 tadm-37 

Dennis Marks: A Blithering Boob With Sub-Moron Intelligence

Even though Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) deleted the comments linked to in the SWTD commentary on the subject of Al Gore "inventing" the internet, we know for a fact that he still believes Al Gore claimed to be responsible for the creation/invention of the internet, as the following comments prove...

dmarks: He did most specifically say this... even with the creating word. I looked it up on CNN. Just giving Shaw and WD more fun with their old bone chewing. (4/2/2014 AT 2:46am). dmarks: If you use his creating word instead of the almost-identical invented, then there is no debate at all. (4/2/2014 AT 2:53am). dmarks: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFJ8cHAlco (4/2/2014 AT 8:20pm). dmarks: Anyway, there it is. Gore saying he created something that others created before him. Is Gore alone in being a lying politician? No. But this blunder by him surely contributed to his rejection by the electorate in Nov. 2000. More old bones for those who worship Gore as an imaginary election winner and gaffe-free saint. (4/3/2014 AT 9:37am).

Anyway, there it is... Dennis has lied (and continues to lie) about Al Gore taking credit for something he didn't do. But Al Gore DID take the initiative (in Congress) in drafting and championing legislation that CREATED the environment that lead to the internet as we know it today.

The Wikpedia page "Al Gore and information technology" notes that "In the 1980s and 1990s, [Gore] promoted legislation that funded an expansion of the ARPANET, allowing greater public access, and helping to develop the Internet".

Any moron could deduce that THIS is what Mr. Gore was talking about. But clearly Dennis' intelligence is sub-moron, which is why the boob keeps blithering on the same (old bones) bullshit over and over. Not to mention the FACT that numerous fact checking organizations have debunked Dennis' claims.

Video Description: Al Gore tells the truth about how he took the initiative in creating the internet. (Note: This is the same video Dennis' links to in his comment above).

TADM #35

More Gnawing On Old Bones By Blithering Boob Dennis Marks

In regards to his fellow dumb-dumb Willis Hart authoring a post titled "Al Gore's Career High?" and answering his own question by saying... "probably when he went on Letterman and the host talked him into saying, Buttafuoco"... Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) said "pretty good for a blithering boob who said he created the Internet".

Now, I have absolutely no idea if Mr. Gore said "Buttafuoco" on Letterman, nor do I care. Surely it is not a "career high". The career high, I would say, is when Al Gore was elected president. And the career low was when the SCOTUS stole the election from Gore and anointed the boob George bush in his place.

And Dennis, like GWb is a "blithering boob" for his continued insistence that Al Gore said he invented the internet, which is something that never happened. Is there even ONE fact checking organization that agrees with Dennis?

I very much doubt it. Why? Because it never happened, and fact checkers usually say "false" in regards to these kind of absurd claims. But the blithering boob Dennis yammers on and on in regards to events that never took place, even claiming that he "looked it up on CNN".

Wow. Perhaps Dennis should seek professional help? I mean, here his delusions are causing him to believe he looked up something that never happened and found that CNN confirms it did happen? I'd say that confirms the dude has some serious mental issues. According to the National Institutes of Health "lesions of the brainstem have led to visual hallucinations".

Is that what is going on with Dennis? I don't know, but I think it's a strong possibility that he should definitely see a doctor about.

TADM #34

On Dennis Marks, Al Gore, Sarah Palin & Snopes

According to the Christian Science Monitor "Everybody knows that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. But like many things that everyone knows, it's not actually true". And, as I revealed in my previous post, Snopes (in addition to others) have debunked it. Al Gore NEVER said he invented the internet.

None-the-less the certifably insane Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) actually believes Al Gore said he DID invent the internet. And he does not think Al Gore misspoke. Dennis is sure Al Gore meant he literally invented it, as per this quote from the delusional nutter...

Dennis Marks: I am being completely factual here. The bullshit is coming from you for claiming that there's some substantive difference between someone claiming that he invented the Internet and that he created it. I suggest you read Gore's actual quotation before you make as much of a fool of yourself as the boob who took false credit for creating the Internet. (6/23/2011 AT 3:56am).

In the Christian Science Monitor article, the Gore quote comes in at number 9 in their list of "The 10 most famous things never actually said". At number 10 is another misquote that Dennis lies about. The quote "attributed" to Palin that "I can see Russia from my house!" which Sarah Palin never actually said, although SOME people think she did (when it was actually SNL's Tina Fey). But, according to dmarks it was "leftists who went around claiming that Palin said she could see Russia from her house" (dmarks quote from 6/18/2011 at 1:02pm).

Dennis said that after I pointed out to him that people who believed Palin said that are likely politically uninformed and not "Leftists". Then he went on to quote Snopes (debunking the Palin quote)... even though when I quoted Snopes to prove Al Gore never said he invented the internet - dmarks said Snopes was wrong!

In fact, fact checking sites are just fine with Mr. Marks - except when they disagree with him - then he slanders them with accusations of being "self-appointed pressure groups" who are disseminating "false claims". OK, so Dennis was talking about another fact he did not like at the time, as well as another fact checking organization. But if Snopes was wrong about Gore, and their wrongness is as obvious as you say it is, then isn't Snopes a "pressure group" as well.

And, if Snopes is a pressure group, what are you doing citing them to "prove" your claims about "Leftists" thinking Sarah said she could see Russia from her house? Not that it matters, as Snopes only debunked the quote as being from Sarah Palin instead of Tina Fey. Snopes never said Leftists were responsible for getting it wrong.

My point is to point out the ridiculousness of Dennis quoting Snopes to buttress a claim of Leftists saying the quote came from Sarah (even though Snopes didn't say that) and thinking Snopes is right, while arguing Snopes is wrong about Gore. Huh. Doesn't their being a "pressure group" result in their claims being suspect. And why the hell would they slander Leftists by saying they're responsible for the misattribution?

Obviously the individual making a fool of himself here is the big boob who calls himself dmarks (AKA the individual everyone else knows as Dennis*).

*Note: Everyone else does not know dmarks as Dennis... but this truth-teller is working on it. And, while everyone may not know him as Dennis, virtually everybody knows that dmarks is a boob. That much I am absolutely positive about.

Correction 10/6/2014: "Virtually everyone" does not know dmarks is a boob, only a LOT of people know this. Turns out a Progressive blogger who calls himself Octopus is completely in the dark regarding Dennis' boobism. Unfortunately.

TADM #25

Dennis Marks Sez Ron Paul Speaks With One Voice Alongside The Terrorists

While this truth-teller strongly believes the Libertarian who served as a Republican Representative in the House Ron Paul is very wrong on many issues, there is one area in which he believes the elder Paul has it right. What follows is Mr. Paul speaking about our so-called "war on terror"...

Ron Paul: 9/11 "was blowback for decades of US intervention in the Middle East". And he was also correct when he said "the last thing we needed was the government's response: more wars, a stepped-up police and surveillance state, and drones". (Excerpt from a 9/11/2013 HuffPo article by Nick Wing).

In regards to to Ron Paul on "blowback", the blogger Willis Hart (who calls himself a fiscally Conservative "small L Libertarian") wrote a commentary in which he expressed his disagreement with former Rep. Paul on this matter...

Willis Hart: For Mr. Paul or anybody to think that 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings, and Benghazi wouldn't have happened had only our troops not been placed in Saudi Arabia for a spate is a little bit silly and naive in my estimation. (3/9/2014 AT 12:44pm).

This view of Mr. Hart is, of course, complete bullplop. Although he does not go as far in insulting Mr. Paul as the delusional idiot Dennis Marks, who replies with the following...

Dennis Marks: I'm sure those like WD, with a "hate Americans first" attitude and who speaks with one voice alongside the terrorists on this will disagree. Strongly. Remember, he wanted Bin Laden to be turned over to a kangaroo court of fellow terrorists so he could get something between a slap on the wrist or a pat in the back... but not justice at all. (3/11/2014 AT 12:44pm).

Yeah, his intention is to insult me with this vile lie, but if what Dennis says applies to me, then it assuredly applies to Mr. Paul as well. And, Marks is also fiscally Conservative in his thinking, same as Mr. Hart. But both of these morons have allowed their Islamophobia and thirst for vengeance to blind them to the anger our killing of Muslim innocents has seeded.

Illegal invasions and drone attacks have caused Muslims worldwide who wouldn't have joined up due to a desire for "jihad" and to convert infidels or kill them - joining up for REVENGE. That's blowback. People cautioning against it are NOT "speaking with one voice alongside the terrorists". Willis Hart is the naive one here. And Dennis Marks is an extremely sick lying sack of shit.

Dennis so depraved in his desire to KILL KILL KILL "the terrorists" that he eagerly slanders people concerned about the cycle of violence (and not at all on the side of the terrorists) with sick vile lies. And with no shame at all. Willis Hart should be embarrassed that his commentary elicited such vile filth. But it appears these two half-wits think - if not exactly - then very much alike.

TADM #21. See also OST #2 and SWTD #239.

Dennis Marks Fiddles

In my previous commentary I said - regarding posts about another blogger Dennis Marks he announced on the blog "Contra O'Reilly" - that I suspected there may be no posts at all. Turns out I was right.

dmarks [MARCH 10, 2014 AT 9:21 AM] Speaking [of] "pranks", I played Barlowe/Dervish/Lickshitz whatever he uses like a fiddle, and spent very little time doing it. The "truth about Dervish" post on my blog, the mere title of which caused WD to have a major tantrum on several blogs, was just a couple of paragraphs on the historic Whirling Dervishes. The posts about Dennis were about the cartoon character Dennis the Menace. The posts with Sanders in the title were all about the fast-food magnate. My most recent post about Gore and Sanders was this time about Gore Vidal (a man who, like Al Gore, never created the Internet), with an unrelated pic of Col. Sanders. All of these posts on my blog took about two minutes to write, just some quick cuts and pastes. All of them generated multiple false accusations/assumptions, along with extremely time consuming whiny posts at WD's blog based on the false assumptions. None of my blog posts or posts or content have ever involved W Dervish/etc, now or ever. Most of them have elicited some interesting comments from participants. I've decided to stop, for the reason that there is only so much that can be said about Col. Harland Sanders and Dennis the Menace. I have no doubt WD will easily find other reasons to have conniptions, such as recently when he whined and moaned at great length because RN sent to spam some of WD's below-standards comments at "Rational Nation".

No, Dennis, you played no one "like a fiddle", but dream on. I strongly suspected you did not write these posts you were announcing, as you have never written anything of substance for your boring blog. Just pictures of postcards and moronic musings on Sleestaks. That you had actually sat down and taken the time to write something that required a little time and thought (when you never had before) seemed unlikely to me.

Yes, I made some assumptions and authored some posts - so Dennis got some of the attention he was looking for. I will give him that. There were no "major tantrums" or whining in post form or "conniptions", however. Only truth-telling about what a lying scumbag Mr. Marks is.

Perhaps I should just delete all posts here in which I made assumptions about what Dennis might have said about me on his blog. That way it never happened. Or Dennis seems to think that's the way it works, at least. When I authored a post about his delusions regarding former VP Al Gore, Dennis deleted all the comments of his I linked to.

Finally, in regards to "below standard" comments rejected by rAtional nAtion - This actually caused zero "conniptions", only inspiration for "the management" at SWTD to author a post that he believes turned out quite well.

But the delusional and vainglorious Dennis obviously thinks everything he (or his buddies) does has me "spittle flecking" or throwing tantrums or having conniptions. To hear him tell it, I do it every time I read a Dennis comment.

By the way, I wouldn't put it past Dennis to try a double fake out (meaning his posts aren't as he describes them), but I doubt it. For the same reasons I doubted he wrote any posts about me to begin with.

TADM #20

Dennis Marks Thinks He Settles the Fight Once and For All With The Last Word

The title of the post is in reference to two Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) love letters from his blog, one from 2/24/2014 titled "Dennis Settles the Fight Once and For All", and the second from 3/9/2014 titled "Sanders and Gore: The Last Word".

Well, I guess I just hang it up then, huh? If the fight is settled and Dennis did it with "the last word", then what is the point in me continuing to blog, right? That said, this will be the last post here on "The Truth About Dennis Marks". I probably should have just went away quietly, instead of writing a commentary announcing the end of this blog. I mean, this post surely counts as another word, does it not?

Good thing, then, that I was speaking facetiously. The deluded Dennis did not settle any fights or have any last words. The blog author is not shutting down TADM. He'll continue to publish many more words that will settle the question of whether or not Dennis is a delusional lying POS as well as a pathological liar.

The answer is YES, HE IS. By the way, the links attached to the posts of Dennis above are to his announcements of said posts (on the blog of Willis Hart). The actual posts are currently hidden and may not actually even exist. The author of this blog has taken into consideration the possibility that Dennis has composed no posts, but simply is making announcements as a way of yanking the blog author's chain.

TADM #19

Dennis Marks Lies About Lying About Al Gore

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is a lying blogger who likes to accuse others of "gnawing on old bones" or "beating dead horses". Those two phrases are employed by the delusional Dennis whilst bobbing a weaving in a futile attempt to avoid criticism when he is caught continuing to lie about topics which he argued about in the past (and which he was proven to be wrong on long ago).

No surprise, but Dennis (who saw this truth-teller's previous post on Al Gore and Dennis lying about him saying he invented the internet) is lying and mischaracterizing his previous (and on-going) lies about Mr. Gore, as the following comment gives testament to...

Dennis Marks: I did drop by WD's blog. My occasional and accurate offhand summaries of Gore's Internet gaffe inspired him to spend who knows what huge amount of time trying to refute it (usual dictionary re-writing, ignoring what Gore said). A lot of gnawing of old bones by both participants, and not by me. I reserve the right to make occasional accurate summaries of Gore's gaffe. But I don't feel it necessary spend hours making a blog post to refute fiction. (3/4/2014 AT 3:41am).

The blog post in question relates to a lengthy debate the author and Dennis got into back in March of 2012. Dennis goes on to lamely attempt to slime this truth-teller by saying he wasted a huge amount of time "trying" to refute the lies of Dennis - but Dennis also spent a huge amount of time in that debate telling his laughable lies.

The blog author knows this because he spent a lot of time refuting those lies. So, if time was wasted, it was wasted by both of us. (Conclusion? Insult fail).

As for the "dictionary rewriting", this is another lame-o slur, as the post in question only contained dictionary QUOTING, with links to back up the fact that the dictionary definitions provided were EXACT quotes. There was no "rewriting". And the blog author also refutes Dennis' claims of "ignoring what Gore said", which is actually what Dennis does.

The Al Gore quote in question...

AG: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. (from an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 3/9/1999, via Snopes).

What Dennis ignores (completely) is every sentence after the first one. Mr. Gore CLEARLY references the legislation he sponsored which created the environment that lead to the internet as we know it today. He was talking about legislation he was responsible for and not the literal creation of the internet, you moron!

That being cleared up, it should be noted that Dennis did get ONE thing right with his comment (quoted above), which is that my post, while I am not sure how much time I spent on it (less than "hours", I'd guess), does refute Dennis' fiction. Kudos to Dennis for admitting that, at least. Although, oddly, with everything the delusional nutter says up to the point of the admission are in defense of his lies about Mr. Gore (and suggest he believes they aren't fiction).

I guess we can chalk that up to Dennis being a delusional nutter and nothing more. Stand by for Dennis to delete his comment if he finds out about this commentary.

In case Dennis does delete any of what he said, I have reproduced the full comment thread below (6 comments as of 3/16/2014). What follows is from the blog "Contra O'Reilly" and in response to a post titled "On People Like Noam Chomsky, Francis Boyle, Bill Ayers, And that Crazy Lady from Code Pink".

Begin Comment Thread 7 COMMENTS

01. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 4, 2014 AT 3:41 AM] Tenacity is one thing. Someone consistently hating Jews (like Boyle) or always lining up to defend genocide as long as it is committed by some sort of socialist (like Chomsky) is another. No, I don't respect them. I'd respect them if they went after either side from a point of view of rationality, pragmatism, and sanity.

Speaking of the lack of such... I did drop by WD's blog. My occasional and accurate offhand summaries of Gore's Internet gaffe inspired him to spend who knows what huge amount of time trying to refute it (usual dictionary re-writing, ignoring what Gore said). A lot of gnawing of old bones by both participants, and not by me. I reserve the right to make occasional accurate summaries of Gore's gaffe. But I don't feel it necessary spend hours making a blog post to refute fiction.

02. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 4, 2014 AT 3:41 AM] By the way, Chomsky's defense of genocide even went as far as him to defend Serbia as it invaded and waged war against Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo during the 1990s.... killing a hundred thousand for the crime of not being Serbian.

According to him, Serbia "was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs".

A truly nutty conspiracy theory. He used the same sort of language when he lavished praise on the Khmer Rouge for their reforms in Cambodia... trying to find reasons that didn't exist instead of looking at why things happened and taking any sort of principled stand.

A typical telltale sign of unhinged musings is the use of the term "neoliberal", which isn't related to liberalism, but is often a term used by those of the statist/fascist/control-freak bent to condemn the idea of reforms in which the people make more economic decisions instead of the government.

03. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 4, 2014 AT 3:51 AM] I didn't mean to imply any sort of admiration for these folks (the first 3, especially), just that they weren't driven by partisanship the way that certain other individuals obviously are.

04. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 4, 2014 AT 3:43 PM] I know...it's obvious you don't endorse them. Quite unlike WD's endorsement of a deplorable quote by the worst mass murderer in human history (and his half-baked later attempt to distance himself a little from Stalin... while still embracing the deplorable quote).

But still, Will, I'd much rather have cheap but relatively moderate and harmless partisanship than "principled" nutty zeal.

05. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 4, 2014 AT 4:31 PM] Thankfully neither sector (and when I say, partisan, here, I'm talking about the lunatic fringe version and not guys like Chuckie Schumer) has a lot of sway politically.

06. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 14, 2014 AT 4:59 AM] I've deleted these quotations, not because I withdraw anything I've said, but to "yank WD's chain" when he links to material here in order to beat dead horses back to life. I am considering his propensity to fabricate blog quotations, however.

07. dmarks [MARCH 17, 2014 AT 5:53 AM] It takes but seconds to delete my comments, but who knows how long it takes for WD to write one of those massive long jeremiads where he whines and cries over me having done so.

It's worth the seconds, just for the amusement factor.

End Comment Thread

Update, 7/1/2014: As predicted, Dennis deleted his comments. But I have retrieved the Google cached page and updated this post with all the comments (7 as of this update).

In regards to Dennis saying I have a "propensity to fabricate blog quotations", that is a flat-out lie. I have never fabricated a quotation. Not once. The comments above are presented EXACTLY has they originally appeared (before Dennis deleted them), and that can be verified by looking at the Google cached page... at least for as long as it lasts.

TADM #18

Half-Baked BS From Dennis Has Him Hating Quote While Giving Murderer A Pass

Another Dennis Marks comment to file under "pure delusion"...

Dennis Marks: [WD made an] endorsement of a deplorable quote by the worst mass murderer in human history (and his half-baked later attempt to distance himself a little from Stalin... while still embracing the deplorable quote). (3/4/2014 at 3:43pm)

So, it's only the QUOTE that is "deplorable"? Must be, because he says it TWICE, and not even once does he attach the adjective to Joseph Stalin. Figures Dennis would be more offended by the quote then by Stalin himself, as the quote points out an uncomfortable truth for those who worship wealth like Dennis...

Joe Stalin: Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.

Joe Stalin DOES identify a fundamental fact, one that Dennis is completely abstracted from. Also, Dennis will fight to his dying breath for the plutocrats' "right" to exploit workers, although Dennis calls this exploitation "fair pay". No wonder the dude goes after the QUOTE instead of the deplorable Stalin himself.

The "distancing" Dennis refers to is my acknowledgement of the accuracy of the quote while condemning Stalin. I condemn him because he lied - he identified a problem but then did nothing to fix it. All Stalin did was transfer the property to himself and a ruling elite. The antagonism and exploiting between rich and poor continued, now with Stalin and his ruling elites taking on the roles of the rich exploiters.

Also, it should be noted that Stalin made things much worse with the murdering, which Dennis uses the adjective "worst" to describe. So, looks like Dennis is against murdering, but not against exploitation and concentration of wealth.

Probably because he sees how successful tricking people into accepting a wealthy elite has been here in the US. The gullible citizenry believes that maybe one day they too will be wealthy. Therefore taxes on the rich shouldn't be too high, as the fools who vote Republican think that maybe, just maybe, they might have to pay that tax rate one day.

These are the kind of fools like Dennis who vote against their own interests. And worship wealth. Although Dennis lies and tries to distance himself from that reality - but laughably suggesting that our elected representatives are the "rulers" who steal from us (by way of taxes).

Frankly, I find both deplorable. Those who take advantage by promising equality but not delivering it (as well as murdering), like Stalin. And those who promise YOU TOO can be rich. All you have to do is work hard... and get taken advantage of by the wealthy elites who will underpay you for your labor in order to further enrich THEMSELVES.

Those who worship wealth like Mr. Marks are deplorable as well, in my book. Deplorable too that Dennis continues to lie about how I feel about Joe Stalin. File that in the "vile lie" category.

TADM #17

On Dennis Marks & Al Gore #1

Another one to file under the category of "pure delusion"... Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) thinks Al Gore actually claims to have invented the internet. No, I'm not joking. The delusional nutter actually makes this case (on multiple occasions), even though the claim has been debunked by Snopes.

What follows is an example of the nuttery I speak of...

Dennis Marks: Gore said he "created" the Internet. He lied, because it already existed before he even got to Congress. As for the rest, Snopes got this wrong. Check the thesaurus. Gore used the word "create"... a synonym [of invent]. (3/28/2012 at 4:47am).

Nice try, Dennis, however, While it is true that "create" and "invent" are synonyms, Dictionary.com defines a synonym is as "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the [English] language". In the context of Al Gore's quote, the meaning is not exactly the same, only nearly the same. There is a difference in this context, as Snopes points out...

Snopes: Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions...

Exactly. Al Gore used the word "create", in that he helped bring about the internet as we know it today, which HE DID. He didn't invent it, which is why he did not use that word, you lying idiot, Dennis!

(Note: See here for my expanded commentary on the subject).

Update, 3/5/2014: Dennis deleted his comment about Al Gore. Clicking on the link above will take you to a comment on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog that says "This comment has been removed by the author". But the comment is still viewable via the Google cached page. Also, I have preserved the entire comment thread here. See comment #17.

TADM #15. See also TADM #16 and SWTD #236.

Lying Delusional Hypocrite Dennis Marks Begs for Mercy He Won't Get

It looks like Dennis Marks has had enough of my truth telling and is now begging for mercy. Previously Dennis was running and attempting to hide; but clearly he realizes these attempts (which include hiding his blog AND his Blogger profile) are futile. People are catching on to the truth about Dennis (which is that he is a lying scumbag).

Although Mr. Marks couches his cries and pleas that I stop telling the truth about him as polite and reasonable requests for "decorum, politeness, and civility", I understand what he's REALLY saying... which is "PLEASE, stop telling the truth about me!"

Specifically I refer to the following comment from Dennis...

Dennis Marks: The one you [Willis Hart] deem "a moron who seemingly lives in his own little black and white universe/crawl space" has demanded that I issue retractions of past statements. It did inspire me to make my most recent blog post: http://inaholdingpattern.blogspot.com/2014/03/retractions.html. I will let him read this, and any post on my blog, if he promises (not to apologize or do anything in regard to past disputes... a man like him never admits any wrong), but to conduct himself with decorum, politeness, and civility from this point forward. An offer of a clean slate. (3/2/2014 at 1:56pm).

First of all, Mr. Hart refered to the author of this blog as "the idiot" and not "a moron". Secondly, I never "demanded" a retraction of any kind. I asked a question which was "if Dennis is retracting his previous comments about my "arrogance" then perhaps an apology is in order?"

Dennis previously accused me of "arrogance" whenever I commented on how I thought the voters decided wrongly or were mislead by Rightwing lies. Most recently I said "The American people (or a large portion of them) bought the Rightwing spin about the ACA being bad". Dennis jumped on that and, as ususal, proclaimed "typical. The American people, who know their own lives better than Mr. Sanders, make a decision according to the facts and their best interest. Mr. Sanders arrogantly and ignorantly thinks he know their lives better than they do".

Following this particular "arrogance" accusation (not the first), Dennis' pals Willis Hart and Lester Nation authored posts of their own saying they thought the voters were dumb (words to that effect). Willis Hart wrote "Yes, I DO think that the American electorate is quite stupid and quite irrational", and Lester Nation said he believes "that Americans will once again get exactly what they (in their apathy) vote for". and that "America, with its dismal voter turnout, low information voters, and political sound bite junkies, will pull the levers once again for those politicians with the slickest slogans..."

So, when a commenter on Lester's blog (Jersey McJones) basically agreed with him (insulting the voters) by saying "It makes me question the IQ of the average American" - Dennis' reaction was to jump on him with an ad hominem insult, declaring that Jersey asked "a question which apparently is rooted in your partisan bias. i.e. the smart people vote like me and the idiots vote otherwise".

A hypocritical response, given that the "insulting of the voters" from his two buddies got no reaction at all from him. When I first pointed out this lack of a reaction from him when Willis "insulted the voters", Dennis' response was to say my pointing out that Willis insulted the voters (by saying the "Yes, I DO think that the American electorate is quite stupid") was an "intentionally false summary of what Will said on his blog".

Then when I persisted Dennis replied that "When... caught lying, his reaction is to tell the same lie more stridently".

What a moron. QUOTING someone is not lying, "stridently" or otherwise. Now this delusional dumbass, when I raised the issue of his hypocrisy a second time (after he attacked Jersey and ignored Lester's insulting of the voters) was first to respond with an insult, saying "Who let Capt. Crapfest in?".

Then when I asked if Dennis was "retracting his previous comments about my arrogance", given the fact that he FAILED to take his buddies to task for their insults, Dennis did some bobbing and weaving to avoid the question and muddy the waters in regard to the fact that he was acting hypocritically - by declaring my comments a "dead horse" and saying Jersey could defend himself. Finally the dummy says I was referring to a "discussion from long ago and who-knows-where".

"Who knows where"? No, we know where... on the very blog Dennis made his last comment (the blog of Lester Nation). And the discussion wasn't from "long ago" either, but only about a month old. A month since I pointed out Dennis ignoring Willis' "insulting of the voters". The insulting of the voters by Lester Nation JUST HAPPENED!

A reference to a post only hours old (one on which me and Dennis were both commenting) is NOT "long ago" OR "who knows where". Honestly, I don't know why Dennis' buddies let this degree of extreme idiocy and delusion pass while saying nothing. No, wait... I do know. It's because of their dislike for me. And because of this (their ignoring of their buddies idiocy), that they are hypocrites themselves.

In any case, Dennis' lying has been going on for far too long for him to get a "clean slate" now. And the jackass has some nerve saying "a man like him never admits any wrong" when referring to ME. Dennis is the sort who will never admit any wrong. Because he's so delusional that he truly believes the utter nonsense he writes. And, given that Dennis is incapable of "decorum, politeness, and civility" I refuse to show him any. There will be no one-sided surrendering by me, Dennis.

Can you believe anyone would be so audacious as to both plead for mercy (in regards to my truth telling about him) AND also demand complete capitulation... while at the same time admitting that the lying (on his side) will NOT stop (insults me in the VERY comment where he asks for MY politeness and civility)?! Yeah, right. I think Dennis knows where he can stuff his "clean slate".

TADM #14

Love Letters From Dennis Marks (A Two-Sided Bromance)

In a previous commentary I revealed that the truth presented on this blog is refered to Dennis Marks as "Love Letters" from me to him. This is very strange, IMO, as these truths about Dennis are not in the least bit flattering. In fact, what I'm doing here is revealing Dennis for the bigoted scuzzball that he is. Surely no one but a severely deluded idiot could classify such commentaries as "love letters".

Another inaccurate word Mr. Marks uses when referring to my truth-telling efforts is to say we have a "one sided bromance". According to Wikipedia "a bromance is a close non-sexual relationship between two (or more) men, a form of affectional or homosocial intimacy".

Looks like Dennis changed the definition to mean two (or more) people who have a strong dislike for one another and often criticize one another (me, by telling the truth about Dennis, and Dennis by lying about me). And, apparently only commentaries on your own blog counts, as Dennis has been lying about me in comment form for quite some time... yet he says the "bromance" is one-sided.

Well, it seems that Mr. Marks has decided to return my "affections" by writing about the author of this blog on his own site... in full length commentary form. Given this new development, it can now be said that the bromance is two-sided... which is more than a little icky, given the fact that I strongly dislike the dishonest, racist and anti-Semitic slime (and those are but a few of his negative qualities).

Fact is, the more I tell this sicko that I dislike him, the more frequently he insists we are in a bromance and that I've been writing him "love letters". How wack is that? In any case, if commentaries on one's own blog could possibly described as "love letters", then it seems that the blogger with the ID of "dmarks" has been quite busy professing his adoration for me - which creeps me out.

Even though Dennis hide his blog from view, selecting the Blogger option that only allows "invited readers" to view it, he has made announcements (mainly) on the blog of Mr. Willis Hart. Why? Because Willis is another deluded liar like Mr. Marks; and Willis appreciates Dennis' efforts to dissemble about me.

And, via these announcements, it appears as though Dennis has composed (as of today) 8 "love letters" describing what he purports to be "the truth" about me (most likely lies). What follows is a list of said love letters, followed by a link to the polemic (which will take you to a page that says you can't view said love letter because the blog not public), followed by another link, which is to the announcement...

1. The Truth About Dervish, 2/14/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "By the way, my blog is back".

2. Col Sanders and George Bush, 2/17/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "By the way, welcome to my reviving blog. I have a new post from early this morning, too...".

3. Sanders and Plutocrats, 2/18/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "It's been great with the comments from about 9 or so people over there".

4. Dennis Speaks, 2/20/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "...my latest, with the same level of attention to WD as my recent Col. Sanders and Truth posts".

5. Idiot of the Day: Mr Sanders, 2/21/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "By the way, Rusty, I'm looking to invite you to my blog. The latest post is here..."

06. Dennis Settles the Fight Once and For All, 2/24/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: "By the way, Russ, looking forward to you joining me on my blog. My latest post settles controversy..."

07. Sanders And Racism, 2/27/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: NA.

08. Stalin Worship, 2/28/2014 [blog link, Announcement]. Text: NA.

TADM #13

Deluded Dennis Dreams of Love Letters

What follows is Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) incorrectly characterizing the nature of this blog as well as the motivations of the blog author...

Dennis Marks: [He] will create a special blog where he will write love letters to you all day long. Geez. [He] is just like an 11 year old girl obsessed with a boy band or something. (2/28/2014 at 4:39pm).

"Love letters"? Hell No. There is only one purpose of this blog, and that is to tell the truth about what a lowlife, lying, bigoted a-hole Mr. Marks is. Dennis mischaracterizes the nature of this blog in a lame and futile attempt to "embarrass" the blog author by referring to the telling of a truth that he doesn't want disseminated as "love letters" (as well as the "11 year old girl & boyband" crack).

The blog author is NOT embarrassed by these idiotic characterizations of his truth telling about the slime who uses the blogger ID "dmarks". That Dennis would think such silly nonsense might work shows just how desperate he is. The chronicling of Dennis' lies and hate will continue. Sorry, Dennis.

TADM #12

Using The "Dennis Standard" To Determine Bill Ayres' Innocence

According to Dennis Marks, the ICC hasn't prosecuted ex-preznit bush as a war criminal because the case "was not worthy of handling [and] beneath contempt". Dennis says the case was "ignored by the authorities because it's all bogus". Not only that, but they laughed when charges were submitted for consideration and decreed that bush is "so innocent". The decree wasn't an actual decree, but one we can guess they would have made if the court released statements regarding why they reject cases.

Or that is what Dennis guesses, at least. And he thinks we should all guess the same. If a court stays silent when members of the public say criminal action should be prosecuted, the ONLY conclusion one can possibly reach is that the charges are without merit... even though Dennis lies when he says the ICC has been silent.

The (now former) first Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno Ocampo has said the reason charges haven't been considered in the case of (now ex) preznit bush is because "I am not the world's prosecutor. I am the prosecutor for 118 (treaty member) states".

Charges against bush have been filed, and those charges have been rejected by the court - but the reason has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of evidence or bush being "so innocent". The charges were rejected because the United States has not signed the treaty that created the court - and ONLY countries that sign the treaty are subject to it's jurisdiction.

All Dennis' explanations regarding why the court hasn't acted are nothing more than pure delusion. For the record, however, Dennis did (amazingly) walk back his "innocence" claims a little recently... when he said "The real authorities on this, the International Criminal Court, have to date rejected 130 petitions/claims of Bush being a war criminal due to complete lack of evidence. This is not proof of innocence, of course, but it is overwhelming proof that there is no case against Bush to be made".

So, that got me thinking... Dennis has recently made statements concerning the criminality of Bill Ayres actions during the Vietnam war... but Ayres was never convicted of any wrongdoing. He was charged, but the charges were dropped. Maybe the court dropped the charges because Ayres was "so innocent" that the very notion of going forward with a trial caused the judges to laugh?

Turns out the answer to that question is "no". Charges against Ayres were dropped because "FBI operations targeted against Weather Underground and the New Left, all part of a series of covert and often illegal FBI projects called COINTEL". When your case against a person includes you doing illegal stuff to obtain evidence... those cases get thrown out. So, Ayres was guilty and should have gone to prison... but he lucked out due to the illegality of the FBI investigation.

Still, the case was thrown out. Just like the case against ex-preznit bush. Both Ayres and bush are free men today. So, perhaps the correct conclusion isn't that Ayres was guilty but got away with it (like bush), but that the charges were "all bogus" and therefore Ayres is completely innocent? He never made or set any bombs. The book he wrote admitting these things should be assumed to be a work of fiction. That is my conclusion, in any case. Not my actual conclusion, but my conclusion using the "Dennis Standard" of determining innocence.

TADM #9

On Dennis Marks & Bill Ayres

File this Dennis Marks comment under the category of "pure delusion"...

Dennis Marks: [Bill] Ayers wasn't against the [Vietnam] war. He was an active combatant, having tried to murder innocent people in the US military in order to effect change. In this, he was no different from the VC. If he were against war, he would not have participated in it. (2/4/2014 at 5:31am).

Problem is, Dennis' version of events strongly disagrees with reality.

First all, let me be clear that I am no fan of Mr. Ayres nor should this post be interpreted as any kind of defense of him (because it isn't). He was, however, against the Vietnam War. That was the ENTIRE reason for forming the Weather Underground. And, while buildings were bombed, the bombers took care to make sure that they were empty. Mr. Ayres specifically tried to avoid killing anyone. Warnings were issued prior to detonations so buildings (and other bombing targets) could be evacuated.

The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia that describes Ayres motivations and goals (during his time with the WUO)...

In a November 2008 interview with The New Yorker... Ayers said that he had never been responsible for violence against other people and was acting to end a war in Vietnam in which "thousands of people were being killed every week". He also stated, "While we did claim several extreme acts, they were acts of extreme radicalism against property" and "We killed no one and hurt no one. Three of our people killed themselves".

Nobody killed except WUO members... so if he was trying to "murder innocent people in the US military" he did a very bad job of it. Actually, I'd say it was completely impossible for the WUO to have not killed anyone unless they were actively taking precautions not to.

And Wikpedia confirms this fact...

No persons were killed in any of their acts of property destruction, although three members of the group were killed in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, and former members of the group robbed a Brink's armored car in 1981, which resulted in the deaths of three people including Waverly Brown, the first black police officer on the Nyack police force.

Bill Ayres did not "participate" in the Vietnam War, he tried to end it. He went about it in a wrong and illegal manner, and should have gone to prison for the extensive property damage his group caused. And surely Ayres bears some responsibility for the deaths of the three WUO members who were killed, morally if not legally. Also, they did put lives in danger, even if nobody was killed.

Most certainly the WUO actions Ayres participated in should be condemned, but there is no need to mischaracterize what happened or fabricate motivations based on nothing but pure imagination as Mr. Marks has. But the delusional nutter often does just this, so his lying about Ayres is not really a surprise.

TADM #8