On The Dennis Marks Racist Claim That The Black Lives Matters Movement's Slogan Is "Only Black Lives Matter"

This racist comment concerning the Black Lives Matter movement from the racially-biased blogger Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks).

This started with a post on the Contra O'Reilly blog from fellow racist Willis Hart about the killing of Eric Garner. According to Willis the "fat asthmatic" was (at least partially) to blame for his own death. Then Willis asked "what about the African-American merchants whose rights were being infringed upon by Garner?" (he was taking away their cigarette sales, presumably).

Which prompted the following response from Dennis...

Dennis Marks: ...why bring race into it at all? It's a meme injected into these discussions by the very racist protesters. The ones that argue that only black lives matter. This meme has been at play despite the fact that race wasn't a factor at all in any of these incidents. (12/26/2014 AT 4:15am).

Later, Dennis authored this comment bashing the NAACP.

Dennis Marks: In recent months, the NAACP has embraceed the supremacist slogan that only lives of those of one race matter. (5/23/2015 AT 12:02pm).

That the Black Live Matter movement or NAACP is saying "only lives of those of one race matter" is pure bullshit. This is the racially-biased Dennis interpretation of what they're saying, but the racially-biased Mr. Marks is wrong.

Of course "all lives matter", but the reason the BLM movement (and slogan) exist is because our system is obviously biased against African Americans. According to a 4/8/2015 RawStory article, more African Americans were killed by the police in 2014 than in the 9/11 attacks.

The Rightwing pushback to this (police killing Black people) is to say more Whites than Blacks are killed by the police. A talking point that, of course, Dennis goes with.

Dennis Marks: More whites are killed overall by cops. (8/29/2015 AT 11:59:00 AM EDT).

According to PoltiFact, over the past decade 2,151 Whites and 1,130 Blacks were killed by the police.

However...

Brian Forst, a professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Criminology at American University, said this difference is predictable. "More whites are killed by the police than blacks primarily because whites outnumber blacks in the general population by more than five to one", Forst said. The country is about 63 percent white and 12 percent black. Rather than comparing the raw numbers, you can look at the likelihood that a person will die due to "legal intervention" [statistically. And] When you do that, the numbers flip. A 2002 study in the American Journal of Public Health found that the death rate due to legal intervention was more than three times higher for blacks than for whites in the period from 1988 to 1997. (Police kill more whites than blacks. Response to statement by Conservative pundit Michael Medved. 8/21/2014 Politifact article by Jon Greenberg).

A Black person is 300 percent more likely to be killed by a police officer than a White person, Dennis! Yet Dennis uses the fact that the US is approximately 63 percent White and 12 percent Black to LIE about Blacks being more likely to be shot and killed by the police. He ignores this fact and, instead misrepresents the truth by pointing out that more Whites are shot by cops. Shameful.

But Dennis' "evidence" against the BLM movement doesn't end there! After stating that "All Lives Matter is beautiful" Dennis cites a recent Rasmussen poll that says Black people prefer the term "all lives matter" to "black lives matter". Dennis sez "even black people strongly prefer all lives matter".

Bullshit, Dennis. As it turns out the reason Rasmussen got that response is because they asked the question designed to get the answer they wanted. An answer that discredits the BLM movement. Even Black people don't identify with BLM, is what Dennis is saying (by pointing to the Rasmussen poll).

The Rasmussen flawed question was "yes, black lives matter, but don't all lives matter? That seems to be the subject of some political dispute".

But there is ZERO dispute! NONE. The BLM movement isn't saying that all lives don't matter. But Rasmussen implies that they are. Then they ask which statement is closest to their own views, "Black Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter". Unsurprisingly, even Black people said "All Lives Matter" (63%).

But notice that Rasmussen didn't ask if the respondent supports the BLM movement. Why? Because (I strongly suspect) there would have been a lot of overlap, in that people could say "all lives matter" but still support BLM.

The Conservative response of "All Lives Matter" is, as David Bedrick points out (in an 8/24/2015 HuffPo article) "a form of willful colorblindness [and] ignorance of America's racist past and present".

This is why Conservatives like Dennis say the BLM movement is "racist" and that "all lives matter" is "beautiful". Racists like Dennis support the status quo and do NOT want anything done to address the VERY REAL problem of the police killing African Americans at a three times greater rate than White Americans.

According to Dennis "we are not clueless here" (he's speaking of people who prefer "all lives matter" over "black lives matter")... but, YES, Dennis is totally clueless. In regards to the BLM movement, and in regards to his own racism.

Turns out that Dennis is the most common type of racist... the one that doesn't realize that he is one.

IMO Dennis Marks absolutely is this kind of racist... one who vehemently denies he is racist, but takes positions that clearly show he is quite racist. His opposition to the BLM movement being just one more example of how racist Dennis is.

Supporting Document
Only Black Lives Matter Ugly Racist Protesters Don't Say, DSD #16.

TADM #80. See also SWTD #311.

Dennis Marks Scary Gun Nuttery Has Him Buying Loony Rush Limbaugh Fast & Furious Conspiracy Theory

Extreme (non-gun-owning) gun nut Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) buys into the laughable Fast and Furious conspiracy theory that that says guns were deliberately allowed to cross the border into Mexico (straw purchased here in the US where guns are easy to obtain, then smuggled across the border to Mexico where private gun ownership is highly restricted) in a scheme "to create violence in Mexico, which in turn would be pointed to by the Obama administration as the justification for more restrictive gun laws".

Rightwing radio commentator Rush Limbaugh cites this conspiracy theory on his program, referring to it as a "premeditated attack on the Second Amendment"... and Dennis (despite previously representing himself as a Rush critic who thinks it laughable to say "I heard it on Rush Limbaugh"), in a recent comment he submitted to the "Libertas and Latte" gun nut blog, recites this theory just about perfectly.

Dennis Marks: As for the terrible gun-running scheme to Mexican drug lords, it was all Obama's decision, started 9 months into his administration. People died as a result. Which is quite obvious: when you supply guns to killer criminals, that might happen. (6/19/2015 AT 10:20am via the blog Libertas And Latte).

So, he leaves off the part about this being a ruse to attack the 2nd amendment. Maybe he just forgot all the details he heard while listening to Rush? Whatever the reason he forgets that portion, it wasn't "all Obama's decision" at all.

Fast and Furious was plotted at the top, proclaimed Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, "so they can stick more gun legislation on honest American gun owners". ... [However] what the documents and testimony showed was that Fast and Furious originated with field agents... in Phoenix — not in the White House — and the tactic was first used under President George W. Bush. (Gun Nuts in a Rut by Timothy Egan. NYT Opinionater 12/1/2011).

(Note: Under the gwb administration the program was called Operation Wide Receiver).

So, it's lies from Rush and also Wayne that Dennis is in agreement with? Even though the truth is that the ATF "did not intentionally allow illegal guns to pass into the hands of criminals. Rather, it tracked people illegally buying and trafficking weapons, but was unable to arrest them because of the country's loose gun laws - laws advocated by the NRA". (Fast And Furious Conspiracy Theory Pushed By GOP Lawmakers).

OK, so while "the stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels" the ATF agents in question f*cked up because "no means were employed to track either the firearms or the traffickers once they left the United States". (Wikipedia/ATF gunwalking scandal).

But again, contrary to what Rush, Wayne and Dennis say... nothing at all relating to "Fast and Furious" was "all Obama's decision". ATF field agents in Phoenix acted independently and this only came to the attention of Obama (and Holder) after the scandal broke.

But this is common knowledge outside of far-Right conspiracy theory circles. Circles Dennis says he is not a participant in. But Dennis clearly lies. And, in regards to Dennis buying into this conspiracy... all I can say is "wow". I mean, I knew Dennis was seriously getting into gun nuttery (although he continues to say he does not own a gun), but this takes the cake.

Buying into this Rush-peddled nutty conspiracy theory - along with his recent declaration that the gun nut perversion of the 2nd amendment (removal of "well regulated") is what makes America great - shows his conversion to hardcore gun nut is complete. How long before he purchases a gun and shoots someone while claiming self-defense, I wonder?

See also: The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal by Katherine Eban. Fortune 6/27/2012.

TADM #68. See also SWTD #292

The Most Repugnant & Vile antiSemitism (From Someone Thinking He Was "Confronting antiSemitism") I Have Ever Seen

According to the blogger Octopus, Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is a "friend" of The Swash Zone due to his efforts in "confronting anti-Semitism".

Dennis CONFRONTED antiSemitism? OK, I believe that. But he also engages in it (examples to follow).

First, however, as far as "confronting anti-Semitism" goes, Dennis only does so in a manner that is consistent with his far Right Conservative beliefs. By that I mean his support for Israel is unwavering. And, as with many Conservatives, he sees any and all criticism of US-Israel policy, or any criticism of Israel at all as "antiSemitism".

There is a name for this viewing of any criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitism", BTW. This phenomenon is known as the "New AntiSemitism". And, as it relates to the Right (in both the US and Israel), is a tool they utilize to shut down all debate regarding - or criticism of Israel. Perhaps some of these antiZionists go too far - but not ALL criticim of Israel is "antiSemitism", and labeling ALL criticism thusly is not helpful.

Via Wikipedia: Brian Klug, senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet's Hall, Oxford... argues against the idea [of] "new" anti-Semitism. He accepts that there is reason for the Jewish community to be concerned, but argues that... it is an unhelpful concept, because it devalues the term "anti-Semitism", leading to widespread cynicism about the use of it. People of goodwill who support the Palestinians resent being falsely accused of anti-Semitism.

I agree with Mr. Klug. Innocent Palestinians have a right to live their lives in peace. And they largely agree that Israelis have a right to live their lives in peace. A recent poll of residents of the Palestinian territories shows that 56% of West Bank respondents and 70% of Gazans said YES "when asked whether Hamas should maintain a ceasefire with Israel" (June 15-17 West Bank/Gaza public opinion survey).

Excerpt from Gaza Public Rejects Hamas, Wants Ceasefire: ...when asked if Hamas should accept Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas's position that the new unity government renounce violence against Israel, a clear majority (57 percent) answered in the affirmative. The [survey responses] clearly indicate that most Gazans reject military escalation. (Washington Institute for Near East Policy article by David Pollock).

Hamas does not represent all Palestinians and concern for innocent people caught in the crossfire between Israel and Hamas is not "antiSemitism" (and far more Palestinians are being killed in these conflicts over Israelis).

So we have people critical of Israel, in that their actions are killing innocent people (more innocent Palestinians killed than innocent Israelis killed by the actions of Hamas). Although some people would blame ALL the deaths on Hamas. One of those people would be Dennis Marks, an individual that says there can be no debate, only blaming of Hamas. However, even if placing all the blame on Hamas were justified, it accomplishes nothing. But it is the Conservative position.

Like most [US Conservative] supporters of the Israeli government, they treat even the slightest hint of criticism as if it were a mortal attack on Israel itself. The slightest deviation from their "Israel can do no wrong" agenda evokes howls of condemnation. (Why Are Right-Wingers So Crazy in Love with Israel? by Ira Chernus. Alternet 1/14/2013).

This explains the ridiculous comment Dennis made (in agreement with fellow Rightwing crazy Rusty Shackelford about the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.

Rusty: Hagel is a friggin moron. Why settle for this idiot? ... The guy could'nt find the cheeks of his ass with both hands. (2/14/2013 AT 1:08pm). Dennis Marks: But but... Rusty, he's the terrorists' choice. So of course he should get approved. Seriously, I agree completely. And he should be criticizing our enemies not our friends. (2/14/2013 AT 3:58pm).

Although Rusty never said anything about Hagel being "the terrorist's choice". That idiocy was all Dennis... but it is in line with what the far Right believes. I'm surprised Dennis didn't label Hagel an "antiSemite", although I'd say it is very strongly implied with the reference to him as "the terrorist's choice".

And, from this statement about Hagel (among others) I confidently conclude that Dennis is a strong adherent of the "new antiSemitism". And I agree with Norman Finkelstein's views on the matter.

Via Wikipedia: Norman Finkelstein argues that organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have brought forward charges of new antiSemitism at various intervals since the 1970s, "not to fight antiSemitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism".

Well, not just the Anti-Defamation League, but the Rightwing in the US and in Israel. And because Norman Finkelstein dares reveal the truth on this matter, Dennis detests him. He's a Jew that stands against Dennis' side on this debate. Please note I have not dug into Finkelstein's work and do not really know if he takes his antiZionism too far. So this commentary should absolutely NOT be taken as a defense of EVERYTHING Norman Finkelstein has written. I'm only agreeing with him in regards to the statement I quoted.

I do know, however, that there is another Jewish man by the name of Francis Boyle whom Dennis hates - mostly due to him believing that former preznit bush is a war criminal (TADM #4) - but also because of his views on Israel.

Via Wikipedia: In an article published in Veterans Today, Boyle stated that "...the United Nations had no right to steal Palestine from the Palestinians and give Palestine to the Zionists in 1947". In the same article, Boyle predicted that the state of Israel "will continue its rapid descent into pariah state status" and that "When Israel collapses, most Zionists will have already left... for other states around the world. The Palestinians will then be able to claim all of the historic Mandate for Palestine as their State, including the entire City of Jerusalem as their Capital".

And, just because I quoted Mr. Boyle in regards to his views on the war crimes of the former preznit, Dennis assumed I agreed with him in regards to his views on Israel. But I do not. The statement quoted above is ridiculous. Although he is correct about gwb's war crimes, he is not correct in saying that Israel was "stolen" or will "collapse".

With this I disagree and disagree strongly, not that Dennis acknowledges this disagreement. He lied and said Boyle "demand that Jews be expelled from Israel" (which he did not). Then Dennis said "you supported it", although I do not support this expelling. An expelling that Boyle has never "demanded", for the record. (TADM #38).

I actually believe that Israel should, and has a right to continue to exist... in agreement with Finkelstein who "is an advocate of a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Two-state or one-state; I've heard compelling arguments for both. Point is, I believe that Israel has a right to exist, as Norman Finkelstein does.

Which makes the following Dennis comment so outstandingly objectionable, repugnant, vile and disgusting. This was in response to a commentary on the Contra O'Reilly titled "On Anti-Israel Activist and Writer, Norman Finkelstein".

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).

Note that the "r" in "scraped" is RED because this is how Dennis mistyped his sick lie. Originally. He has since deleted it. Not because he retracted anything or came to the correct realization that what he said was antiSemitic. He deleted it because I linked to, and apparently Dennis gets some "amusement" out of deleting his comments when I link to them (TADM #40).

I last time I brought up this comment with Dennis the scumbag - when I linked to a screenshot (see below) of it that I captured before he deleted it - accused me of "faking" the screenshot. No. I did not fake it. Take a look at the tread and you will see that Dennis deleted *all* of his comments.

This is a dead giveaway that Dennis definitely said exactly what the screenshot shows. I replied to Dennis' comment about Norman Finkelstein, calling him a "sick liar". This comment of mine is still visible in the original comment thread. What I say CLEARLY is a response to what Dennis says (in the screenshot). I mean, if I were calling Dennis a "sick liar" for something I was not justified in calling him a "sick liar" for... would he have deleted his comment? Would he have NOT defended himself in the next comment (instead of deleting that one also)? I think not.

The comment as quoted above (and as shown in the screenshot below) is accurate. Dennis REALLY said that a Jewish man whose parents were holocaust survivors has a "genocidal hatred of Jewish Israelis". Dennis REALLY said that a Jewish man who supports the two state solution criticizes "Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens".

This comment, in my strong opinion, crosses a line and is antiSemitic itself. There is simply NO excusing such a despicable fabrication, despite the fact that "based on his criticism of Holocaust exploitation, the Anti-Defamation League and others branded Finkelstein as a Holocaust denier".

At least they didn't say that he thought his parent lied (I don't know how they square that accusation with the facts), nor did they say that Finkelstein would have preferred that his parents had hurried up and become ashes scraped out of industrial ovens (which wouldn't have made any sense, as then Finkelstein would never have been born).

But, as is the case with many of Dennis lies, this one makes no sense. This vile and disgusting lie was the one that convinced me that Dennis is an antiSemite. I mean, who the hell could say such a thing about a man whose parents were holocaust survivors! Dennis could have voiced his disagreement with Finkelstein's antiZionist views, but this really goes way to far (TADM #6).

Which is why I HAD to object when the blogger Octopus (of the Swash Zone) said that Dennis "deserves kudos for confronting anti-Semitism". But instead of reconsidering his "kudos" (when I presented to him the facts concerning Dennis past antiSemitic statements), Octopus tore me a new one. Seems he does not care to know about Dennis' antiSemitism. Instead Octo claimed he "caught" me attempting to focus attention on myself and my "peeves in Cyberspace" (SWTD #271).

Nope. That is not what I was doing, Octo. I was attempting to enlighten you in regards to the true nature of your friend. But, Octo was very clear on that (in regards to Dennis' ugly antiSemitism) he wishes to keep his head burried in the sand. So be it, Octo. I surely cannot force you off your high horse or get you to listen to the truth. But that won't stop me from writing about it on my own blog. Not that anyone will read it, but the truth about Dennis Marks is here... if anyone is interested.

TADM #61. See also TADM #59 and SWTD #271.

"N-Word & Other Slurs" Foul Fiction (Examining Dennis Marks' Strong Racial Biases)

The racially biased Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is one of those who simply does not see how what he says and thinks is racist. As is the case with MANY if not most racists. Most of us, racists included, know it is bad to discriminate based on skin color. There are some hard core racists who embrace this kind of stereotyping (KKK members), but most racially-biased people use some kind of internal logic to justify their racism. And they will actually call other people racists if the other person violates their internal logic.

Such is the case with Dennis. The flawed internal logic he uses to protect himself from realizing he is racist himself is to accuse others. Mostly Black people who disagree with him idealogically (TADM #27). For example, Dennis knows the KKK is bad. And he "knows" there are many Black folks who are "racist". Put those two "knowings" together and you get a comment from him in which he says "Van Jones is the David Duke of the Democrats" (SWTD #144).

Dennis also knows using the N-word is bad. Which is why he infers that Black people who use it are "racist". And if anyone else has an opinion that differs with his opinion, which is that ANYONE who uses it is automatically a racist, that person is a racist as well. Which is what happened to me.

Dennis Marks: wd... thinks it is great to call black people the N word and use other slurs. (9/5/2014 AT 3:38am).

My opinion that differed with Dennis' was NOT that "it is great to call black people the N word and use other slurs". Dennis lies when he says this. Dennis gets this from an old conversation on the Progressive Soup blog in which the proprietor (an African American from the looks of his profile pic) said "simply using the N-word in lyrics is not bashing black people".

Malcolm (the proprietor) was speaking specifically of the rapper Common), who used/uses the N-word while rapping. I agreed with Malcolm that it was not "bashing" - which is how Dennis referred to Common's use the the word. He said Common was "bashing" his fellow African Americans.

As a White person I feel that it isn't for me to say if Black people can "take back" the word by using it themselves or not. I'll leave that for the African American community to hash out (some are for and others are against it). Although I think White people are absolutely not allowed to use the word (not that a White person using it is automatically racist. They might simply be ignorant). In any case, I only said that the rapper Common - or any other African American rapper who uses the word (usually with an "a" replacing the "er" at the end) - is not bashing other Black people. I never said it was "great".

But Dennis passes judgment on me (for something I never said), and on the African American rapper Common. As a White man Dennis thinks he has the right to decide that African Americans are not allowed to use the N-word... which I think is racist in itself. Not being Black, I think Dennis has absolutely no right to pass judgment on the victims of racism using - or "taking back" - this word used (historically) by racist Whites against their people. None at all. That he does think he can be THE judge of this says to me Dennis is surely your typical arrogant (and ignorant) Conservative.

Notice, however, that Dennis did not call Common "racist". He said Common was "bashing" his fellow African Americans. I think this was because Dennis was commenting on the blog of an African American. I know from past experience that Dennis usually has no problem calling Black people racist (and this is why I use the word "infer" above. I'm convinced he meant "racist" but chose not to use that word because of WHERE he was commenting).

Fact is, when Dennis calls someone racist, it usually is a Black person. Specifically Black Democrats (TADM #27). Although he has also referred to some White people as racist. Usually white Democrats (TADM #41).

Such as this comment in which Dennis lies about a Black Democrat with bogus (and racist) assertions concerning "Black Privilege"...

Dennis Marks: Rev Al is a big believer in "black privilege", such that black people can commit crimes and get away with it, while white people can't. (9/9/2014 AT 4:07pm).

This despite the fact that "the incarceration rate for American-Americans is so high that young black men without a high school diploma are more likely to go to jail than to find a job". And that this is "six times as high as the national average".

As opposed to something Al Sharpton thinks, this sounds - to me - like something a Radical Redneck-type White racist would believe. But Dennis attributes this example of ugly racism to Al Sharpton. Sick. And Dennis uses the term "Black Privilege" even though he does not believe in the VERY REAL concept of White Privilege.

Dennis Marks: "White privilege" is a laughable myth: a racist concept made up by the Left... itself a form of racial profiling. (7/21/2013 AT 06:43:00 AM EDT).

So, White privilege is a "myth" (and a "laughable" one) while Black privilege is real? That does it for me. Dennis, while surely not a Radical Redneck-type racist, absolutely is more racist than the average person. And the facts show that he is quite a bit more racially biased, in my strong opinion. Yeah, I know that when Conservatives think of "race hustlers" their minds immediately go to Black LEADERS like Sharpton and Jackson [1], and Dennis' absolutism in regards to the use of the N-word might be understandable and not necessarily qualify him as "racist".

But the White-privilege-no and Black-privilege-yes puts him over the top, I think. And I didn't even bring up Dennis bashing people as "racist" for defending Affirmative Action [2]. Lying about me saying I think it's "great" to refer to Black people using the N-word is, I think, just another vile lie for which Dennis is infamous. So, yes, I think Dennis has a serious problem with racial biases. Again, not as bad as those of the hard-core (racist) Radical scum, but still quite bad.

Footnotes
[1] dmarks: And because Al and Jessie are such racists, they will never do the same about a white guy in handcuffs. (4/15/2012 AT 11:11am).
[2] dmarks: (directed at John Myste and in regards to Myste's defense of Affirmative Action) You were clearly making and defending racist statements... Good riddance, Grand Wizard of the Myste. And don't let your white robe get caught on the door on the way out. (12/9/2012 AT 10:58am). Note: John Myste's response to Dennis labeling Affirmative Action "racist" was to say "You are the first republican I have ever debated on this topic that I actually believed was a racist".

Supporting Document
White Privilege, DSD #2. (Catalog of comments dmarks has made re White Privilege).

TADM #59. See also SWTD #271.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TADM #58. See also SWTD #231.

Vile Liar Dennis Marks On Those Who "Cheered Them On" (Them Being Hamas and ISIS)

As the readers of this blog know, Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is an a-hole who loves to concoct viscious, vile and utterly ridiculous lies about those he hates. Here he lies about some Jewish people he hates "cheering" for terrorist organization Hamas as well as the jihadist group ISIS, which seeks to overthrow the government "democratically elected" after former preznit bush illegally invaded Iraq...

Dennis Marks: If humans became extinct, it could also be because groups like Hamas and ISIS ultimately became very successful, while those who should have known better ...ranging from Norm Finkelstein to Francis Boyle to WD ... cheered them on as they acted like a sort of political/military Ebola. (8/17/2014 AT 05:31:00 AM EDT).

And, as you see, he throws me into the mix as well. I'm also one of those who "cheer" for Hamas and ISIS. That is, along with two Jews that Dennis really hates. But this is the kind of vile crap one can expect when dealing with the anti-Semitic and racist scumbag known as Dennis; Black people are "racist" (with other Black people or Whites as their victims) and Jewish people are "anti-semites" (with their fellow Jews being the ones they wish to exterminate).

That is how I got labeled a "racist" by this dirtbag; it was due to my support for Affirmative Action, a program that discriminates against Whites, in Dennis' racist mind.

As for cheering on groups that hope to get their way through fear and murder, I think it goes without saying that I absolutely oppose such tactics (terrorism). But Dennis is a sick lying f*ck who ALWAYS resorts to vile (and nonsensical) lies when confronted with anyone who disagrees with his virulent stupidity.

In this case, my disagreement with Lester in regards to his Muslim bigotry... or I think this latest interjection (into a discussion that had nothing to do with terrorism) was prompted by me calling out Lester for bigotry that had him calling for Muslims to denounce their prophet... and for being "infested" with fleas and lice.

Or it could simply be more of the same, in that these vile lies from Dennis have been spewing from his dissembling maw for some time now (lies concerning me "praising" Stalin, being another example).

TADM #54. See also SWTD #269.

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.

Dennis' Passionate Defense of bin Laden Takes The Cake

Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader who financed the 9/11 attacks, is an individual who Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) considers a personal hero. In fact, Dennis frequently goes out of his way to defend Mr. bin Laden, arguing stridently against a course of action that could have resulted in bin Laden being taken into custody and tried for his role in the attacks that brought down the World Trade Center towers.

Just as recently as today (3/31/2014) the dead-horse-beating Dennis complained about this blogger's support for a plan that could have brought OBL to justice shortly after the attacks, as opposed to the ten years it ended up taking to hunt him down...

Dennis Marks: Derve found an obscure but extreme columnist who named this organization of Khadaffy, Assad, Saddam Hussein (at the time), the leader of Sudan (and many other butchers and despots) as a "moderate" organization. When it is nothing more than the worst sort of terrorist cabal. Turning Bin Laden over to them for "justice" would be akin, to, say, turning Eric Rudolph over to the KKK for them to handle it. Derve is also hung up on the idea that the bungling George W. Bush intentionally let Osama go, despite a complete lack of evidence on this. The only evidence here is of Dervish's maniacal (and sometimes murderous) hatred of our duly elected 43rd President. He is willing to shove all facts aside for that bright and shining hatred. But you are right. Dervish wanting Bin Laden to have been handed over to his fellow terrorists really really takes the cake, doesn't it? (3/31/2014 AT 10:00am EDT).

The "obscure but extreme columnist" Dennis refers to is Gareth Porter. Mr. Porter is actually an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy, and not "obscure" or "extreme". (SWTD #76).

Dennis' claim that this blogger wanted OBL to have been handed over to his "fellow terrorists" is complete bullpucky. I would have been very much opposed to such an idea, if anyone ever put it forward. But the fact is that nobody ever did. At first the Taliban suggested it would turn bin Laden over to the OIC, which is a moderate Islamic organization (I'll take the word of a historian specializing in US national security policy over that of the ad-hominem-slinging Dennis' uninformed opinion any day). Finally the Taliban (desperate not to be bombed) said that any neutral third country would do.

Who that third party might have been is something bush could have negotiated with them on. Those negotiations may have broken down, sure, but we'll never know, as bush dismissed the offer out-of-hand (because he always intended to invade, no matter what).

As for the bush administration letting Osama go, there is NOT a "complete lack of evidence". There is evidence, and the evidence is a fu*king Senate foreign relations committee report that says "Donald Rumsfeld had the chance when he was US defense secretary in December 2001 to make sure Osama bin Laden was killed or captured, but let him slip through his hands".

According to the report there is "a mass of evidence that points towards the near certainty that Bin Laden was in the Tora Bora district of the White Mountains in eastern Afghanistan" and that "fewer than 100 American troops committed to the area were not enough to block his escape".

bush demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden, responded to their YES to that demand with a refusal to discuss terms, and then (via Rumsfeld) sent a clearly inadequate number of troops to capture him? The obvious conclusion is that bin was allowed to escape.

As for the complete nonsense about turning Eric Rudolph over to the KKK - this comparison simply does not hold up - as the US authorities captured Eric Rudolph. Why the hell would the US authorities turn Rudolph over to the KKK? That wasn't the case with bin Laden. WE DIDN'T CAPTURE HIM. He was never in our custody. That bin Laden be turned over to a neutral third party for trial may not have been ideal, but it would have resulted in bin Laden being taken into custody.

What Dennis argues for is a course of action that resulted in 10 extra years of freedom for OBL. When I cite a course of action that may not have worked, but represented a chance to capture and hold bin Laden accountable, Dennis ridicules me and argues strongly in favor of bin Laden remaining free. And he makes a ludicrous comparison involving turning over a criminal we HAD IN CUSTODY to the KKK... when we NEVER HAD OBL in custody!

The ONLY reason for considering the Taliban's offer was because we did not have OBL in custody. All I argued in favor of is that any path by which OBL might have been brought to justice should have been considered. Who the hell would oppose that? Someone who wanted OBL to go free, obviously. And the dead-horse-beater continues to argue for OBL to have not faced justice for his involvement in the 9-11 attacks. That, IMO is a cake made of poo and lies that Dennis has been trying to get people to eat for 12+ years.

Finally, preznit bush was not "duly" elected, as an election being decided by the Supreme Court is not how our presidents are to be selected according to the Constitution. It's never happened before or since. Even if you believe bush got the most Florida votes (which he did not), the Supreme Court's involvement immediately nixes "duly". bush's SCOTUS anointing wasn't "duly" at all.

TADM #33. See also TADM #28 and SWTD #240

Was Osama bin Laden A Hero to Dennis Marks?

According to a delusional moron known as Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks), OBL is a "hero" to your's truly. The following Dennis' comment is in regards to a post by Willis Hart on "reforming" the Pentagon...

Dennis Marks: What makes it harder is that there are some (WD sides with) who want such reform not to save money, but to make the nation weak and strengthen our enemies such as his hero Bin Laden. (3/13/2014 at 3:12am).

Actually, I think the evidence points to bin Laden being Dennis' hero. Or having been his hero. It isn't clear from the comment above if Dennis knows bin Laden is dead. In any case, the former al Qaeda leader is (or was) surely more a hero to Dennis then to me. I favored bringing him to justice 10 years before Obama located him and gave the order to take him out.

The Taliban actually offered to turn bin Laden over to a neutral third party for trial, but Dennis (as well as his buddy Willis) rejects the idea that such a court would have convicted OBL. In fact, they LOL and insist that such a tribunal would have set bin Laden free.

That is despite the experts saying otherwise. Gareth Porter, an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy, believes trial by an Islamic organization would have arguably reduced the appeal of bin Laden and al-Qaeda enormously throughout the Islamic world. Also, having Osama tried by Islamic jurists and by an Islamic international organization would have been an enormous advantage, in that the Islamic world would have accepted the verdict as legitimate.

Surely we could have tried this route, which could not have worked out any worse than what we did end up doing, which was to allow OBL to escape at Tora Bora. And this argument of Dennis that allowing OBL to be tried by a neutral third country would have been completely unacceptable points to, I believe, Dennis' strong desire that OBL be allowed to remain free.

Given Dennis' preference that OBL be free over a chance to bring him to justice, I find it much more likely that bin Laden is Dennis' hero. The only question now is, did Dennis cry when OBL was killed?

TADM #28. See also TADM #33 and SWTD #240.

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 Thinks He Can Hide Lies By Deleting Them #1: Al Gore

Dissembling Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is obviously monitoring my truth-telling about him, as the dumbass recently deleted all his delusional comments from a thread on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog which I linked to in the commentary "Severe Conservative Delusions: Al Gore & The Invention of the Internet Edition".

Obviously Dennis was so embarrassed that I highlighted his nuttery that he had to remove his insane comments out of shame. That, or the paranoid nutter thinks he can claim I "lied" and he never authored the demented claims concerning Al Gore REALLY having claimed to be the inventor of the internet.

Problem is, now all the links in my commentary go to Dennis comments that say "this comment has been removed by the author". There is a Google cached page that I can link to in order to prove the Dennis quotes in my post are genuine, but Google cached pages don't last forever. Eventually the Google spiders trolling the internet replace cached pages with new versions, and the new versions will eventually show "this comment has been removed by the author".

So, in order to preserve Dennis' comments and the integrity of my truth telling, I have decided to copy and paste the entire comment thread from the "Contra O'Reilly" blog (the cached version) into this post. That way, even after the Google cached page is updated, there will still be a record of Dennis' inanity. I suppose (after the Google cached page is gone) Dennis can claim that I fabricated his comments, but this is the best I can do, as a paranoid nutter deleting his comments is something I have no control over.

In any case, what follows is a COMPLETE record of all the comments from the "Contra O'Reilly" blog, made in response to a 3/32/2014 post titled On Noam Chomsky 2 (post not reproduced because it hasn't been deleted).

Note: This reproduction of the Google cached page contains one "comment has been removed by the author" notation, but that comment was removed a long time ago by Dennis, likely due to spelling errors or another reason that caused him to want to correct what he said (Comment No: 7). The Comments Dennis deleted in response to me posting my commentary concerning his lying about Al Gore are comments: 4, 9, 11, 17, 19, 21, & 23 (total of 7 removed comments). Although 4 and 9 have nothing to do with Al Gore, so I don't know why he nixed those...

Begin Comment Thread 24 COMMENTS

01. dmarks [MARCH 24, 2012 AT 11:25 AM] Don't forget that this is the man who has lied about and supported the Khmer Rouge genocide, deeming it "acceptible"

02. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 24, 2012 AT 1:07 PM] According to the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, 1.7 million people were either slaughtered or starved to death by the Khmer Rouge and, yeah, you're right, if you read Mr. Chomsky's 1979(?) book, "After the Cataclysm", you certainly get the impression that it was much, much, less, and that America was the perpetrator.

03. w-dervish [MARCH 24, 2012 AT 2:48 PM] I've been an admirer for awhile... and I'll leave it at that. I could go through all your points one by one, but it would be a waste of time, as... [1] you clearly don't like the guy and nothing will convince you otherwise [2] You have some valid criticisms, but nobody's perfect... at least I know I'm not, although Will Hart may be.

As for what dmarks says should not be forgotten... I'm not even going to remember it, as I usually try to avoid memorizing false facts.

04. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 24, 2012 AT 4:34 PM] Will: Not only did he lie about the totals (the equivalent of a Holocaust denier saying only a couple hundred thousand Jews died in WW2), he also went as far as to claim that the few casualties were an OK price for all the good the Khmer Rouge was doing for Cambodia. Chomsky is a passionate left-fascist, consistently arguing for hardline, authoritarian control of the state, and an uncritical dupe when it comes to the statements of the Khmer Rouge and other socialist endeavours.

WD: You are really good at remembering false facts, as you regurgitate them readily. However, I am telling the truth about Noam Chomsky.

05. w-dervish [MARCH 24, 2012 AT 6:22 PM] dmarks: You are really good at remembering false facts, as you regurgitate them readily. However, I am telling the truth about Noam Chomsky.

False facts are your speciality dmarks. You'll never see me regurgitating any of the untruths you're constantly spouting about people like Bill Maher, Rahm Emanuel, Al Gore, Noam Chomsky, etc.

06. dmarks [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 4:50 AM] Name one fact I got wrong about any of them. You can't

07. dmarks [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 5:49 AM] This comment has been removed by the author.

08. w-dervish [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 8:10 AM] dmarks: Name one fact I got wrong about any of them. You can't.

Name one fact you got RIGHT about any of them. You can't.

09. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 9:29 AM] Amazing. WD can't even name one. He copped out.

10. w-dervish [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 9:38 AM] dmarks: Amazing. WD can't even name one. He copped out.

You couldn't name one you got right. YOU copped out.

What you got wrong was...

Bill Maher: didn't say mentally challenged people are sub-human.

Rahm Emanuel: Intended to insult Liberals by calling them f**king retarded. He didn't intend to insult mentally challenged persons.

Al Gore: didn't say he invented the internet.

Noam Chomsky: didn't support the khmer rouge genocide or deem it acceptible.

11. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 10:04 AM] "Bill Maher: didn't say mentally challenged people are sub-human."

He said they weren't people. Well, that might leave the choice of super-human vs sub-human. But he did say they were like pets. That implius sub-human. Animals. So yes he did say this.

"Rahm Emanuel: Intended to insult Liberals by calling them f**king retarded. He didn't intend to insult mentally challenged persons."

But he did in fact insult them. He equated "liberals" to this group, which he mentioned in the sentence and used a very disparaging term for.

"Al Gore: didn't say he invented the internet."

Actually, he did. That is a correct paraphrase. The word he used is "create". "Create" and "invent" are synonyms.

"Noam Chomsky: didn't support the khmer rouge genocide or deem it acceptible"

He did. He used false numbers for the deaths in order to downplay it, as part of his support, and he said that it was an OK price for the good the Khmer Rouge were doing.

You didn't even try.

12. w-dervish [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 1:42 PM] dmarks: He said [mentally challenged children] weren't people.

No he didn't. Bill Maher said, "dogs are like retarded children". (This is an exact quote from the YouTube video). Saying they were LIKE dogs isn't the same as saying they should be treated like dogs or that they aren't human. Nor did he ever suggest euthanization (another outrageous claim you've made in the past). Criticize him for what he actually said (which I agree is insulting). There is no need to make stuff up (which is what you've done and continue to do).

dmarks: But he did in fact insult them. He equated "liberals" to this group...

His insult was directed at Liberals. Also, he apologized to mentally challenged people (and the head of the Special Olympics accepted his apology), but he never apologized to Liberals.

You completely ignore the reality of what he meant (he intended to call Liberals dumb) and focus on his use of the R-word. I assume because you agree with his feelings regarding Liberals? Otherwise why not criticize him for his insult to BOTH groups?

dmarks: Actually, [Al Gore] did [say he invented the internet].

No he didn't. Snopes debunked it. They say FALSE. According to Snopes, "Al Gore did not claim he 'invented' the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way".

dmarks: The word he used is "create". "Create" and "invent" are synonyms.

Snopes disagrees. They say "Gore never used the word 'invent', and the words 'create' and 'invent' have distinctly different meanings; the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea".

Al Gore sponsored legislation that helped create the environment that lead to the internet as we know it today. That is what he was talking about.

dmarks: [Noam Chomsky] used false numbers for the deaths in order to downplay it, as part of his support, and he said that it was an OK price for the good the Khmer Rouge were doing.

No, he didn't. The source of his numbers was a survey by Michael Vickery. The numbers were not "false", although they have been disputed. But that's not the same as saying they were fabricated. Nobody has said Michael Vickery outright fabricated his numbers.

Also, Noam Chomsky's co-author, Edward Herman, (while referring to the Khmer Rouge as "villains"), said he and Chomsky "went to great pains to stress that there was no doubt that the Khmer Rouge was committing serious crimes..."

So, Noam Chomsky's book says the Khmer Rouge committed serious crimes, and you interpret that as support? I interpret your interpretation as lying.

13. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 2:10 PM] wd, according to the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, 1.7 million people were either slaughtered or starved to death by the Khmer Rouge. I think that I'll take the word of them over a person who has consistently stated that Democratic Capitalism is far more despicable than Communism.

14. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 2:15 PM] And I'm sorry, wd, "Dogs are like retarded children" - there just aren't a lot of ways to justify that bad boy. Maher is an idiot and he should be shamed and shamed harshly.

15. Will "take no prisoners" Hart [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 2:30 PM] BB Idaho, consider me open to the suggestions in that article, especially the one on catastrophic care/coverage.

16. w-dervish [MARCH 26, 2012 AT 4:04 PM] Will: according to the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, 1.7 million people were either slaughtered or starved to death by the Khmer Rouge.

I didn't say I agreed with either Michael Vickery or Noam Chomsky (for going with the former's numbers). What I was pushing back against was dmarks' implying that either outright fabricated their numbers or that Chomsky "supported the Khmer Rouge genocide".

Will: Democratic Capitalism is far more despicable than Communism.

Noam Chomsky said this? Do you have a link to an article? I'd be interested in reading it.

Will: ...there just aren't a lot of ways to justify that bad boy.

OK, but I never tried to do that. I only pointed out that it didn't mean Maher thought they're sub-human or that they should be euthanized. In any case, that statement is quite old. Show me a recent statement (or any other) where he says something insensitive about mentally challenged persons. I doubt there is a pattern. If there is I might go along with you on this "shaming".

17. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 4:47 AM] "only pointed out that it didn't mean Maher thought they're sub-human"

He simply said it, by saying there were like pets, and weren't even people.

Whether or not they were to be euthenized, ground up for dog food, or other such things as happens to animals only follows from such thinking. Check the history of African American slaves, who weren't considered to be people and were talked of in condescending way also.

"Al Gore sponsored legislation that helped create the environment that lead to the internet as we know it today. That is what he was talking about."

We went over this before. 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.

Snopes statement was careless ("Al Gore did not claim he 'invented' the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way"). In the CNN transcript, Gore clearly said he created the Internet. While the first half of what Snopes says in that statement is correct (because Gore did not use the actual word "invent"), the second part of Snopes statement is incorrect. This is because Gore used the word "create"... a synonym. And synonyms of course fall into "reasonable interpretation". Your mention of the legislation Gore sponsored that changed the Internet long after its creation or invention is irrelevant, becuase it is not what Gore said.

As for Maher, you are ignoring the rest of his rant when he said that the mentally disabled weren't people because they had retarded brains.

18. w-dervish [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 7:41 AM] dmarks, why the hell would Al Gore say he invented the internet? Anyone watching would know he was wrong, or at least strongly suspect it (and be able to look it up and confirm he didn't invent it). Al Gore isn't stupid, yet you insist he was dumb enough to think people would believe he invented the internet? I say you're dumb. He was CLEARLY referring to the legislation he sponsored.

dmarks: [Bill Maher] simply said it, by saying there were like pets, and weren't even people.

No he didn't. He meant mentally, not literally. This is something any rational person hearing that comment would know immediately. They may very well still be offended, but they'd never reach the conclusions you've reached, which are completely wacky, IMO... and include a bunch of over-the-top conclusions that do not "follow".

Also, Bill Maher is a strong supporter of PETA, a group that believes animals have rights... and according to Bill Maher, comparring a person to an animal is a COMPLIMENT.

19. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 8:46 AM] "dmarks, why the hell would Al Gore say he invented the internet?"

Don't know. Maybe because politicians say stupid things? But the fact remains he did say it.

"Anyone watching would know he was wrong"

I've watched that clip many times, and yes he was wrong.

"He was CLEARLY referring to the legislation he sponsored."

Now that is a flat out lie. You are defending Gore on what you think he said, not what he actually said. He CLEARLY took credit for bringing the Internet into being. Which in fact he never did: it existed before the point in time in which he claimed to have invented it (exact word "Created").

"No he didn't. He meant mentally, not literally."

I take Maher for what he said. Not what I wish he said.

"which are completely wacky"

That radical said that the mentally disabled weren't people. If anything is wacky, it is your denying he said it.

"IMO... and include a bunch of over-the-top conclusions that do not "follow"."

There's nothing over the top in "following" with a description of the rights people would lose if it was indeed decided that they weren't people anymore.

"Also, Bill Maher is a strong supporter of PETA, a group that believes animals have rights... and according to Bill Maher, comparring a person to an animal is a COMPLIMENT."

Yet, he chose to dehumanize only the mentally challenged.

20. w-dervish [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 10:08 AM] dmarks: Now that is a flat out lie [that Al Gore was referring to the legislation he sponsored when he said he took the initiative in creating the internet"].

No, it's the truth. Snopes agrees.

dmarks: I take Maher for what he said. Not what I wish he said.

No you aren't. You're taking him for what you think he meant.

21. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 10:57 AM] "No, it's the truth. Snopes agrees."

I am looking at the actual statements, not the conclusions. Why not judge Gore on what he actually said, instead of what some wish he said?

"You're taking him for what you think he meant."

No. His equating people with pets/dogs and then later saying they aren't even people is bad enough.

22. w-dervish [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 1:26 PM] dmarks: I am looking at the actual statements, not the conclusions.

There's your problem. You're skipping the most important part. For ideological reasons, I'd guess. You don't like Al Gore's politics... so you ignore the whole story, focusing on his words and ignoring what he really meant. Snopes is right and dmarks is wrong.

dmarks: [Bill Maher] later saying they aren't even people is bad enough.

But he didn't say that. I just watched the video again to be sure. You're lying or delusional.

23. DELETED dmarks [MARCH 28, 2012 AT 4:30 PM] I am skipping nothing. I am looking at Gore's actual statement. And his intention, which can only be discerned by his actual words.

Nothing ideological. If Bush had taken credit for the internet, I'd criticize him for the false statement also (neither Gore nor Bush created the Internet: it existed before they were on the scene).

But I suppose ideology would play a role here. If Bush had lied as Gore had, you'd be savaging him for it.

As for Maher, watch the video again. Perhaps you are watching an edited/shorter video that cuts off before he says they aren't people due to their retarded brains.

24. w-dervish [MARCH 29, 2012 AT 6:02 PM] dmarks: If Bush had taken credit for the internet...

bush didn't sponsor legislation that helped create the internet as it exists today, Gore did. We should all thank Gore for helping set up the environment that lead to the internet as we now know it.

Gore only took credit for what he did (sponsor legislation that directly lead to the internet as we know it today). If bush had made a similar claim he would have been lying, so yes, I would be savaging him for it.

Because, coming from Gore the statement is truthful, while if bush had said the same thing it would have been a lie.

I watched the entire Maher video clip (they went to commercial at the end). He never said mentally challenged persons "aren't people due to their retarded brains". You're lying or imagining it.

End Comment Thread

Deleted comments 17 and 19 are the two I linked to - and included excerpts from - in the post "Severe Conservative Delusions: Al Gore & The Invention of the Internet Edition". Comments 4 and 9, as I already pointed out, have nothing to do with Dennis' lies about Al Gore - so I don't know why he got ride of them. Comments 11, 21 and 23 mention Al Gore, although I did not link to them in my post. Dennis probably deleted them to remove all evidence of his nutty lies concerning the ex-VP.

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

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.