Dennisism #3: Fabricated Quote

This is the third installment that examines words or phrases that Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) has rewritten to serve his own purposes. See here for the post in which I explain (in greater detail) what a "Dennisism" is.

In this installment Dennis insists a political cartoon contains a "fabricated quote" because a word balloon that points at former preznit bush contains a sentence never actually spoken by the man. Perhaps Dennis' confusion is understandable given the fact that the image is not a drawing but rather a photoshopped photograph?

I say no. Dennis may be a total moron, but even he should know better. I think the following comment amounts to a LIE, in that Dennis attempts to argue that a photoshopped image features a "fabricated quote".

Dennis Marks: WD... found a rant in a hobby blog, one that contains this fabricated quotation from Bush: "Karl Told me to Feed You Press Boys the Same Crock of Bullsh*t" (6/28/2014 at 9:52pm).

This idiocy from Dennis was in response to me linking to an article that discussed the war profiteering of the bush and Cheney famalies (via The Carlyle Group & Halliburton, respectively) that contained the image below (image #1).

I've included another image that contains a "fabricated quote" (image #2). Did Michelle Obama ever congratulate her husband on the "fake Hawaiian birth certificate" that he had created for him? I doubt it. And if she had I'm sure that it was in private, and NOT in the presence of a photographer!

Is Dennis REALLY failing to recognize that this photoshopped image with a "fabricated quote" is intended as political humor? Is he really THAT DUMB... or is he lying? In my opinion it does not matter. Either he's failing to recognize it as humorous and arguing it contains a "fabricated quote"... or he's telling an incredibly stupid lie.

Whichever is the case Dennis is a f*cking dipshit.

As to what a "fabricate quote" is according to the dictionary authored by Dennis? Obviously it is a quote attributed to someone in a political cartoon/photoshopped image intended to be humorous that Dennis dislikes.

And if such a cartoon is attached to a legitimate article, the dishonest Dennis will attempt to "discredit" the article by pointing to the "fabricated quote".

Image #1: President bush tells the truth about his lying to the American people. A humorous photoshopped image that places words in bush's mouth that he never said (obviously).

Image #2: Michelle Obama looks at a fake Hawaiian birth certificate Barack just handed her and voices her approval in regards to the "awesome" job the forgers did. Why did Michelle allow a photographer to snap this image AND overhear her words (which he jotted down and attached to his photo)? Obviously the quote is FABRICATED!! That, or this might be another image intended as political humor. Who knows? Which conclusion you reach depends on whether or not you are a complete idiot.

TADM #39

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 

Dumb Dennis On Single Payer Being "Complete Control" of The Health Care System

Dennis the dummy (AKA Dennis Marks, AKA dmarks) recently made the following false statement regarding single payer...

Dennis Marks: Considering that Obama has himself said that that is ultimate goal is complete control of the healthcare system. (4/13/2014 AT 07:16:00 AM EDT).

First of all, the healthcare system includes doctors and hospitals. The only healthcare system that the government has complete control over is the VA. Under that system the government employs the doctors, pays their salaries, and owns the hospitals. Single payer is government insurance and does NOT entail government employment of all doctors or ownership of all hospitals.

Single payer is in no way what-so-ever "complete control of the healthcare system". But the dummy Dennis continues to argue that it is even when another commenter calls him on his BS. In fact he argues it much more stridently, insisting that "the fact is that single payer is complete central control over health care. Being in favor of it DOES mean it is your goal. That's a fact, not opinion".

Actually, this is not a fact or an opinion. It is a statement that is completely false. If Dennis had said the president favored complete control over the healthcare INSURANCE system, then I might acknowledge he was a little closer to the truth - although I'd still disagree because the existence of a single payer system does not mean that private insurers are barred from competing.

I'd be in favor of private insurance being allowed to exist - and I think Obama would too. So single payer is NOT "complete control" of the HC insurance system (even though it COULD be). And Obama has never said he wanted "complete control", only that he favors single payer.

In any case, Dennis said the healthcare system and NOT the healthcare INSURANCE system, so he's flat out lying. Or so obtuse as to not get the distinction (and the distinction is significant).

Finally Dennis links to the video below and claims that, in it, Obama saying he favors single payer is the same as Obama advocating for "complete control". Dennis claims that his quotation fabrication is a "paraphrase".

Ah, no. It's Dennis showing us all how dumb he is. Anyway, according to Dennis it's a difference of opinion regarding "whether or not this type of control is good or bad". I'd say it's good, if we're only discussing single payer, and not debating nonsense about SP being "complete control" when it isn't.

And I'd say SP is good because it puts WE THE PEOPLE in charge instead of the for-profit healthcare insurance industry which is ONLY interested in making profit... as opposed to helping people live healthy productive lives - which is what healthcare SHOULD be all about.

But cutting out the middlemen who want to screw us over for profit is obviously what Dennis objects to. These are the rich leeches Dennis wants to have "complete control" and Dennis' lies about calling him on his BS involving "ignoring meanings and words" and that "one can say [Dennis] stretched it" is NOT a matter of opinion.

"One cannot say I made it up" Dennis claims. But he did make it up. Single payer is not "complete control". Also, Obama only said he favored SP and NEVER fought for it as he SHOULD HAVE. The way it is now the for-profit insurers still wield too much control. Control they are using to screw customers with ridiculous rate increases. A little less ridiculous thanks to the ACA, but still we're paying a lot more than other countries that have (and love) SP.

TADM #36

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

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