A Case Study In Deep-Seated Racism & Self Delusion (Re Dennis Marks' Belief That Most African Americans Are Greedy & Lazy)

As I have noted on a number of occasions on this blog previously, Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is one of those racists who actually believes himself to not be racist. Fact is, he often accuses others of "racism" when they violate his own personal moral code. A code under which Dennis can refer to Black teens (Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin) as "violent thugs" (TADM #56 and SWTD #170) and Black leaders (Al Sharpton and various African American members of Congress) as "devout racists" and "race hustlers" (SWTD #244 and TADM #27).

But, despite the fact that Dennis denies his racism (to everyone including himself), the fact remains that it is deep-seated. Dennis, for example, buys into the stereotype that most Black people are lazy and would prefer to live on the public dole instead of working. That, or, if they are accomplished, their accomplishments are the result of Affirmative Action programs under which the lazy Black individual was wrongly afforded an opportunity that should have gone to a more deserving (White) person.

Specifically I refer to a response by Dennis to the following (racially biased) commentary from the blog "Contra O'Reilly by one Willis Hart...

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington Were Both Born into Slavery and Yet Neither of Them Ever Asked for Preferential Treatment from the Government and in Fact Were Adamantly Opposed to Such Policies (Asking Instead Only for Equal Opportunity)... Now THAT is an "inconvenient" truth, folks. (3/25/2015 AT 9:53pm).

So, two African Americans who were obviously of genius level intellectually felt they didn't need help getting ahead. That is all well and good - but most people (of all races) are not geniuses. Also, if African Americans HAD indeed been given EQUAL opportunity following the abolishment of slavery, well then Affirmative Action wouldn't have been necessary. But the fact is that racism continues and there is not equal opportunity. Affirmative Action programs were an (imperfect) attempt to address this FACT.

Yet we have people like Willis arguing against doing anything for African Americans to help them overcome the racism that still exists today. As Martin Luther King put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" (Source).

Me, I agree with MLK, although I recognize the truth in the views of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington. *If* the Whites had offered equal opportunity instead of racist policies designed to keep Black folks down... that would have been preferable. But, as we all know, that didn't happen. And that, I think, is the real "inconvenient truth"... that people like Willis ignore.

In any case, what I'd like to highlight here is the response (to the above Willis commentary) by Dennis.

Dennis Marks: Indeed. They weren't greedy and lazy. (3/26/2015 AT 9:24pm).

So they're weren't greedy and lazy... like the average African American was and is. This is what Dennis really means. He subscribes to this racist stereotype because Dennis is a racist. And we know that Dennis believes this stereotype to be accurate based on past comments.

For example, in regards to our president, Dennis has (on a number of occasions) referred to Mr. Obama as "lazy"... and implied that Obama is one of those accomplished African Americans who got where he is due to unfair advantages given to him via Affirmative Action.

Dennis Marks: When one points out the facts of this exceptionally indolent and lazy man, who shows passion for few causes other than really nasty ones (like his attempt to abolish the secret ballot for union elections) ... look at any poll of the problems facing the nation, and you will never find "not enough executive golf" and "a shortage of campaign funds" to be on the list. Very misplaced priorities. (7/31/2014 AT 07:51:00 PM EDT).

Obama exceptionally indolent and Lazy? Yeah, I think we all recognize these racist dog-whistles. "Thug" is another racist dog-whistle. And, as I pointed out at the top of this post, Dennis has used this pejorative to refer to the murdered Black youths Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin (See SWTD #275 and SWTD #170 in which I defend my use of the word "murder").

"Thug" is a word that the racists of today use in place of ni**er. In a discussion with Wendy Williams in regards to football player Richard Sherman saying "Thug is accepted way of calling someone N-word", Charles Barkley said "thug... is pseudo for the N-word. Every Black person knows that" (see video below).

Dennis would, of course, totally deny that he was/is using "thug" in place of the N-word, but I don't buy it given his previous (and continued) use of all the other dog-whistles he employs. If someone quacks like a racist they're probably a racist. And Dennis quacks like a racist very frequently.

And, in addition to the quacking (dog-whistling), Dennis frequently rails against Affirmative Action - calling it "racist" (against Whites) and, get this... he actually defends the GOP racist ploy (of pandering to racist Whites for votes) known as "The Southern Strategy".

Dennis Marks: The Southern Strategy? Quite defensible. When the Dems became racist, favoring "affirmative action" policies which tilted the playing field in favor of blacks and instead of whites, people who wanted a fair, level playing field were understandably disenchanted with the Dems. A ripe time for the GOP, which then and now pushes for a level playing field to come in. (5/5/2013 at 4:53pm, comment on the blog My Daily Trek).

Right. Dennis argues that the Democrats became racist by OPPOSING racism. And Dennis can't possibly believe this BS, given that the first Republican (Richard Nixon) who employed the strategy SPECIFICALLY noted that the purpose of it was so "Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans".

But Dennis is probably lying in order to convince himself he isn't racist. And he likely believes this lie. Despite how utterly ridiculous it is. The "playing field" has never been tilted in favor of Blacks. And the "people who wanted a fair, level playing field" were actually the Negrophobe whites who wanted the playing field to be continued to be tilted in their favor. This is something that all of us who aren't racists know.

Something else that all of us who aren't racially biased (like Dennis) know is that the GOP has not been pushing for a level playing field "then and now". The GOP continues to employ tactics to disenfranchise Black voters. Even the former Republican National Committee chairman acknowledged this fact. Although he incorrectly (and naively) claims that when he became chairman he announced "we're not doing that anymore" (SWTD #274).

"We're not doing that ANYMORE" is an admission that prior to Steele being elected chairman the Southern Strategy WAS being employed (which is VERY recent history, folks).

So Nixon said the strategy was used specifically to win the votes of Negrophobe Whites and a former (and recent) Republican National Committee chairman affirms this (even if he wrongly claims "we're not doing that anymore") while Dennis sez the GOP NEVER had a strategy designed to win the votes of Negrophobe Whites? He says it was an appeal to those who desired a "level playing field". Sure, that's believable. As opposed to laughable.

No, wait, Dennis claims concerning the Southern Strategy are laughable. As well as racist, as it puts a spin on the tactic that is categorically false, historically inaccurate and should anger those of us who acknowledge the moral wrongness of the strategy (of pandering to racists). That Dennis defends this strategy is reprehensible, but just the kind of delusional thinking you'd expect from a deep-seated racist... which the facts show that Dennis clearly is.

All the facts - the dog-whistling, the continual reference of BLACK people as "racist" (when they aren't), and the defense of the racist Southern Strategy PROVE that Dennis is a racist. An in-denial racist, but a racist none-the-less. Case closed.

By the way, my purpose in authoring this commentary was to push back against a recent claim from Dennis that it is *I* who has a problem with "deep-seated racism and prejudice". This because I pointed out that he continually refers to Black youths as "thugs" and "violent felons" (although I didn't mention his frequent dog-whistling and slandering of Black leaders as racist when they aren't).

Sorry, Dennis, but the evidence of your racism and prejudice is vast and irrefutable (as I have documented on this blog).

Video Description: Former NBA star Charles Barkley explains why he agrees with Richard Sherman on the meaning behind the word "thug" (2:38)

TADM #60

"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.

Dennis Marks Frying Up Old Bones In Canardo Oil Re Elizabeth Warren Native American Controversy

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) hates Progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren and, although it didn't work for Scott Brown (Warren receiving 54% of the vote comparred to Brown's 46%), Dennis still brings up the "Native American controversy" quite often... for example...

Dennis Marks: ...Elizabeth Warren, who has fraudulently presented [her]self as a Native American for personal gain. It's a form of racism... (9/10/2014 AT 8:39pm).

So, did Elizabeth Warren "fradulently" present herself as a Native American for personal gain? Did the voters think she did but simply not care? "No", to the first question and "I don't know" to the second one. Obviously she was the better candidate, even if she believed some family stories that (apparently) later turned out to not be true, or at least not provable. But Warren did NOT lie, as saying something you believe to be true is not a lie, nor did she "gain" from believing she had a Cherokee ancestor.

Josh Hicks of the Washington Post: [Scott] Brown said that Warren "checked the box claiming she was Native American" when she applied to Harvard and Penn, suggesting the Democratic candidate somehow gained an unfair advantage because of an iffy ethnic background. But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her. The senator's debate comments also suggest Warren actively applied for positions with Harvard and Penn, but the evidence suggests the schools recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy. Harvard, in fact, did not give up on her after she first turned down a tenured position with the university. (Everything you need to know about Elizabeth Warren's claim of Native American heritage, 9/28/2012).

Senator Warren "personally gained" from her ACCOMPLISHMENTS and had absolutely no need to fradulently present herself as Native American...

WP (quote from same article as above): [Warren] did groundbreaking research while teaching at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law on how the nation's bankruptcy code was affecting average families. ... [Her] work put Warren at the cutting edge of a new school of legal thought that emphasized real impacts on people's lives rather than mere theory. It also led to her first book, "As We Forgive Our Debtors", which won the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award after it was published in 1989. ... Warren went on to write bankruptcy-related articles for The Yale Law Journal in 1992, and Michigan Law Review in 1993.

Now, it is true that various Native American groups have looked into Warren's (old) claims of Native American heritage and have not been able to verify she has any Indian ancestors, but Warren didn't personally gain from the claims, nor were her claims "fraudulent", as she believed them. Her belief based on "stories she says she heard from family members as a child".

Warren did not anticipate running for political office and therefore did not anticipate that her past would be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Otherwise she probably would have researched whether what she was told was true or not, instead of "stupidly" believing what grandparents told her and her brother, which was that "your grandfather is part Delaware, a little bitty bit, way back, and your grandmother is part Cherokee".

Also, as the WP article linked to above points out...

Undocumented claims of Native American ancestry, especially those based on family lore, are not uncommon in this country. That's especially true in places like Oklahoma, which ranks second in the U.S. in number of Native American residents and third in percentage of population of that descent, according to U.S. Census data.

So, did Warren make a mistake when she "listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory"? Perhaps. But she did so because she believed her grandparents. Also, as I already pointed out, Warren did not gain anything from doing this. So who really cares? Besides Dennis, that is. He's convinced she lied and did so to gain something.

But, as I have just pointed out, the evidence does not support this conclusion. Dennis continues beating this dead horse (or "frying up old bones in canardo oil") regarding Warren "lying" about Native American heritage she may or may not have due to hatred for Progressives - and not because the facts support this position. A dead horse for sure, due to the voters not rejecting her because she "lied".

And he ridiculously labels Warren's belief that her grandparents did not tell her the truth as "racism", which is outrageous given Dennis' own racist proclivities (which I have documented on this blog extensively).

Supporting Document
Elizabeth Warren Is A Lying Asshole, A Fake & A Contemptible Wannabe Who Boosted Her Career With A Fraudulent Claim Of Being A Native American & Who Supports The Evil Occupy Wall Street Movement, DSD #14

Update, 10/15/2018: DNA Test Reveals Elizabeth Warren Has Native American Ancestry, WYM #85.

TADM #57

Dennisism #7: Violent Felon

Who is a "violent felon" according to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks)? It's someone who has been accused of violence, but for which said violence has not been proven. As for the "felon" part, by "felon" Dennis means someone who has never been convicted of a felony.

The following idiot remarks from Dennis, in regards to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson MO on August 9, 2014...

Dennis Marks: Just like, in my view, I can't see any reason why the cop had to fire so many shots at the violent felon assaulting him. (8/21/2014 AT 4:11am).

First of all, Michael Brown has no criminal record, which means he was never even arrested, let alone charged with and convicted of a felony. Which is a REQUIREMENT for referring to someone as a "felon"... that they have been charged and convicted of a felony...

The Legal Dictionary: felon n. a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is a crime punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison. (Link).

No felony conviction. No record at all. Not a felon... to anyone but Dennis, that is. And the supposed strongarm robbery that Brown committed just prior to being shot is also disputed.

Michael Brown seems to have paid for his cigarillos... [surveillance] video [supposedly] shows Brown robbing the store, taking a box of cigars. However, the attorney for Ferguson Market says that it was not anyone from the store that called police to report a robbery. In fact, a customer called to report what he viewed as a robbery. ...the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead in the street. In their fervent effort to cast Brown in a negative light, [the police] missed that the video seems to show Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets. (article by John Prager, from Americans Against the Tea Party. via Crooks and Liars, 8/18/2014).

So, no felony conviction and also quite likely no act for which Michael Brown might have been convicted of a crime later. In any case, stealing a box of cigars wouldn't have been a felony but a misdemeanor... *if* that is what happened (and the evidence suggests that it is not).

As for the assault, the verdict on that is... possibly. That is the cop's version of events, but it should be noted that other witnesses dispute the assault. Wikipedia refers to what happened as an "altercation". CNN describes the incident as follows...

Rachel Clarke and Christopher Lett, CNN: Some witnesses say the teenager assaulted the officer at the outset and tried to grab his gun; other witnesses say Wilson was the aggressor. (What happened when Michael Brown met Officer Darren Wilson, 8/26/2014).

But this would not be the first time Mr. Marks has accused someone of being a "felon" who was never even charged with a crime...

Dennis Marks: Zimmerman was an armed neighborhood watch guy spoiling for a confrontation, and Martin was a drug-crazed berserker (a felon who should have been behind bars). A true Battle of Stalingrad: both bad guys. But one of them killed the other. (6/18/2013 AT 8:14pm).

Trayvon Martin, another unarmed African American teen who was shot and killed, was not a "bad guy", nor could any rational person describe his encounter with George Zimmerman as "a true Battle of Stalingrad". Because such a description would be truly idiotic. And Dennis saying "one killed the other" is also idiotic... because it was the one with the GUN who killed the other one!

Anyway, that Martin assaulted Zimmerman is something I am not convinced happened, as we only have Zimmerman's word for it. Some point to the witness John Good, but what Good actually said was he "couldn't be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom" and "he didn't see the person on top smashing the other person's head into the sidewalk". (quotes from Good's testimony).

And remember that Zimmerman has good cause to lie, given the fact that he was facing a murder charge. But it is the fact that both of these young Black men were unarmed while their killers both had a firearm. So, no surprise that the unarmed person in each situation died.

More importantly, I would say that in both cases it isn't known if either of these young Black men were violent. In Trayvon's case there was only one witness (besides Good, who, as I already pointed out, did not see what some think he saw) and that witness is a liar (Zimmerman lied about many other things).

With Michael Brown the fact is we don't know yet what the witnesses are going to say under oath, or how the trial (provided there is one) might shake out. So we can NOT say he was "violent". And he (like Trayvon) was never convicted of any crime, including a felony.

But dumb Dennis refers to both of these individuals as "violent felons". And they're both Black... which causes me to think that the racism of Dennis might be a factor here. Especially given Dennis' past history of racist accusations against other African Americans.

In any case... the Dennisism "violent felon" is obviously defined as someone who has never convicted or even accused of a felony. Although they (always a young African American male) have been accused of violence - albeit with scant or inconclusive evidence (or testimony from an untrustworthy source). Another sign that race could be a factor when Dennis reaches these conclusions? He was a young Black male... so OF COURSE he was violent!

Or so Dennis' thinking might go. Who know when it comes to this delusional nutcase?

TADM #56. See also SWTD #170 and SWTD #270.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TADM #55

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.