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

On Dennis Marks & Barbara Lee

Barbara Jean Lee, the U.S. Representative for California's 13th congressional district and a Democrat, "gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of congress to vote NO on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), stating that she voted no not because she opposed military action but because she believed the AUMF, as written, granted overly-broad powers to wage war to the president" (blurb via Wikipedia).

Because of this, Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) remarked "Lee is the one who voted like the Taliban slipped her a check. She is also a devout racist" (comment from the blog "Contra O'Reilly"; made on 1/11/2014 at 4:28am).

Correction: the "Taliban slipped her a check" was due to her AUMF vote; and the "racist" crack was due to... who knows? I'm going to guess it's because she's Black. Whenever Dennis accuses someone of racism, it seems as though they are always Black. I certainly cannot think of an example of him calling a White person a racist (except for David Duke, and that's a no-brainer).

In any case... Barbara Lee deserve mucho kudos for being the ONLY one who recognized the FACT that the AUMF granted WAY to much power to the president. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and with the AUMF Congress ceded it's power to the president (who then abused it and started two illegal wars, one with a country whose leader was an enemy of bin Laden).

TADM #32. See also SWTD #244.

Dennisism #2: Backstab

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

Dictionary.com defines "backstab" (verb - used with object), as an "attempt to discredit (a person) by underhanded means, as innuendo, accusation, or the like".

Dennis redefines "backstab" to mean an attempt to discredit a person (him, specifically) by telling the truth about them. Or by quoting him and allowing said quotes to speak for themselves... as this truth-telling blogger does here.

This new definition for "backstab" was used by Dennis in the following comment...

Dennis Marks: [in regard to comments on another blog, that person] is not here to read this. However, this is not the "backstabbing" that [another progressive blogger I hate] and WD engage in: it is a compliment to the man. (3/22/2014 at 1:34pm).

In regards to the other progressive blogger that Dennis hates, I am unsure what "backstabbing" or truth-telling Dennis is referring to. This other blogger does not interact much, if at all, with Dennis. I do know that the "backstabbing" that comes from this blogger that enrages Dennis is my truth-telling about him. The posts on this very blog (as well as others) have caused many tantrums to be thrown by the doofus named Dennis. Although, when the tantrums are thrown on the blogs of Lester Nation or Willis Hart, Dennis is protected by the respective blog proprietors from being called out on his lying.

Hence my truth-telling about Dennis here. It isn't allowed on the two other blogs that Dennis frequents. On those blogs "the management" appreciates (and cheers) the dissembling of the delusional dummy.

TADM #31

Dennisism #1: Dictionary Rewriting & Synonym

Dennis Marks has a, shall we say, "unique" way of looking at the world that differs from that of ordinary people. The purpose of this series of posts is to define what I have decided to call "Dennisisms". They could also be called "dmarkisms", if you prefer (given the fact that dmarks is Dennis' Blogger ID).

If one finds him or herself involved in a conversation with Mr. Marks, confusion regarding this fellow's use of terms might result. You think he's talking about one thing, but you've got it wrong. The reason being that Dennis invents his own definitions and uses his own terminology. Yeah, that tripped me up at first too.

Problem is, this is something that Dennis is not even aware that he's doing. As far as he's concerned, his dictionary rewriting, personal definitions and phraseology is normal. He just makes this stuff up and believes it applies to everyone! Unbelievable, but true.

For this first installment the Dennis re-terminology I am highlighting is "dictionary rewriting", which Dennis may accuse a detractor of if said detractor quotes the dictionary to prove him wrong.

Yes, you got that right... an EXACT dictionary quote - complete with a link to ensure no words have been changed - is "rewriting" according to this delusional doofus.

Dennis last accused me of this when I cited Dictionary.com, which defines a synonym as "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another". Dennis' argument is that since "create" and "invent" are synonyms, that Al Gore actually did claim to have invented the internet, as "create" (the word he actually used) is a synonym of "invent".

Obviously Dennis defines synonyms as words that always have EXACTLY the same meaning (Dennis rewrites the dictionary definition by removing the "or nearly the same meaning" portion).

TADM #30