This Blog Remains Closed, Although Still Not Abandoned

The above picture was one of the results returned when I did a Google image search on "Dennis Marks". I seriously doubt Dennis Marks is a realtor. I'm also pretty sure the first name of the blogger who uses the ID dmarks isn't "Dennis".

Although it might be. I don't know. In any case (as per the title of this post) this blog was closed (in 2016) and remains closed. Since then dmarks has largely disappeared from the blogosphere. I think he's still around, however.

In any case, it's been over 2 years since my last post. And 4 years since I closed this blog. The purpose of this post is not to announce that "The Truth About Dennis Marks" has been reopened, but just to remind people (in the unlikely event that anyone stops by) that this blog hasn't been abandoned.

 tadm-88 

"The Truth About Dennis Marks" Is Still Closed, Although It Not Been Abandoned

As you may have noticed, this blog has not been updated for a long time. That is because the subject of this blog, an individual I have come into conflict with in the past, has largely disappeared from blogging. I haven't seen or engaged with him for a long time, in any case.

Perhaps he has given up blogging. Commenting included. His blog was shuttered years ago. Because I sent some comments his way that I did not think he'd publish. So they were pretty outrageous, I admit. I was not happy that he decided to ban me from his blog because I called him out on a lie concerning his gun nuttery, which is that Chicago having a lot of murders is "proof" that sensible gun regulation doesn't work.

So I sent him some admittedly trollish comments. He closed down his blog a while later, but opened it to "invited readers". And, as has been the case with other bloggers in the past, he didn't use the "invited readers" option to shut down his blog. He actually invited people to read.

And he published the trollish comments I sent him for his invited readers to view. The point of this was to make me look bad. And, because I was not an invited reader, I couldn't delete the comments. Comments I submitted thinking he'd never publish them. And, if he did, I would delete them.

Oh well. I don't know if "invited readers" are reading dmarks' blog any longer. I think that that ploy was something that went on for a short while and now the blog is closed with no readers. I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

Anyway, I closed this blog because Dennis and I came to a peaceful accord. He dislikes Trump and actually voted for Hillary in the past potus election. He says. Not that I don't believe him. I just wasn't looking over his shoulder in the voting booth. Which raised my opinion of the fellow. At least he isn't a trumper.

That said, I stand by all the previous commentaries I wrote on this blog previously. I meant what I wrote when I wrote them. I haven't interacted much with Dennis recently, nor have I read any comments by him that offended me for quite a long time. As far as I am concerned our differences are in the past.

If Dennis were to return and start spewing his idiocy again my opinion on letting bygones be bygones might change. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen. I have seen some Dennis comments since closing this blog but they all contained zero idiocy for me to get offended by. His comments, as far as I remember, were actually all quite agreeable.

So this blog remains closed. Not deleted. Not set to "invited readers only" to hide it from view. Also not abandoned. Comments are still accepted and I will likely respond. If I see that a new comment has been submitted. But, given that this blog never saw much traffic when it was open, I seriously doubt anyone has looked at it in a very long time and I would actually be shocked if anyone commented.

TADM #87

"The Truth About Dennis Marks" Is Now Closed

As you may have noticed, this blog has not been updated for awhile. That is because the subject of this blog, an individual I have come into conflict with in the past, has decided not to engage me as of late. At least NOT to disagree in the manner he has in the past.

I have, however, up until recent developments, left open the possibility that I might post an occasional commentary. Because I still have a few uncompleted posts in my DRAFT folder.

Posts that I started writing because I read something that really offended me, found unbelievably absurd, etc. And I felt that I had to respond. But I just didn't get around to completing these commentaries. Because my focus was elsewhere, and also due to the reason I gave for this blog's inactivity.

That said, I am not deleting anything. Simply because I don't do that. I have, however changed the visibility of the blog from "Listed on Blogger. Visible to search engines" to "Not listed on Blogger. Not visible to search engines" (under Settings/Privacy).

What this means is that TADM posts will no longer show up in Google search results. Not immediately, but eventually this will mean that the blog will become effectively invisible. Or, there won't be any way for anyone to find it except via a direct link (such as the link to it on my sidebar WHICH WILL REMAIN). There are links in posts I've written on my primary blog SWTD, although these are all older posts and I doubt anyone has looked at any of them in a long time.

Anyway, the point is that this blog got little traffic in the past and will likely get even less in the future. Less mostly because I haven't been updating it with new posts. Now probably none/effectively none with the Settings change I just made.

That does not mean that there is zero possibility that this blog will ever become active again. But I doubt that there will be future posts. If there are any future posts they might be of the "polite disagreement" variety. I am not planning anything along those lines, though. I only mention it as a remote possibility.

Or, it could return with no changes (with posts of the "hostile disagreement" variety). Although I'm only throwing that out there because I have no idea could happen that MIGHT convince me to bring back TADM in the future. There was one comment concerning union members/supporters "going full Pol Pot" that REALLY offended me. There is a commentary in my DRAFT folder responding to that one that I did intend to finish.

I wish I had. But now I guess I'll just let it go. Unless something changes in the future. But, as per the title of this post, for now the blog is closed. For now and for the foreseeable future. By which I mean that the odds are LOW that there will be any future posts.

TADM #86

Dennisism #11: Lie

You're probably not aware of it, but an opinion that is not true is a lie. This according to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). Although what he really meant to say (IMO) is that "an opinion that I disagree with is a lie". Given the fact that opinions often can't be proven to be right or wrong (at least not unequivocally).

If the world were that Black and White nobody would hold differing opinions, as the truth would be self-evident, and anyone who attempted to put forward a wrong "opinion" would immediately be called on it.

In any case, what we have here is another of Mr. Marks' word re-definitions. The REAL definition of lie is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood". A definition that directly contradicts the definition made up by Marks.

Given the fact that an opinion that is wrong lacks the "deliberate intent to deceive". Although Marks' re-definition does allow him to call anyone who holds an opinion that is contrary to his own a "liar". Which is clearly the entire point of this Dennisism.

BTW, sometimes opinions can be proven wrong, although that doesn't stop some people from holding them; believing what they want despite the facts. Often due to cognitive dissonance (which is something Dennis suffers from, big time).

I would say that this sometimes borders on lying (if someone is intentionally ignorant of the truth), but that isn't what I'm talking about in regards to Dennis Marks. Or, what I mean is that isn't what I'm talking about in regards to him saying others are "lying" (with their incorrect opinions).

Mr. Marks tells very many of these "lies" IMO. It is demonstrable that he has a GREAT number of opinions that are wrong, and (for him to hold them) borders on lying (as it requires an intentional ignorance of a significant magnitude).

Anyway, that an opinion that is wrong is a lie... I might use that.

TADM #85

Dennisism #10: Racism

Time for another "Dennisim" post. Another installment in the series of blog posts in which I chronicle the redefinition of words that Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) engages in.

This time it's his redefinition of what "racism" means, which he does so he can apply it to Black people (who are, apparently way more racist than White people in Dennis' opinion). And refer to programs designed to combat racism (Affirmative Action) as "racist". These policies are blindly racist" he says. Although, IMO, it is extremely racist of Dennis to claim that Affirmative Action leads to "laziness and expecting a free ride".

First, however, the comment by Dennis that prompted me to author this post. After a few months of inactivity on this blog I was Googling around and found the following.

Dennis Marks: But if you read WD, Col. Fried Chicken, whatever he is, the Sharptons of the world are not racist at all. WD has made up his own personal definition of racism. (7/20/2013 AT 08:33:00 PM EDT).

No, it's actually Dennis who has his own definition.

Dennis Marks: From Google, by the way. Remember, these are not my definitions. But just the generally accepted ones: "rac·ism/'ra?siz?m/ Noun: [1] The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as... [2] Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief. (10/24/2012 AT 10:30am).

OK, so I'd say I agree with this definition. It is, in fact, VERY similar to the definition I've previously referenced on my blog (SWTD #131).

Dictionary.com: Racism is "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others".

So, Dennis and I are in agreement? Actually, no. What Dennis posted above ISN'T his definition. I guess he screwed up when he posted this, as he does not believe with the "directed against someone of a different race" part. An example of him not agreeing with this would be his accusation that Touré Neblett (an African American man) said something racist about Herrman Cain (another African American man).

Dennis thinks that Toure is guilty of "bashing [Herman Cain] for his skin color". When Dennis said this (which is CLEARLY in disagreement with the definition he posted on 10/24/2012), I asked him "how can a black man be racist against another black man?".

And Dennis (in disagreement with with the definition he posted on 10/24/2012) said "the definition of racism has no caveats that the racist and their target must be of different races". BUT IT DOES!

And the fact that the definition ABSOLUTELY DOES include the caveat that the racist and their target must be of different races is a caveat that Dennis acknowledges (with his 10/24/2012 comment).

But the Dennis definition (the Dennisism) removes that portion (which is why I am sure he screwed up by posting the actual definition on 10/24/2012).

Under the Dennis definition of "racism", the individual being racist can be directing this racism against someone of his own race. Like Toure did with Herman Cain (Dennis alleges). But if Toure thinks his "own race is superior", why the f*ck would he be "bashing" Cain for his skin color? If Toure was a racist he'd be saying things about how having Black skin makes him superior.

Is Dennis "crazy like an informed fox" as he claims? Nope. He's a liar who changes the definition of words to fit his agenda. Here the agenda is denying his own racism. He isn't racist, Black people are racist. Against other Black people. Even though the definition (the correct one) says that, to be racism, it has to be "directed against someone of a different race".

And he has the balls (is insane enough) to insist that "WD has made up his own personal definition of racism" when I used the SAME definition he used (even if accidently... which he will now likely delete if he reads this)?

For the record, I do believe that Black people can't be racist (against Whites) because racism is based on oppression, and (at least in this country) Whites are the oppressors (SWTD #195). But that isn't what Dennis is referring to. He's talking about the Toure argument and his bullshit made-up definition (Dennisism) that says "the definition of racism has no caveats that the racist and their target must be of different races".

TADM #84

Racism No Longer Exists Racist Dennis Marks Sez

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is a White guy who loves his white privlege and wants to hold on to it. His strategy for keeping things the way they are? Deny there is a problem. We, of course, need not do a damn thing to fix a problem that doesn't exist, right?

In furtherance of this goal Dennis flatly denies that anything called White privilege exists. Neither does racism. It may have been a problem in the past, but it's long over with and not a hinderance or problem for Black folks today.

Dennis Marks: And you will probably notice that supposedly well-meaning racists of the John Myste stripe will insist that black are less capable due to their history, while completely denying that this is true of Scots, Irish, Ukrainians, etc etc etc. (7/5/2015 AT 11:32am). Dennis Marks: In the above comment, I will clarify. I don't believe myself that the Irish etc are less capable as individuals in the modern world. due to the very lengthy historic period of atrocities visited upon them. It would be absurd and horribly bigoted to believe this. My point is, that if someone believes black people are diminished beings due to their history, if they were consistent they would believe the same of the Irish and Scots. (7/5/2015 AT 7:45pm). Screenshot.

Yes, the US has a history of many different ethnicities being discriminated against, but we HAVE evolved on that front. By and large nobody cares what your ethnic background is... if you're White. But anti-Black bigotry does still exist today in the modern world! Dennis is making a totally false and completely transparent analogy here. All in an effort to support his laughably false narrative that there is not any current modern day problem with racism in the United States.

I mean, if that were the case - that racism against Black people had been eradicated and was no longer a problem today - Dennis would be making a valid point. But it has not been and he isn't.

So why is Dennis spinning this absurd lie? I can only guess, but I don't know why he would be doing such a thing... except perhaps because he's scared of losing his White privilege. And because he's a racist. A racist in denial, but Dennis is CLEARLY incredibly biased against Black people. I think I've shown that to be the case with a number of other commentaries on this blog.

The other lie within Dennis' comment concerns the blogger John Myste. John Myste is a Lefty blogger that Dennis has a long history of bashing on the blog of Willis Hart with complete fabrications loosely based on actual Myste comments. (Bashing, I'd like to note, that Dennis ONLY does on the blog of Willis Hart. And bashing which Willis permits, even though he previously considered John Myste a friend... Which is why I say SHAME ON WILLIS!).

But back to the lie about John Myste... he absolutely does NOT believe that "black people are diminished beings", you lying asshole Dennis! Myste only acknowledged our history of slavery and racism, as well as our PRESENT problem with racism. Previously I have referred to this as Dennis' "White-hooded projecton"... because I believe that Dennis is projecting his racism onto others.

Currently (and for some time) the target of Dennis' projection has been John Myste. The reason is that John Myste isn't around any longer. He departed the blogging world and therefore is unaware that Dennis is STILL bashing him with his foul lies. And, since he does not see the lies Dennis writes about him, the coward Dennis can spew his putrid slanders with zero push back.

Although I also have been a target of Dennis' lies. Previously Dennis falsely claimed that I think it is "great to call black people the N word and use other slurs", which is strange... because if there is no longer a problem with racism then nobody should be using the N-word, right?

You might think this, but Dennis' spin is that it's only White Liberals (such as myself) and Black people who are racist. Rappers like Common who are using the word to bash other Black people. It isn't Conservative racists (like Dennis) who are guilty, it's White Liberals and Black people who are the "real racists".

This, by the way, is what White racists-in-denial like Dennis do... They aren't the racists, it's Black people who are racist! Against Whites, and (absurdly) against themselves. Black racists who are racist against other Blacks include (in Dennis' deluded imagination) the rapper Common as well as the journalist Touré Neblett... and others I'm probably forgetting.

Point is, it's Black people and White Liberals who are racist, so if they don't like it... they should just cut it out! They surely should not be pointing fingers at innocent Whites like Dennis. At least that's what Dennis (and other racist Conservatives like him) want us to believe.

Which we don't, btw. "We" being White Democrats as well as African Americans. African Americans who vote primarily for Democrats FOR A REASON. It's because they see through the BS of racists like Dennis.

Supporting Documents
[1] Myste Arguments, DSD #8. (John Myste argues with Dennis about Affirmative Action. Although Dennis says MANY times that he understands Affirmative Action, it is clear he does not).
[2] Myste Ad Hominem, DSD #9. (John Myste, sick of Dennis' stupidity and monopolizing of the conversation at Willis Hart's blog, departs, but Dennis continues to lie about him anyway.

TADM #83

What Is Dennis Marks' Agenda Re Bernie Sanders Positive Comments When He Previously Spoke Negatively About Sanders?

This commentary concerns past comments regarding Democratic potus contender Bernie Sanders from Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). Past comments regarding Sanders that have all been negative (and extremely so), until just recently. Now when Dennis comments on Sanders the remarks are usually positive. My question is, what explains this sea change?

According to Mr. Marks, who at first brushed off me asking "what gives" in regards to his new position on the Vermont Senator as "old bones", eventually said "I have changed my mind about him in some ways".

To which I say... you lie, Dennis. And I have a theory concerning why he is now talking positively in regards to Sanders when he previously only spoke negatively about him.

But first a look at the negative comments (which are VERY negative).

Dennis Marks: And speaking of Bernie Sanders, the greediest member of Congress, he has announced plans to steal the contents of the Social Security trust. No lock box is safe from a greedy thief who is good at plundering. (5/6/2013 AT 5:06pm). Google Cache. Screenshot.

WTF was Dennis talking about? I surely have no idea. I do know that Bernie Sanders NEVER announced any such plan. Although, Dennis, as "proof" that Bernie Sanders does have such a plan, linked to a video in his comment. I presume the delusional dummy believes this video contains the "announcement". Although (if you watch the video) you will find no announcement.

In any case, I wrote about this previously (SWTD #145). Please see that post for my guess as to why Dennis made this absurd comment. In short my conclusion was that Dennis is on the side of the REAL greedy thieves who wish to steal from the Social Security trust fund. As opposed to Bernie Sanders, an individual who fights to protect the fund and our seniors.

Another pair of extremely negative comments that stood out for me when Dennis made them concerns the democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders. Both comments are from a thread on the Libertarian Contra O'Reilly blog, attached to a post concerning Kim Jong Un.

Dennis Marks: He [Kim Jong Un] is the face of socialism in its purist form. Now that Pol Pot is dead, anyway. But isn't North Korea more advanced according to the standards of the American hard left anyway? After all, it has single-payer healthcare, no corporate (private-sector) mass media, and no profiteering capitalists. Bernie Sanders paradise. (4/22/2013 AT 8:27pm). Dennis Marks: Bernie Sanders and [Kim Jong] Un are like peas in a pod. The difference being that Un likes to kill a lot of people in order to bring about an oppressive super-State. Sanders uses corruption and deception, but at least he does not kill people as he fights to make government more powerful and less accountable. (4/27/2013 AT 1:08pm).

The takeaway from these comments is that Dennis views Senator Sanders as a corrupt liar who wishes to transform America into a oppressive dictatorship where the rights of the people are trampled on. I also think it is quite reasonable to assume Dennis believes (because Bernie and Kim are "like two peas in a pod") that senator Sanders wishes this because he is a power mad tyrant (or that he'd like to be a power mad tyrant).

Dennis spews this total nonsense because he hates socialism in ANY form. Which explains why he equates democratic socialism with rulers such as Kim Jong Un, Pol Pot, and Stalin. Rulers who promised socialism, but delivered autocratic, undemocratic, totalitarian and authoritarian governments (that killed and imprisoned it's citizens) with a thin socialist veneer.

And there are MANY more, which (if you wish to take a gander) can be viewed here. As you can see (if you check out this collection of Dennis Marks comments re Bernie Sanders), the vast majority of Dennis' past comments concerning Sanders are extraordinarily negative (as well as extraordinarily nutty).

However, ever since Bernie Sanders has been running for president, Dennis has had VERY different things to say concerning the democratic socialist from Vermont. Very different, in that these comments are now POSITIVE!

Dennis Marks: There's a line that divides real candidacy from the clowns who run vanity campaigns for an ego trip or cash (Sharpton, Keyes, etc). Bernie Sanders is on the right side of that line, I believe. It's a real candidacy, and like Les here, I believe it is good for the election overall. (4/30/2015 AT 10:16:00 PM EDT).

Bernie's is a "real" candidacy, huh? (this, a reference to many on the Republican side who are running knowing they have no chance, but doing so anyway because it raises their profiles and will allow them to charge more in speaking fees and possibly get book deals or Fox Nooz gigs.

Question is, why is Dennis now saying things like "I am liking his candidacy more and more" given his past negative comments? I think the following comment sheds some light on his motivations.

Dennis Marks: Ideology aside, Bernie Sanders is great campaigner, sincere, energetic, has a strong resume, and is fighting like the underdog. All in contrast to Hillary. (8/20/2015 AT 08:39:00 PM EDT).

My theory is that Dennis does not want Hillary Clinton to get the nomination and is talking up Bernie Sanders... because he believes Sanders will be easier for the Republican nominee to beat. For example, when I said "my dream presidential team would be Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich" (on 9/4/2011), Dennis composed and published the following reply.

Dennis Marks: That's also the dream team of all of the Republican candidates. Romney, Perry, etc would struggle against Obama, but Sanders/Kucinich would make these Republicans salivate over very sure prospects of an 80%+ landslide. (9/4/2011 AT 10:03 AM).

And, here's another one from 2012.

Dennis Marks: Bernie Sanders, whose politics represent the interest of a tiny percent of Americans, would hardly get any votes if he ran for President. Sanders might have an initial burst of strength in the polls, but this would rapidly plummet down to the single digits of his base once people realize his first name isn't Harland and that voting for him wouldn't automatically mean free fried chicken. (5/23/2012 AT 10:22am).

Obviously Dennis thinks that if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee he will be crushed by the Republican.

Further proof that Dennis is NOW speaking positively on Sanders (when he previously was negative on him) because he thinks he would be easily beaten is the fact that he did the same thing back when it looked like Elizabeth Warren might possibly run.

Dennis Marks: How about Warren? A fresh face to a country wear of clintonbushclintonbushclintonbushclintonblush... And whatever Warren's distance from the center, she's pretty clean (other than the receding fake Indian claim, which was really a long time ago). I think there's that one skeleton in her closet, and it's rather dusty. Hillary Clintons got a dancing army of them. Warren could have a good chance at nomination, especially if something similar to Hillary hiding the emails comes up in the heat of the early primaries. (4/12/2015 AT 09:29:00 PM EDT).

But Dennis had an ENTIRELY different view re the "fake Indian claim" in the not-to-distant past.

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).

And, as with Bernie Sanders, there are a LOT more of these negative Warren comments. (See here for a catalog of Dennis' Warren-bashing comments and TADM #57 for my rebuttal to Dennis' claim that Elizabeth Warren "fraduently" claimed to be native american).

Previously Dennis referred to Warren as an asshole, a fake and a fraud, because she is "a white person of privilege falsely claiming to be a Native American to get more privilege".

So Warren went from being a racist to "a fresh face" whose "fake Indian claim [is] receding". This happened (I believe) because it looked like Warren might challenge Hillary for the Democratic nomination. And because Dennis believed Warren would be easy to beat.

Here is an example from July of 2014 in which Dennis predicts how Warren would do if she ran for president.

Dennis Marks: Warren's views are extreme, as in driving off moderates (as well as conservatives of course). She will capture the hearts of the "99% Movement" (which really represents only 20% or so of Americans, and as you can see, is rather self deluded). It would take a pretty bad Republican candidate to lose to either of these. (7/7/2014 AT 07:51:00 AM EDT).

He then added "I have no doubt that the Republicans will rise to the task and provide such a candidate", but I don't buy it. This, IMO, only represents a very small fear of Dennis'.

In fact I'm positive that Dennis wanted Warren to run because he was convinced the Republican (any Republican) would beat her. Another example of this thinking was expressed when the blogger rAtional nAtion said "the thought of a Sanders or Warren presidency gives me the shudders". This caused Dennis to reply with the following.

Dennis Marks: No worries. They represent a rather small percentage of the electorate, and certainly can't capture the conservatives, or even the middle. (12/30/2014 AT 07:48:00 AM EST).

See... he is NOT worried. He was convinced that Warren, should she be the nominee, would lose. Just as he is convinced that Sanders, should he be the nominee, will lose. This is why he talks up Sanders. Dennis wants Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic potus nominee so that the Republican will win the election with a "80%+ landslide".

And, this also explains why he whines and cries about "old bones" when I bring up his previous negative comments re Sanders. It is because he lies and has NOT "changed [his] mind about [Sanders] in some ways". And he does not want others to suspect he is lying.

Of course anything Dennis says (positive or negative) about Sanders will likely have no effect on whether or not Sanders secures the nomination. However, the same as some religious folks ask others to pray for something (and truly believe that there might be a positive benefit to getting as many people as possible to pray) - Dennis likely believes that the more people are speaking positively about Sanders, the more likely it is he will get nominated.

And, with this in mind, Dennis is doing his part. He is contributing (if only in a small way) to a narrative that could lead to Sanders being selected by the voters as the Democratic nominee. After which (in the mind of Dennis), he will be easily defeated by the Republican nominee.

This is part and parcel to the false narrative that says Hillary Clinton is "untrustworthy" and plagued by scandals... and therefore someone else should be the nominee. Someone the eventual Republican nominee can go against and win. Someone who isn't Hillary, as she would likely defeat any Republican.

Which is why Dennis desperately wants anyone but Hillary. And why he lies and posts his (fake) positive Sanders comments. But, as I said, I don't buy it. Dennis' MANY past comments represent how he truly views Sanders. He views Sanders as following the lead of past "evil socialist" dictators like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin. (In Dennis' mind) Sanders does this as a Senator and would do this (to a greater negative effect) as president.

Not that I believe that Senator Sanders would be defeated, easily or otherwise. If Sanders secures the nomination I think he has a decent shot, given the fact that he is a true Progressive and not a corporate Dem like Hillary. But the deceiving Dennis CLEARLY believes otherwise. Which is why Dennis (first) talked up Warren and is now talking up Sanders... because he is convinced that Hillary will be our next president if she is nominated in the Democratic primary.

Supporting Documents
[1] Bernie Sanders: Hero Of The Ruling Class, A Greedy Thief Who Is Good At Plundering. (A catalog of many Dennis Marks comments on Bernie Sanders. Note that most of the comments are negative, while only a few are positive).
[2] 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. (A catalog of many Dennis Marks comments on Elizabeth Warren. Note that most of the comments are negative, while I could only find ONE that was positive).

TADM #82

Dennis Marks Misogynist Racist Immigrant-Bashing Doublespeak

According to Wikipedia "doublespeak" is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. This "reversing the meaning of words" the blogger Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) accomplishes with a recent comment on the Libertarian/Objectivist blog rAtional nAtion uSA.

Dennis Marks: As for political correctness, it is much more often what racists and bigots promote, with theories of white privilege, patriarchy, and "micro aggressions". As for slave wages, it is also insulting to smear immigrants as slaves. I checked the states with the most immigrants vs wages in these states. There is actually a trend toward states with more immigrants having higher wages than those with fewer immigrants. The anti-immigration, nativism view is just not supported by demographics, even if it feels good to those who fear "the other". ...I've made my points in opposition to immigrant bashing. (9/5/2015 AT 07:22:00 AM EDT).

The terms white privilege, microaggression, and patriarchy describe analyses of racist/bigoted and misogynist behavior. Dennis, with his racist/bigoted and misogynist comment, flips that around and sez that people who put forward these "theories" are the "real bigots". This denial of reality is obvious doublespeak, in that who Dennis is talking about are "Black racists". Also women who Rush refers to as feminazis. As well as their White allies and Male allies (respectively).

As opposed to actual racists, bigots and misogynists. Which would be people guilty of these behaviors. Not people objecting to such behavior. And Dennis, with his doublespeak, aligns himself with the racists and misogynists quite strongly, IMO.

The other example of doublespeak from his comment would be his reference to "opposition to immigrant bashing", in which he implies he opposes it. Yet he does it himself with his denials that undocumented workers are frequently taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers. Which is what we were talking about... undocumented workers, not legal immigrants.

The bigot Dennis also insists that "illegal alien" isn't a pejorative despite the fact that it absolutely is. He says he uses it because "it is the most accurate", but that is total bullshit.

Immigration Attorney Shahid Haque-Hausrath: "Illegal alien" is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, "illegal alien" is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term "illegal alien" is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant's very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation. (excerpted from the website No Human Being Is Illegal).

So... HOW is "illegal alien" MOST accurate? Not in a legal sense, as pointed out by the immigration attorney Shahid Haque-Hausrath, who says "illegal alien" is "highly inaccurate and pejorative". As usual Dennis does not know WTF he's talking about.

As for Dennis' claim that there is "a trend toward states with more immigrants having higher wages"... he provided no link so I have no idea where he's getting this info from. In any case, as this (imagined?) stat has nothing to do with the conversation (and I'm not inclined to spend a lot of time Googling for an answer), I will disregard it.

People here illegally are frequently underpaid (given less than the minimum wage) as well as stolen from (forced to work off the clock, not paid overtime, etc). And I, unlike Dennis, will present the evidence to back up this fact.

Low-Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says (excerpt from a 9/1/2009 NYT article by Steven Greenhouse) Low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage, according to a new study based on a survey of workers in NY, LA and Chicago... In surveying 4,387 workers in various low-wage industries, including apparel manufacturing, child care and discount retailing, the researchers found that the typical worker had lost $51 the previous week through wage violations, out of average weekly earnings of $339. That translates into a 15 percent loss in pay. ...39 percent of those surveyed were illegal immigrants, 31 percent legal immigrants and 30 percent native-born Americans.

Dennis, I believe, full-throatedly denies this reality because he loves our plutocrats, hates low-wage workers, and believe those who toil for low pay are only useful for exploiting. And he frequently uses double-speak to flip reality on it's head in promotion of his ideological beliefs.

Beliefs that tell him rich Makers are fundamentally better than poor workers. Low wage laborers should take what they are offered and not whine when they are underpaid for their labor. And they absolutely should not attempt to use government to try and get a fairer wage (increase in the minimum).

Low wage workers, be they immigrants or native born, are the "other" that Dennis fears. He fears that they will wise up and become politically active. Which is why he trashes such movements whenever they arise. Movements like Occupy Wall Street (OWS) or Black Lives Matter (BLM).

BLM is racist according to Dennis. And OWS is antisemitic. And, in Dennis Marks' upside down world, being opposed to shipping jobs out of the US (outsourcing) is "nativism", while not screwing low-wage workers in the US is "fear of the other" and "immigrant bashing".

But that's obviously the way plutocrat-loving stooges such as Dennis roll. Although I think it's also possible that he's just a malicious troll saying silly things just for fun. This would explain why he frequently stands under the bright noon sun and shouts "it's night out!"... metaphorically speaking. But I doubt that. Personally I think it is much more likely that he knows exactly what he's doing and doing it purposefully.

Which would be dismissing White privilege and patriarchy as not existing (or accusing the victims of it). Because he enjoys being a white male in a society that favors these individuals. And because he fears that "the other" will gain enough power to take away his privilege.

Image: Picture from the website No Human Being Is Illegal.

Supporting Document
Bigoted Bigot's Misogynist Misogyny, DSD #15. (A catalog of Dennis Marks' Misogynist comments).

TADM #81

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TADM #79

Is Dennis Marks A Baldheaded Man Who Sports A Ponytail?

According to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) I am a baldheaded man who sports a ponytail. Or I'm a man with a large bald spot on the top of my head with long hair on the sides that I pull back into a ponytail.

Dennis Marks: Rusty... you get a free pass to call WD, with his ponytail "baldheaded". Whether or not he is in fact bald. (9/13/2014 AT 8:12am).

Ah, no Dennis. Rusty originally referred to YOU as bald with a ponytail.

Rusty Shackelford: I think I'd lay about 5-1 that either dmarks or WD are one of those bald headed gray haired guys that have a pony tail. You know the kind of guy that other guys laugh at. (12/26/2011 AT 3:30pm).

In response, Dennis wrote the following...

Dennis Marks: "...bald headed gray haired guys that have a pony tail..." Which is it? Bald, or with a pony tail? (12/26/2011 AT 7:44pm).

And, in reply to Dennis' question, Rusty wrote...

Rusty Shackelford: Yep dmarks, confirmed... its you... the middle aged bald guy with the pony tail. Bad look buddy, bad look. And please, dump the Dockers. The other guys are snickering at you. (12/26/2011 AT 8:26pm).

Rusty confirmed that he believes Dennis is the bald man with a ponytail. Initially he said it was either me or Dennis, then he CONFIRMED it was Dennis (in his mind). Yet ever since then Dennis has repeated (a number of times) that *I'm* a baldheaded dude with a ponytail. Or that I have a ponytail (without mentioning the "bald" part).

Anyway, I'm with Rusty on this one. In that I believe that it is likely that Dennis is a bald man with a ponytail, and that him ignoring Rusty's conclusion that Dennis has the ponytail (and bald head) is projection.

How likely this is... that is another matter. The likelihood is probably low. More likely is that Dennis simply liked the insult (originally aimed at him as well as me), so he ignored Rusty's "confirmation" and started using the "insult" against me. With no evidence to back up the accusation... at all.

For the record, I am not bald. No bald spot either, nor receding hairline or ponytail (which I've never had).

In any case, regardless of whether or not Dennis is a baldheaded guy with a ponytail, I give myself a free pass to believe Dennis is the kind of guy that other guys laugh at... for being typically off his gourd in regards to his political views. In regards to that I say, "yep dmarks, confirmed... it's you who is the middle-aged guy with political views that are totally nuts".

He might also be mostly bald and sport a ponytail. Although, if he was embarrassed by Rusty pegging him in regards to his "look"... he might have cut the ponytail off.

3/3/2016 Update: dmarks (in a 1/17/2015 comment I just stumbled across) makes an admission that confirms my suspicions... dmarks: did you know that I'm a baldheaded ponytailed moron? (No joke, dmarks wrote it. Follow the link if you don't believe me).

Image: I've heard that Dennis enjoys getting attention by flashing strangers in parks. Could this picture be a shot of the sicko engaging in this perverted behavior?

Supporting Document
Bald Men With Ponytails, DSD #4. (A catalog of Dennis Marks comments concerning bald headedness and bald men who sport ponytails).

TADM #78

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

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

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

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

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

Which they are alleging. But they're lying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TADM #77

Is The Phallophilic Dennis Marks Sticking His Firearm In His Naughty Place?

Awhile ago Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) revealed himself to have a sick obession known as fecalphelia, which (with Dennis) takes the form of him referring to my comments on other blogs as "defecation" and filtering out these "floaters" (my remarks) as "flushing". In another comment re removing my comments Dennis tells the blog host that "it is time to wipe". (a reference, yet again, to a toilet function).

In another comment that is even more disgusting Dennis says "WD is blowing shit out of his mouth". Sick, right? But that isn't the end of Dennis' many sicknesses.

In addition to his fecalphelia, Dennis is a confirmed phallophile, which (with Dennis) takes the form of an obsession with "weinergrams" and the delusion that I have sent him such images (photos of my genitalia), which I absolutely NEVER have.

This same phile has Dennis picking up on another blogger's use of the word "beef" (re the "feud" between dmarks and I) and using it in another connotation. One that reveals where his obsessions lie.

Dennis Marks: Mr Sanders' link to to his fanboy blog proves nothing more than his mancrush obsession, as he failed to find any lies to call me out for. His "long standing beef" is still hanging out. (4/10/2015 AT 7:38am).

The "fanboy blog" that Dennis refers to is THIS blog. He thinks my criticisms of him here amount to me being his "fan".

In any case, in reply to this comment in which Dennis imagines a "man crush" that does not exist, I said "you're imagining my beef hanging out RIGHT NOW, aren't you? I think dmarks needs to find himself a boyfriend".

It is comments like these have led me to believe that Dennis might be a closeted gay man. (probably self-hating).

Which brings me to the comment that caused me to believe that Dennis might be doing something inappropriate with his gun. Should he own one. Previously he indicated that he did not own one, but was thinking about making a purchase (from a gun show or private seller... so the government was unaware of his acquisition).

It was in the following comment where his phallophilia and gun nuttery collided, although (of course) he (again) projected his sick obsessions onto me. (Note: Comment by another blogger included, as what Dennis sez is in response to it).

Jersey McJones: I'd rather be a hoplophobe than a phallophile. ;) (7/29/2015 AT 1:06am). Dennis Marks: Dervish Sanders is both, while you are not, Jersey. (7/29/2015 AT 5:49am).

This comment, in which Dennis sez I have an "irrational aversion to weapons" (the definition of "holophobia") and sez I am also a phallophile, did not last long. Dennis quickly deleted it... likely because he realized it said more about his own obsessions than it said anything about the proprietor of this blog.

I was able to pull up the Google cached page and grab a screenshot, however. A screenshot that I have appended to the end of this commentary. (Note: Google cached pages are regularly updated, so the link I just gave may or may not show the deleted comment. It depends on how much time has passed between the date of the publication of this post and when you click the link).

In regards to the Jersey McJones comment... I think he makes a very good point. Which is that many of these gun nuts may be making up for an "equipment" deficiency with a big gun. A desire that presents itself as an obsession with, and a need to possess one or many guns.

Now, on the blog where this exchange took place, Libertas and Latte, the blog host focuses almost exclusively on defending gun rights against (what he calls) the "the gun control cabal".

Referencing the Jersey comment, the proprietor of the Latte blog (a blog where there are zero commentaries about coffee and only the "libertas" for anyone to as many guns as they desire) makes the same connection I just made (a connection between how some nutters might view firearms in a "homoerotic" light).

Constitutional Insurgent: ...the gun control camp cannot seem to proffer an argument without invoking laughable memes and buzz phrases about the "eeeevil NRA" or odd homoerotic projections comparing firearms to the phallus... (7/30/2015 AT 7:40am).

Homoerotic you say? All I've heard is that a gun might substitute a for straight man's insecurity regarding their manhood. But Latte's mind goes to "homoerotic". Maybe he's talking about himself without knowing it? Who knows?

I do know that Dennis has made many comments in the past that indicate to me that he may be a closeted gay man. In another comment on another blog Dennis said (referring to me) "he loves to compose graphic lube-dripping gay-sex comments". However this reference to something I've never done is (I think) more projection.

In fact it seems that lubing up that area (so something can be inserted) is an act that is on Dennis' mind constantly. In another discussion Dennis levied a bogus charge of anti-semitism against the Occupy movement based on a YouTube video starring someone who calls himself "Lotion Man". Dennis provided a link to this video in his comment, and I therefore assumed that he had looked at it and knew the "anti-semite" he was referring to called himself "Lotion Man".

However, when I responded to Dennis' comment linking to the Lotion Man video, he responded back with a comment that made it clear he had no idea who "Lotion Man" was. Even though this was the dude making the anti-semitic comments. In a video that Dennis linked to. Instead he assumes (when I refer to Lotion Man) that I'm talking about something else.

Dennis Marks: I have no idea about Mr. Sander's lotions. It's probably something perverted again, and I don't want to think about it. (2/1/2014 10:28:00 PM EST).

So why does his mind go there? Frankly I think it's because Dennis was (again) imagining my "beef". Imagining my "beef" with lotion on it and me inserting it somewhere Dennis would find pleasurable. Which, if that's Dennis' thing, is OK (or none of my business). Although I've informed him previously that it isn't MY thing and that he should stop including me in his fantasies. I mean, he CLEARLY was thinking about it, as that is where his mind went immediately. Despite the fact that I was talking about the subject in the video HE LINKED TO!

So... did Dennis finally realize that his fantasies regarding yours truly were just that... fantasies that were never going to happen? And did Dennis then look elsewhere to fulfill his needs? Clearly (being in the closet) he was too embarrassed to go looking for a boyfriend.

Instead (to fulfill these desires) he uses a gun instead of a dildo? I think so. I think Dennis' gun became an object of sexual attraction and he wanted his gun to "do" him. I conclude this based on the evidence as laid out above.

Obviously it would be better for Dennis if he came out of the closet and found himself that boyfriend he wants. Better because there wouldn't be a danger of him firing a bullet up his ass.

I assume he sticks his gun up his poop shoot with the safety OFF (and his finger on the trigger) because he finds the excitement of possibly killing himself necessary in order to climax.

I could be wrong... but I think there is a very strong case that Dennis is engaging in this exceedingly risky behavior. The gun-obsessed Latte man alludes to the "homoerotic" act, although I'm sure he does so with no thought in his mind about Dennis defiling his firearm in this manner. Even though that might very well be exactly what Dennis is doing.

Video: "You can go on YouTube and find me, The Lotion Man", the subject of this video says (near the end). This is the Clip that shows "Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest"... which Dennis thinks proves the entire movement is anti-Semitic (2:20).

Supporting Document
Perverted Phallophile's Homoerotic Homoerotica Featuring Noam Chomsky Nude, DSD #12.

TADM #76

Dennis Marks Borrowing A Page From The Joseph Goebbels Playbook

Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie...".

This is why Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) hates this blog and desperately wishes it was gone. Because Dennis tells big lies, while The Truth About Dennis Marks slaps them down.

Concerning Dennis' Big Lies, one of them concerns this blogger defending, having as a hero, or worshipping brutal mass-murdering murderous dictators. First it was Joseph Stalin who was my "hero" and whom I "worship". According to Dennis I was "caught praising" Stalin. Of course this accusation is complete and total bullshit.

Now Dennis posts lies concerning things I never said concerning Mao Tse-Tung, the Chinese Communist revolutionary and the founding father of the People's Republic of China (which he governed as Chairman of the Communist Party of China from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976). This would be the dictator who perpetrated systematic human rights abuses and was responsible for an estimated 40 to 70 million deaths through starvation, forced labour, and executions - ranking his tenure as the top incidence of democide (murder by government) in human history. (excerpted from Wikipedia).

Dennis Marks: [Dervish Sanders is] the same guy who defended Maoism with claims that Maoist rule prohibited police brutality. And of course he uses the phrase "the people" all the time when referring to the tiny group at the top of government, borrowing a page from Red China. (7/23/2015 AT 6:25pm).

Here is another example of Dennis lying his ass off concerning me and Mao.

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 2:55am).

Again, total bullshit. With the exception of the last line. But everything Dennis claims about me is a big BIG Lie. It is true that Mao came up in a discussion regarding Van Jones. And I did mention police brutality. But what I told Dennis was that Van Jones belonged to a group that read the writings of Mao and also protested police violence.

Wikipedia/Van Jones/Earlier activism: When he graduated from law school, Jones gave up plans to take a job in Washington DC, and moved to San Francisco instead. He became a member of a "socialist collective" called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) that protested against police brutality.

Van Jones (as a member of STORM) protested police brutality. The Maoist rulers of China (1949-1976) engaged in police brutality. I never said otherwise, you lying sack of shit!

Wikipedia/Mao Zedong/Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution/Paragraph 4: The authorities allowed the Red Guards to abuse and kill opponents of the regime. Said Xie Fuzhi, national police chief: "Don't say it is wrong of them to beat up bad persons: if in anger they beat someone to death, then so be it". As a result, in August and September 1966, there were 1,772 people murdered in Beijing alone.

Anyway, regarding STORM, Conservapedia says...

Conservapedia/Van Jones/Maoist Influence: STORM's own literature describes its "Maoist orientation" which conducted "a group reading of Mao's On Practice and On Contradiction". The group studied Lenin's theories of the state, revolution, the party, and "the political ideas of Mao Tse-tung".

Now, I don't know how much stock I place anything on Conservapedia... and their Van Jones page is basically a smear of the man... but I couldn't locate the info anywhere else.

In any case, how into the writings of Mao was Van Jones? That is information that is (apparently) lost to the ages. Van Jones' own website only addresses the rumor that he (presently) is a communist (and says nothing about Mao).

[Question] Are you a communist? [Van Jones answer] No, I'm not... For the better part of a decade, I've been the No. 1 champion of free-market solutions for poor people and the environment. ... Some people experimented with drugs and alcohol, I experimented with world-views and philosophies and I was an angry young guy, I was on the left side of Pluto. The great thing about America is, you can think whatever wacky thing you want to think, and you are free to change your mind once you get older. (The Truth About Van Jones).

So, there you have it... Communist or Maoist, Van Jones moved on a LONG time ago. He is now a champion of the free market. Point is, I never defended Mao and I never equated Maoism to ending police brutality. I only pointed out to Dennis that Van Jones absolutely is not a "worshipper" of Mao (presently) and that STORM protested police brutality (when Jones was a member).

And, FYI, I never defended Van Jones either (in regards to his past). I don't have enough info regarding what happened. Not that it matters, as it is in the past and Van no longer holds those views (whatever views he held).

I also never use the phrase "the people" when referring to the tiny group at the top of government. Those people are our representatives. The People are the citizens of the United States, you idiot! Also, The People, which IS a phrase I use, is a reference the opening phrase of the Preamble to the United States Constitution.

Dennis knows this (how could he not). Yet he lies away. Because that is just the kind of a-hole that he is. But this is hardly new information. Many people have known this about Dennis for quite some time... although most seem to ignore it for some reason. I refuse.

An example of dmarks' being an a-hole? I pointed out to him that I never defended Mao, and his response was to say "I'm glad Mr Sanders has done a 180 on this issue...". Although he surely was (and is) an a-hole to lie about me defending Mao in the first place.

Image Description: Mao, NOT a hero of the Left, despite lies from scumbags on the Right like Dennis.

TADM #75

Dennis Marks Blogging Demagogue

In my last commentary (TADM #73) I discussed remarks the racially-biased blogger Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks), made concerning comments made and actions taken by President Barack Obama in regards to the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy.

According to Dennis, "this whole beer summit matter had nothing to do with any issue of national importance" (as it would not have happened if Dr Gates wasn't one of his buddies). "It was all personal" and the president was "demagoguing it up" in the deluded mind of Mr. Marks.

Which, according to the definition of demagogue meant the president was "treating or manipulating a political issue in an attempt to obscure or distort with emotionalism or prejudice"... something I proved was total bullshit. First, because columnist Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times specifically asked Obama "what does it say about race relations in America?" Obama, put on the spot, made an extemporaneous remark that he later said he regretted.

Second, the Beer Summit occurred due to negative poll results that suggested a large number of (mainly White) people thought he handled the question badly. So - someone in the White House, most likely - put together this "Beer Summit" idea to try and smooth things over with the law enforcement community and the public. It was about optics and the "teachable moment" Obama mentioned, NOT demagoguery.

The reverse was actually the case, and suggesting racial demagoguery from a African American president is, in my opinion, racist. Very similar to when Dennis said that Obama is an "exceptionally indolent and lazy man". A sentence loaded with dog-whistles that even a dumb-dumb like Dennis has to be aware of. Seriously, I bet Dennis could go to the Stormfront website and post this comment and find a LOT of agreement.

In regards to that (Dennis hypothetically posting on the Stormfront site), I did a quick Google search and found a thread on a discussion board concerning how lazy Blacks are. One commenter wrote the following...

...in my past experiences, the blacks are the laziest of the bunch at work. My last few jobs... I was a minority. This is where you truly see how lazy, degenerate, and hateful to whites most blacks really are. Its like being trapped in the monkey cage at the zoo, just waiting for one of them to start flinging poop. (12/04/2008 AT 02:33am. Comment by "Twitchie" from StormFront.org).

Commentary that sounds like what that Boston cop Justin Barrett said in his email re Henry Louis Gates.

On 7/28, it was revealed... that Justin Barrett, a 36-year-old Boston Police Department officer who has been on the job for two years, and is also a member of the Massachusetts National Guard, sent a mass e-mail to fellow National Guardsmen and to The Boston Globe in which he referred to Gates as a "jungle monkey". Although the email was signed only JB, when he was asked about it, Barrett admitted to his BPD superiors that he was the author. According to an article in the Boston Globe, Barrett wrote the email... "in reaction to media coverage of Gates's arrest July 16", in particular to a July 22 Globe column by Yvonne Abraham, who expressed support for Gates. In the e-mail, Barrett wrote, "If I was the officer he [Gates] verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC [oleorosin capsicum, or pepper spray] deserving of his belligerent non-compliance". During the course of the message, Barrett used the phrase "jungle monkey" four times, three times in reference to Gates and once in reference to Abraham's column, which he characterized as "jungle monkey gibberish". (Wikipedia/Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy/Justin Barrett e-mail).

Yeah, these people are worse than Dennis, but just like Dennis, Barrett (who was fired) is in complete denial regarding his racism. In a TV interview Barrett said, "I have so many friends of every type of culture and race you can name. I am not a racist". Sure, that's why you used the term "jungle monkey", because you're NOT a racist. And, note that he used the "Black friend" defense. When Barrett sued (because his unemployment was denied) the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that his "egregious misconduct" was "obviously intentional".

Which I think might be true about about Dennis... his misconduct is egregious and intentional. I mean, how could he NOT know that his accusations (our Black president is "indolent and lazy" and guilty of "demagoguing it up") are racist? Although I haven't seen any comments by Dennis where he says he can't be racist due to all the Black friends he has.

But what he does do is (falsely) claim that many Black people are racists. To hear Dennis tell it, it's almost always Black people who are guilty of racism. One of the only times I can remember Dennis referring to a White guy as racist was when he compared Van Jones to David Duke!

Dennis Marks: David Duke is the Van Jones of the right. (4:48pm on an unspecified date sometime after 8/26/2011. From the blog Newspaper Rock).

Van Jone has NEVER used any rhetoric comparable to David Duke. Never. He is a strong champion of Middle Class and working folks, regardless of race. In any case, there is one other instance I can recall where Dennis referred to White people as racist, this time in conjunction with another bash against our president.

Dennis Marks: You should have looked at his career [Obama's] before he ran. His appointment to his Harvard Law post by supposedly well-meaning racists not because he was qualified at all, but explicitly because of his skin color. ... His listless and lazy and by any objective standard, unremarkable legislative record. (1/14/2014 AT 5:26pm).

Even if these "well-meaning racists" selected Obama "explicitly because of his skin color" that does NOT mean Obama wasn't qualified. If this were the case, Dennis would have provided some evidence to show he wasn't. Instead he simply takes the fact that they may have been looking for a Black person to fill the position (in the interest of diversity) to make the idiotic suggestion that they did not select the best Black candidate.

Just because Obama may have been an "affirmative action appointment" does not automatically mean he was unqualified (nor does it mean that those who appointed him were "well-meaning racists"). Assuming this to be the case with no proof at all? I say that's racist.

So, that's two examples of Dennis calling out "white racists", but they are both within the context of bashing Black guys (Van Jones and Barack Obama).

What does this say about Dennis? You can draw your own conclusion, but I know what mine is, which is that Dennis Marks is one SERIOUSLY racially biased individual. As well as someone who is guilty of "treating or manipulating a political issue in an attempt to obscure or distort with emotionalism or prejudice"... or demagoguery.

Image Description: On 7/30/2009, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Professor Gates, and Sergeant Crowley met at the White House. ...Obama said he believed "what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart" and that after the meeting he was "hopeful that all of us are able to draw this positive lesson from this episode".

TADM #74