Monday, April 29, 2013

w-dervish's Liberal Buddies Annoyed by His Nuttiness

The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards ~ Alexander Jablokov (born 1956) an American writer and novelist.

Back in February of 2012 we learned that I'm a frigging Nut and my "Liberal Buddies" told Willis Hart (of Contra O'Reilly) so. With the publishing of that post it was revealed that one of the "Liberal Buddies" was Joe Kelly-Hagstrom (JKH) of Truth 101. He gave himself away by leaving a comment that said, "you're nuts". No other Liberal buddies came forward, and I have doubts as to whether there are (or ever were) any others.

Given the fact that JKH never retracted his comment, apologized, or even explained why he was dissing me behind my back (and to a Conservative blogger, no less), I never let it go completely. I kept jabbing at him by bringing it up on his blog and on other blogs. I also wrote some posts that portrayed (a fictional version of) JKH in a less than flattering light. I was not incredibly upset, however, and accepted that it was a mystery I would never get an explaination for.

JKH asked me if I wanted to start a "feud" with him over the kerfuffle, but when I called him on it he declined. I jabbed him again, and it appears as that was one jab to many. Maybe he didn't decide to restrict comments on his blog to "team members" on my account, but this development did occur shortly after I last commented on his blog.

Previously he has restricted his blog to "invited" readers only, which made the blog completely inaccessible to anyone except invitees. If not logged into blogger as an invitee all that displayed on your computer screen was a message that said, "this blog is open to invited readers only". JKH said the reason was because people he worked with (the higher ups, presumably) did not care for his Liberal political opinions. Now, Truth 101 is still visible to the world - it is just the commenting that is restricted.

So, question is, am I correct in my assumption that JKH being annoyed with me is why commenting is restricted to "team members"? Also, who are the team members? I'd be interested in knowing if anyone who reads this is a team member. Or has JKH effectively shut down his blog (again)? If you read this commentary please let me know what you know. If you read this don't click away. You've gotten this far and you are now OBLIGATED to share what you know. If it is nothing, then say you know nothing. But don't lie please.

Also, let me take the opportunity, not to apologize, but to let JKH know that I'll let the issue drop if he either invites me to comment on his blog - or removes the "invitation" restriction. Not that I'm desperate to comment on his blog. If he doesn't want me to comment on his blog so be it. But I don't think I did anything wrong, and him reopening his blog to me would be an acknowledgement of that FACT. If he had ever explained his "nutty" comment I would never annoyed him by bringing it up over and over - or written any of those posts previously mentioned that he may have been offended by.

And then there is Mr. Kelly-Hagstrom's idiotic insistence that blogger Willis Hart is a "Lefty". It's utterly ridiculous, as I have documented on this blog. If anyone has a justified reason to be annoyed, I feel it is me.

SWTD #140

Sunday, April 28, 2013

The One Percent Beasts of Burden Who Carry Around the Dead Weight

...there are 47 percent... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing... That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them ~ Mitt Romney (dob 3/12/1947) oblivious entitled plutocrat and losing 2012 Republican presidential candidate.

"Hey, buddy, what's going on?", Dennis Marks inquired, addressing his compatriot William Hartenbaum. "Where did the boss man go?", he added, referring to Slade Leeds, the owner of the The Quarry, the posh eating establishment William was sitting in the bar area of. "He went in back to deal with a delivery", William responded. "By the way, Slade told me the reason our prank the other night failed is because you fu*ked up and Joe Truth got the drugged plate of food".

"Now hold on", Dennis protested. "I clearly indicated to the waiter which plate of food was to go to whom". "Well, Dervish got the wrong plate, which is why he wasn't out of it and why he was able to taze Tony", William explained. "Damn!" Dennis exclaimed, obviously upset. "No matter", William said, grinning. "Things seem to have worked out better than we were planning. Tony is pressing charges against Dervish for assault. After the envious collectivist is arrested he's going to end up serving a lengthy prison term".

"Hahahahah", Dennis chuckled. "Ironic that the state will end up caring for him. It would be more fitting if he was sent to a forced labor camp though, given how much he admires the regimes of Leftist dictators". "Indeed it would", William agreed. "Even so, he'll lose his freedom and his job".

"The guy works?" an incredulous Dennis queried. "Yea", William responded. "At some liberal think tank, I believe". "Figures", Dennis spat disgustedly.

"Anyway, on another subject I have some good news. I just received word that my rich uncle is going to die soon. This is the rich uncle who is leaving me everything in his will! I'm going to be joining you in the one percent very soon", Dennis revealed, smiling broadly. "The as*hole has terminal brain cancer or something. It looks like all my hard work sucking up to the doofus is on the verge of paying off".

"Bad news, you'll soon be paying the same tax rate as me", William replied. "Yea, well, it's a smallish price to pay", Dennis countered. "I'd be willing to pay a little more for a strong national defense, but what really tees me off is how the one percent are like beasts of burden forced to carry around the dead weight".

"You got that right", William agreed. "Which is why must continually oppose the liberal fascists like Dervish who want us to pay more and more to support society's losers".

"That guy disgusts me", Dennis agreed. "Instead of sending him to prison he should be deported to North Vietnam, Cuba or some other Bernie Sanders paradise. That way he could experience a socialist utopia that already exists, instead of attempting to transform the United States into one, like his hero Barack Obama wants to".

"Yes, the president who lies about the wealthy not paying their fair share", William agreed, frowning. "It's a shame you haven't received your inheritance already", William lamented. "Mark and I are going to be holding a dinner tomorrow night during which we will be welcoming a half dozen or so new members to Higher Ordered Persons Society".

Dennis looked dejected. "Couldn't you spot me the membership fee?", he begged. "Sorry, but that kind of special treatment isn't permitted. What if your uncle hangs in there for longer than you are expecting and you don't end up joining the one percent for some time? Even though we are friends the Society does have standards", William reminded his like-minded cohort.

"Well, that is disappointing", Dennis sighed. "I do understand however. What I do not understand is why you've invited Joe Truth to join. He is nowhere near as moderate as either of us". "How did you know Joe was invited?", William queried his friend. "I ran into him outside as he was leaving. I just got here for the evening shift", Dennis explained. "Don't worry about it", William assured his pal. "We never invite the lesser members to any strategy meetings, those are only for those in the inner circle. And I wouldn't be telling you this unless you were inner circle material".

"OK, I got it. You're playing him for a sucker again", Dennis correctly concluded, cracking a smile. "Absolutely", William confirmed. "I'm also close to closing a deal with Joe to take a large portion of the profits from a business venture he's planning. That is why he was here, we were discussing business". Dennis looked dejected again. "It must be sweet to be part of the investor class".

"Yes it is", William acknowledged. "We get to screw everyone from the lowly worker to those who actually come up with the ideas. And of course the consumer. It takes some of the sting out of our serving as beasts of burden in supporting the sluggards and parasites who live off the state".

"And, before you object", William added, reading his buddy's mind, "the screwing is in the mind of the Liberals only. As you and I both know there is no screwing when a deal is negotiated fairly". "You're right, I WAS about to object", Dennis confirmed. "Deals negotiated fairly being referred to as screwing is the kind of divisive rhetoric envious fools like Dervish use".

"I am going to screw Joe Truth, However", William revealed. "I inserted language in our contract that gives me control of the patent on his Big Boob Headphones, which I'm sure I can get him to sign without consulting a lawyer". With that pronouncement both William and Dennis laughed heartily.

SWTD #139, PIF #17.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

On People Who Fantasize About Committing Gruesome Acts of Physical Violence is almost always conservatives who use violence, even murder, to express political anger ~ Thomas Schaller, associate professor of political science at the University of MD Baltimore County. Quote from his 1/25/2011 article, "Violence on the Right: More Evidence".

If you're like me you might find it disturbing when you encounter a person who blogs about fantasies in which they commit gruesome acts of physical violence, regardless of who the person they want to hurt is. The disturbed individual I'm referring to is the blogger Willis Hart. The disturbing post I'm referring to is below.

Willis Hart: [In regards to] Kim Jong Un... That little degenerate stooge wouldn't last an hour on the street. Hell, I wouldn't even mind taking a crack at him (my 31 inch Roberto Clemente bat from the '70s more than likely my weapon of choice) myself (first respectfully waiting in line of course). (4/22/2013 AT 8:14pm).

Hey, I'm no fan of Un, but if he were dead another ruthless dictator would most likely take his place. The next in line (whoever that may be) would step up and play the same game... threatening the US and then extorting us for money and food to feed their starving citizens. It's a game they've played before, but given the fact that Un is new, apparently he thinks the time is right to dance this dance with us again.

That said, I have no personal animus against people I've never met. If not Un, it would be some other person engaging in the evilness that comes with the dictator gig. I certainly don't fantasize about doing him harm in the most gruesome way possible. It isn't as if Mr. Hart said he'd push a button that would result in Un being struck dead. Or say he'd shoot him if given the chance. He could also wish our Navy Seals would extract him and possibly kill him (or bring him to justice). No, Willis Hart wants to go after another human being with a baseball bat and personally beat him to death.

I say violence fantasies like these are signs of a person not being quite right in the head. Or a sign that said person is a Conservative. I mean, Conservatives are the types who fantasize about gunning down armed intruders. Right-wingers are the ones responsible for murdering abortion clinic doctors, and they are the ones who join the armed militias our government is watching.

But Willis WOULD respectfully wait in line. Those people - the ones he would wait in line behind - they would be North Koreans, and would have an actual legitimate reason to desire being incredibly brutal. And I'm sure they'd kill Un before Willis got a chance. So I guess the Hartster didn't think through his violence fantasy very well.

Also, how is Kim Jong Un a "stooge"? A "stooge" is a follower, but Un is the leader ( defines "stooge" as "any underling, assistant, or accomplice"). I think Willis used the word "stooge" (without regard to its definition) simply because it is one of the absolute worst thing a person can be, in his opinion. When I used to comment on his blog he frequently labeled me a "stooge".

As for Mr. Hart's use of the word "degenerate", says it means, "to fall below a normal or desirable level in physical, mental, or moral qualities; deteriorate". Huh. I wonder just how often Willis fantasizes about hurting people he dislikes. Depending on how consuming these flights of fancy are, I think Willis may very well be lacking in "moral qualities" and fall into the "degenerate" category.

SWTD #138, wDel #19.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Easily Refuting the Argument That Global Warming is BS Because Scientists Previously Said There Would be Global Cooling

...many of those scientists are still alive, and they were absolutely convinced. I mean, if Al Gore had been able to in the 1970s, we would have been building huge furnaces to warm the planet against this inevitable coming Ice Age ~ Newt Gingrich (dob 6/17/1943) Republican representative from Georgia's 6th district (1979 to 1999) and the 58th Speaker of the House (1995 until resignation); A quote from 5/27/11, while Gingrich was "running for president" and claiming he was absolutely going to be the nominee.

Those stupid climatologists don't have a clue when it comes to predicting what may be in store for the future, climate-wise. First they said the planet was cooling and now they say it's heating up. What are they going to be saying next? Clearly this is undeniable proof that the majority of the world's scientists are nothing but a bunch of bumbling idiots, right?

Blogger Willis Hart believes so, and ridiculed the lamebrain researchers in an articulate and brilliant polemic that makes the case that they are wrong now because they were wrong then. Willis Hart, being a strong global warming skeptic, looks at the science critically, instead of believing what those lying scientists say as if it were gospel. This is because Willis is smarter than the average blogger. Fact is, he's a modern day Galileo, as evidenced by the following excerpt from his blog...

Willis Hart: ...magazine articles from the 1970s warning us about the dangers of global cooling and the coming of yet another ice age. And, yes, folks, some of the authors even seemed to think that the science was settled on it. ... None of this bullshit about a positive feedback loop or amplification. Nope, the planet is going to cool DRAMATICALLY and there ain't a blessed thing that increases in CO2 can do about it, period/end of discussion. I mean, is this unbelievable or what? (4/22/2013 AT 10:59pm).

So, I guess the Hartster has finally refuted this global climate change bunk once and for all, right? Actually, no, not quite. Upon entering "Global Cooling" into the Wikipedia search engine, I was presented with the following...

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

The global cooling theory had LITTLE SUPPORT. That is in contrast to the current scientific consensus that says the planet is getting hotter (overall). The global cooling theory entered national consciousness via a 6/24/1974 Time magazine article titled "Another Ice Age?", but the theory didn't last that long, as this (additional) excerpt from the Wikipedia page on "global cooling" notes...

...scientific knowledge regarding climate change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide, and hlorofluorocarbons. Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades. As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979.

30 years of additional research have resulted in a scientific consensus forming around the present theory of global climate change (a theory that says overall temperatures are increasing). So, what Willis is saying is that because the scientific community some researchers got it wrong in the 70s, none of them can ever be trusted again? Yes, he is drawing that brain-dead of a conclusion.

According to Willis the scientific consensus among today's climatologists - a consensus reached after decades of additional research - it's all bullshit. And, that it's all bullshit is a conclusion Willis and the prior Republican nominee for president failed presidential candidate (and punchline) Newt Gingrich can agree on. Seriously, is Willis' denialism on this subject unbelievable or what?

Video: Remember when doctors recommended smoking? Using Willis' logic we can not trust doctors who now say smoking causes cancer!

SWTD #137, wDel #18.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Severe Conservative Delusions: Democratic Socialism Dissembling Edition

Some... intentionally blur the differences between socialism and communism, between democracy and totalitarianism. ... If we could get beyond such nonsense, I think this country could use a good debate about what goes on here compared to places with a long social-democratic tradition like Sweden, Norway and Finland, where, by and large, the middle class has a far higher standard of living than we do ~ Bernie Sanders (dob 9/8/1941) Democratic Socialist and junior United States Senator from Vermont, as quoted from his 4/22/2009 HuffPo article, Socialist Successes.

Welcome to the third post in a planned series chronicling the insane in the membrane rantings emanating from the pie hole of the most severely deluded conservative I have ever encountered; a wacko with the blogger ID of dmarks (real name: Dennis Marks). Previously I refuted these statements where they were made - on the blog of a self-described "Moderate", but no longer can due to the proprietor banning me for being too Liberal for him to tolerate.

In this numero tres commentary I'm going to refute a lying diatribe from dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) in which he misrepresented the political ideology of the Independent senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. I would also like to push back against Dennis' misrepresentation of Democratic Socialism. The inane dissembling by Mr. Marks was in response to a disturbing post by Willis Hart in which he relates a violent fantasy in which he beats North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to death with a baseball bat...

Dennis Marks: [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).

North Korea leader Kim Jong Un is a totalitarian dictator, and not "the face of Socialism in its purist form". In regards to North Korea Wikipedia says, "the government follows the Juche ideology of self-reliance, initiated by the country's first President, Kim Il-sung. After his death, Kim Il-sung was declared the country's Eternal President. Juche became the official state ideology, replacing Marxism–Leninism, when the country adopted a new constitution in 1972. In 2009, references to Communism were removed from the country's constitution".

Dennis has a long history of twisting definitions to slander the Left. Socialism is an ideology whose objective is the empowerment of the average citizen, and, it's purest form, is not supposed to primarily benefit a ruling class. Yes, many revolutionaries have promised Socialism, and then not followed thorough on their promises; instead setting themselves and their cronies up as the primary beneficiaries of their new economic system.

The reason this happens, IMO, is because people like the idea of Socialism and they will fight for it. They do not like the idea of being ruled by a small group of wealthy elites, but unfortunately history has shown us that GREED usually always causes the revolutionary leaders to set themselves up as dictators or the heads of a ruling class.

The reason this almost never happens on the right is because the common man wouldn't fight if their leaders, instead of offering them a fair share of the pie (Socialism), said they should fight for a greater share of the pie going to a wealthy elite (plutocracy). Who would fight on behalf of that? Dictators who came to power by LYING to their citizens aren't socialists; they are kleptocrats (thieves)! Lying about giving the people Socialism and then delivering a totalitarian dictatorship is not "Socialism in it's purest form"!

Not that it matters, since North Korea originally identified as Communist, not socialist, and (surprise) the revolutionary leaders reneged and set up the country as a dictatorship. Wikipedia also notes "education in North Korea is universal and state funded, with a CLAIMED national literacy rate of 99%. The country has a national medical service and CLAIMS to offer free healthcare"... notice the two words I capitalized. They CLAIM these things, but do we really believe the literacy rate is 99%? Do we really believe they offer universal healthcare? No! They are LYING. Socialism involves actually delivering on these promises, not false promises and theft of a nation's resources by a ruling class.

Kleptocracy, as defined by Wikipedia, "is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population", and THIS is what North Korea actually is - a totalitarian dictatorship and a kleptocracy masquerading as a socialistic state.

Not that any of that has anything to do with Bernie Sanders, as he is a Democratic Socialist, which I would define as follows (note that I have rejected sections of the Wikipedia definition)...

Democratic Socialism is a variant of Socialism that rejects centralized, elitist, or authoritarian methods of transitioning from capitalism to socialism [a mixed economy that includes increased socialist elements] in favor of grassroots-level movements aiming for the immediate creation [a gradual transition to a more] decentralized economic democracy. The term is often used by socialists who favor either electoral transition to Socialism or a spontaneous mass revolution from below to distinguish themselves from authoritarian socialists that call for a single-party state, most notably to contrast with Marxist-Leninists and Maoists. Democratic socialists endorse a post-capitalist, socialist [mixed] economic system as an alternative to capitalism. Some Democratic socialists advocate market Socialism based on workplace self-management [cooperatives and worker-owned businesses]...

So, am I guilty of the same sort of terminology redefinition I just accused Dennis of? I say no. My rejection and slight modification of the definition reflects how (I believe) Bernie Sanders views himself as a Democratic Socialist. He would not have run for the House (where he originally served for 16 years) and then the Senate if he did not believe in bringing more Socialism to the United States DEMOCRATICALLY. Also, as Wikipedia points out...

Democratic Socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. Some definitions simply refer to all forms of Socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to Socialism, rather than a revolutionary one...

The revolutionary route is rejected because history has shown that it leads to the establishment of a dictatorship or a ruling class of elites (leaders who promised Socialism but delivered kleptocracy). This is the route North Korea followed, and therefore could, in no way be described as a "Bernie Sanders paradise".

And the "hard left" does NOT view North Korea as "more advanced" either. A dictatorship that murders it's own people, imprisons it's citizens in forced labor camps, and allows it's ruling class to live lavishly while the majority of the populace endures extreme poverty and starvation is the exact opposite of what those who advocate for Democratic Socialism desire, Dennis - you stupid lying sack of shit. Greater EQUALITY is their goal.

In fact, countries like North Korea could be described as being "Socialist", but "socialist" in its most perverted form. Democratic Socialists and progressives (the so-called "hard left") stand in opposition to this "form" of "Socialism" (which is actually totalitarianism), as well as the plutocracy deluded stooges like Dennis Marks yearn for.

Supporting Document
Bernie Sanders: Hero Of The Ruling Class, A Greedy Thief Who Is Good At Plundering, DSD #13. (A catalog of Dennis comments re Bernie Sanders. Many of them comparing the VT Senator to dictators like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Kim Jong-un).

SWTD #136, dDel #6.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

People In States Where Gun Violence is Lower Don't Give Two Craps About Doing Anything to Curb Gun Violence In States Where it is High

The most distressing aspect of the world into which you are going is its indifference to the basic issues, which now, as always, are moral issues ~ Robert Maynard Hutchins (1/17/1899 to 5/17/1977) an educational philosopher, dean of Yale Law School (1927–1929), and president (1929–1945) and chancellor (1945–1951) of the University of Chicago.

Why did the "sickos" who wanted to take advantage of the Newtown tragedy to pass a stronger background check law fail? Apparently it's because a-holes in states where gun violence is lower don't give two craps about the higher level of violence in states they don't live in. Apparently they do give one crap, just not two, as a blogger who is a defender of "basic human rights" explains...

Dennis Marks: ...there is a lot less disconnect between how Congress recently voted on gun control and the general public view. It especially shows the reticence and ambivalence of the public at large (4/21/2013 AT 6:42am).

Dennis Marks (blogger ID: "dmarks"), the individual who believes being able to purchase a gun sans background check is a "basic human right", was quoting a National Journal article titled, "How Democrats Got Gun Control Polling Wrong". While support for action addressing the problem is high (the article cites an 80 percent favorable polling figure), people in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont felt the proposed legislation was, "addressing a problem [not] in their community [but] somewhere far away".

Additionally the persons polled in those states "support [the legislation] and they think it's a good idea, but they don't feel super deeply about it".

OK, I get it. They're selfish bastards who couldn't care less about people who aren't them. They only said they thought the legislation was a "good idea", but they didn't mean FOR THEM. For themselves they are totally opposed. Oh, and don't forget the most important aspect of their support which isn't really support - they aren't sickos looking to exploit the massacre and confiscate all guns (as the right-wing extremist blogger Dennis Marks recently claimed).

It's a good thing the residents of states where citizens are being slaughtered at a higher rate have the National Journal to tell them why common sense gun regulation can't pass! That is, the small number of people affected by the gun violence that read it. Seems the National Journal is "mostly read by members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, the White House, Executive Branch agencies, the media, think tanks, corporations, associations and lobbyists".

In other words the purpose of this article was to tell the Republicans and Conservative Democrats who voted against the legislation why they were correct in doing so. In other words the article was a big slobbering wet kiss on the butt cheeks of the mag's financial supporters (people who pay to read it)... Congresspersons bought and paid for by the NRA, those who serve them, the corporate media, the corporate think tanks, the gun manufacturers, and the lobbyists of the gun manufacturers.

Are you TOTALLY SHOCKED that a publication serving groups opposed to common sense gun legislation concludes that "Democrats Got Gun Control Polling Wrong" (even though they got it right)?? I am being ironic, of course. Nobody is shocked, including the gun nut Dennis. That the Democrats sickos who sought to use the Newtown tragedy as an excuse to infringe on the citizens' "basic human rights" of buying a gun at a gun show and not having to endure the indignity of a background check were defeated makes perfect sense, as those who supported kind-of supported the legislation know.

Which explains why their support was high but "shallow". Deep down they knew nothing can be done to curb gun violence, and that the legislation played into the hands of the sickos whose agenda is to eventually confiscate all firearms.

Actually, only gun nuts like Dennis believe that last part. Everyone else whose support was "shallow" just said they supported it so the pollsters wouldn't throw the Newtown tragedy in their faces and make them feel like uncaring monsters... even if they actually didn't really care because the tragedy took place "far away".

And so the gun nuts and gun nut supporters cheer. Common sense legislation that may have prevented the next massacre was defeated due to the indifference of voters who live in states where gun violence is lower. Yeah! Certainly this can be viewed as a victory for our "basic human rights" as Dennis claims?

By the way, Dennis is correct that the Newtown shooter didn't buy the guns he used; his mother purchased them and she would have passed the expanded background check the Democrats proposed. That does not mean the legislation couldn't stop the next shooter. The guy who shot up the theater where the Batman movie was playing bought his own guns, and the expanded background check could have conceivably stopped him, so this "failed legislation" is not "more evidence that the tragedy is being used in order to push an agenda", you brain-dead moron!

Although one must realize that by "agenda" Dennis means gun confiscation, as opposed to an agenda of SAVING LIVES which is the actual moral issue being debated... a moral issue the gun nuts feel complete indifference toward. They will pay it lip service and nothing more, or, worse yet, call you a "sicko" for "pushing" your "agenda" of saving lives!

Make no mistake about it; these people - people like Dennis Marks - are the TRUE sickos! Sickos, and dupes for the NRA, whose only concern is making money selling guns. That is the REAL "basic human right" Dennis refers to - profit at any cost.

SWTD #135, dDel #5.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Severe Conservative Delusions: Gun Nut Edition

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ~ The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State.

Welcome to the 4th installment in a series chronicling the wacky statements of the most severely deluded Conservative I have ever encountered; a blogger whose name is Dennis Marks, but is known by his Blogger ID, which is dmarks.

In this numero cuatro post I ask the question - can a person who does not own a gun (or, says he does not own one) be a "gun nut"? I say yes. How could that be, you might ask? I say the term "gun nut" applies if said individual opposes reasonable legislation such as universal background checks like Mr. Marks. Check out this gun nuttery, for example...

Dennis Marks: Remember, someone else recently winged it and carelessly made up their own definition of "gun nut" by saying it meant "having nutty views about guns". Using this, Andrew Cuomo is a gun nut, while someone with such moderate views as [Willis Hart] is not. Because Cuomo has mentioned favoring the truly nutty idea of confiscation. And only a real "gun nut" (again using this bogus definition) would call something an "assault weapon" just for having a decorative handle (2/19/2013 AT 1:17am).

Huh? The Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo is a gun nut? Presumably because he signed a gun control bill passed by NY's state congress that CNN says, "...fortifies New York's existing assault weapons ban, limits the number of bullets allowed in magazines and strengthens rules that govern the mentally ill, which includes a requirement to report potentially harmful behavior". The article also notes that Cuomo is a GUN OWNER.

Hmm, I wonder what part of "well regulated" Dennis does not understand? I'm going to guess absolutely no part. Even though the amendment is quite short, it appears as though Dennis missed the "well regulated" wording completely, as evidenced by an unbelievably insane (even for Dennis) comment Mr. Marks made in response to a blog posting lamenting the failure of Congress to pass legislation mandating universal not quite universal background checks (the bill exempted "private" sales between individuals).

Dennis Marks: Lacking in your [commentary] is any idea of human rights and protecting them. Those who voted against destroying basic human rights as protected in the Second Amendment weren't the best according to small-D "democracy". They ignored the will of an angry, ignorant, and hateful mob. But they did act to protect our basic rights. ...I am glad the sickos who were happy about the Newtown disaster, and cynically used it as an excuse to get rid of basic rights they always hated ended up losing in Congress (4/19/2013 AT 6:42am).

Expanding background checks to cover gun shows is described by this wacko as "destroying basic human rights"? And people concerned about small children being blown away (and seeking some minor thing like expanding background checks to stop dangerous people from obtaining guns) are "sickos"?? What the hell is wrong with this person? Does he believe that instead of being "well regulated", the purchase of firearms should not be regulated at all? Given the gun show loophole (and the fact that it allows criminals to buy guns, thus completely nullifying the the purpose behind doing background checks) what else can one conclude?

Dennis, YOU are the sicko, as absolutely no one who is advocating for Congress to pass some common sense gun legislation is "happy" about small children being shot in the face. Also, one has to wonder if, seeing as some of those who are lobbying their Congresspersons for this legislation are the parents, is Dennis saying the Newtown mothers and fathers whose kids were blow away are included in the "sicko" category? Is he saying the parents are happy their children were murdered?

I'm guessing he would say no, but yet he failed to exempt them (the Newtown parents) in his loony comment condemning the people who think we can do more to protect the citizens of this nation from being massacred by the dangerously mentally ill with firearms. Dennis actually thinks we "smiled" after what happened at Newtown.

Dennis Marks: These folks smiled when the massacre happened. Now they are frowning, and that is a good thing (4/20/2013 AT 12:42pm).

Finally, in regards to "confiscation", no one Dennis disparagingly refers to as a "sicko" has ever suggested it. In declaring confiscation is an actual goal of the "sickos", Dennis identifies himself as one of those paranoid Rightwing fringe types who serve as dupes for the NRA (a terrorist organization that cares only about maximizing the profits of the gun manufactures, no matter the cost, and does not represent its actual members).

So, YES, Dennis is definitely a gun nut, whether or not he actually owns a gun, because his views on guns and gun legislation are undeniably nutty.

SWTD #134, dDel #4.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

One of the Worst Cases of Global Warming Derangement Syndrome Ever Seen

[Skeptics are] taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious ~ Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, responding to the "climategate" email controversy of November 2009. According to climate change critics stolen emails (from a hacking incident at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Britain) show that global warming is a scientific conspiracy. These skeptics allege the emails show scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.

You know the subject is suffering greatly from this malady when he posts on the topic multiple times a day! And that is what we have here, folks, with blogger Willis Hart... a fanatical global climate change denier, er "skeptic" (as he calls himself).

In a post titled, "On Mike's Nature Trick", the GWDS-afflicted individual quotes one of the "climategate" emails that "prove" those dastardly scientists have been trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the innocent oil-consuming public, in a conspiracy aimed at [1] having a hearty laugh at our expense, and [2] enriching "Big Green".

The specific email in question was from Phil Jones (the director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Britain) and reads as follows...

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith to hide the decline.

(The "trick" in question was described in an article by Michael Mann in the journal Nature. "Mike" is Michael Mann and "Keith" is Keith Briffa, climatologist and deputy director of the Climatic Research Unit).

Following is Mr. Hart's response to this email.

Willis Hart: TO HIDE THE DECLINE! Please, somebody explain to me how this is somehow benign. These folks were using some sort of a gimmick to hide the fact that the bristlecone pine tree-rings were not, NOT, reflecting the actual temperatures and that they therefore could not have been even remotely accurate going back multiple centuries. This is abject dishonesty, folks, pure and simple, and the fact that there are seemingly people out there who want to mitigate it is disappointing and a sad, sorrowful state of the science. (Post: On "Mike's Nature Trick"... 4/14/2013 AT 8:29am).

I would explain to Mr. Hart how this is completely benign, but he banned me from his blog, due to his intolerance for dissenting opinions. I will instead explain here (on my blog) what Hart's denialism is causing him to ignore... even though he will not read this post, and does not really want anyone to explain to him "how this is somehow benign" because he THINKS he's asking a rhetorical question. He THINKS it is self-evident that the majority of the world's climate scientists are trying to fool us.

Willis is convinced (or he is trying to convince his readers) that by "trick" what Phil Jones meant was, "a crafty or underhanded device" instead of "a clever or ingenious device or expedient" (which is how he actually was using the word).

As for "hiding the decline" Skeptical Science (a climate science blog that examines the scientific support of the most common skeptic arguments) explains what was really meant with that phrase...

Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

So, what Phil Jones is talking about (in the so-called climategate email) is using Michael Mann's "trick" to solve the "divergence problem". The "trick", according to a 2/15/2010 Nature article was to do the "analyses using other methods - proxy temperature markers from ice core samples, for example", and that using this "trick" shows "much the same temperature change over the past 1,000 years, backing up Mann's hockey stick".

The "hiding" was the discarding of the inaccurate tree ring data that seemed to suggest temperatures were declining - even though we have ACTUAL READINGS that prove otherwise Willis, you dope!

Question is, is this is abject dishonesty from the Hartster, or just ignorance? Whichever the case, bloggers with severe GWDS like Willis Hart spreading misinformation on such an important topic is disappointing - and a sad, sorrowful state of affairs - people believing Big Oil propaganda over scientists!

IMO suggesting that human-caused global warming is a vast conspiracy in which an overwhelming majority of the planet's scientists are participating is patently absurd... and I question the intelligence and/or sanity (or motivation) of anyone peddling this fiction.

SWTD #133, wDel #17.

Friday, April 05, 2013

Violently Nuts Liberal Wanted by Fuzz for Assault

Keep violence in the mind where it belongs ~ Brian Aldiss (dob 8/18/1925) an English writer and anthologies editor, best known for science fiction novels and short stories.

"I never took you for a jingoistic racist", William Hartenbaum said, addressing his friend Joe Truth. Both were sitting on stools in the bar area of The Quarry, a posh restaurant on the outskirts of town. William took a sip of his white wine, and then one more, emptying the glass. "I'll have another", William instructed the bartender.

"I don't follow", a clearly confused Joe responded. "You just told me you were strongly leaning toward manufacturing your Big Boob Headphones in the United States using union labor", William reminded his friend.

"Yes", Joe acknowledged. "These would be high end headphones manufactured with pride in the US. It would be a selling point. The extra labor costs would be offset by lower shipping expenses, as they wouldn't have to be imported from a foreign country. And, most importantly, don't forget the Big Boobs angle. This is how I'm going to get the male consumer to pay a premium. The profit margin will be high enough to easily absorb the extra cost of union labor".

"That is the reasoning I was referring to as jingoistic", William explained. "Opposition to sending our chimpanzee jobs overseas is based in a racist bigotry against foreign people. Demonizing them because they are capable of working more efficiently than Americans. Why overpay lazy American workers when profits can be maximized by using less expensive foreign labor?"

"But isn't it racist to suggest foreign workers should get our - as you called them - chimpanzee jobs?", Truth countered. "Not at all", William deflected, dodging his obviously bigoted description of assembly work with a derogatory term and a non-answer. "In any case, I won't invest in your headphones if you insist on using union or US labor. I can't abide stealing profit from investors by overpaying labor me buck", William warned.

"You may be right", Joe agreed. "If I want to be a proper greedy capitalist pig outsourcing production is the route I may have to go", Joe reasoned. "Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose I go with foreign labor. How much would you be willing to invest?", he asked. William smiled, satisfied that Joe was coming around to his way of thinking. "How about 5 million to start, for which I'd only ask you to split the profits 50-50 with me", William suggested.

After thinking it over for awhile, Joe said, "there are a few other potential investors I want to speak with first, but your offer leads the pack so far. Now, on another topic, I'm sorry that my attempt to broker a peace between you and Dervish failed. He was here at The Quarry last night, but left as soon as he learned that I wanted you and him to sit down and work out your differences".

"Actually I ran into him in the parking lot", William revealed. "Now get this, my friend Tony Hawkins was with me, and when I asked Dervish to come back inside and talk, he assaulted Tony with a stun gun! And Tony did nothing to provoke such a brutal attack. I called an ambulance and rode with Tony to the hospital where he got checked out. Luckily he's OK, but your Liberal buddy Dervish is in a LOT of trouble. Tony works for the police, and assulting an officer of the law is a serious crime. Tony's partner Smurf Jones told me that Dervish is going to be arrested and charged".

"Wow. I guess Dervish is even more nuts than I knew. I thought he was harmless; I had no idea he was VIOLENTLY nuts", an astonished Joe replied. "For Christ!" William exclaimed. "Dervish is a violent paranoid. But, although he may very well be insane, he's going to jail, not to a mental hospital".

Just then the door to the back room behind the bar opened and Slade Leeds, The Quarry's owner, walked in. "Are you two discussing someone named Dervish?" he asked resting the palms of his hands on the bar. "I got a call from an attorney this morning informing me that I was being sued. Something about one of my chefs doing inappropriate things to Dervish's dinner and Dervish being assaulted in the parking lot by that same chef along with some of his friends, including YOU, William".

"This is what I meant when I called Dervish paranoid", responded William. "I was only trying to talk to the guy, and he violently attacked my friend Tony. No need to worry about being sued, Slade. Dervish is going to be arrested later today, as he is the one who did the attacking. And, not only that, but the person he assaulted is a police officer!". "That is reassuring", Slade responded. "By the way, the lawyer said the chef was Dennis Marks. Isn't he a friend of yours William?".

"Yea, I know the guy", William said. "And, yes, he was outside taking a smoke break. We were speaking when I noticed Dervish and approached him, but Dennis went back inside before the altercation", William dishonestly recounted. "So, I take it that this Dervish fellow fabricated the entire incident", Slade reasoned. "Just about", William affirmed. "There was an encounter, but Dervish is lying about everything else".

"Awesome", Slade sighed, obviously relieved. "Not that I was worried. I knew my good friend William would never be involved in such a thing. Think you can stick about for awhile? My lawyer should be here soon and I want him to hear what really happened direct from the source". William nodded his head, answering, "sure thing".

"You have to be careful when serving the public. You never know what kind of crazy will walk through your doors", Slade declared. "I'm going to have some cameras installed in both the front and rear parking lots ASAP. That way nothing like this will ever happen again. Anyway, I thought it was your word against his, but seeing as it's your word AND the word of a law enforcement officer against his, I can't see this lawsuit going anywhere". "Absolutely", William replied. "That clown Dervish is going to be sorry he messed with us".

"What did Dervish say the chef did to his meal?" a previously silent Joe Truth asked. "He says it was drugged, but that the waiter mixed up the plates and you got the one that contained a sedative", Slade replied. "I did fall asleep after my meal", a befuddled Joe remarked.

"A-ha", William pronounced, feigning shock. "Clearly that means this was a set up from the get go. Dervish must have slipped the sedative into your drink while you weren't looking", William pretended to deduce. "Sadly, I think you may be right", a gullible Joe Truth lamented.

SWTD #132, PIF #16.

Monday, April 01, 2013

Severe Conservative Delusions: Black On Black Racism Edition

Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies... Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice ~ Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario; from a study which found "Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice".

Welcome to the 3rd post in a series chronicling the wacky statements of the most severely deluded conservative I have ever encountered - an individual known as dmarks (real name Dennis Marks). Previously I refuted these statements where they were made (the blog of a self-described "Moderate" I used to frequent), but no longer can since the doofus banned me when I refused to agree with his "superior logic" (and because Willis is higher ordered, while I am of a much lesser stock).

With this numero tres post I ask the question - can an African American individual be racist against another African American individual? My opinion is... possibly. If the individual were someone who wished he were white (if such a African American even exists, and suggesting he or she does might be found offensive by the African American community), or, perhaps a lighter skinned African American who finds a darker-skinned African American inferior? (But then that individual would also be classified as self-hating, because they hate the black in themselves and prefer the white).

So... possibly, but the individual would definitely have to be self-hating. And that, in my opinion, is definitely not the case regarding comments made by an individual who goes by the name Touré. In an 10/20/2012 article Touré asked the question, "Is Herman Cain the Most Unctuous Black Man Alive?". Concerning this article, Dennis claimed (in a comment on the blog I was banned from) that Touré bashed Herman Cain for being black, and that said bashing meant that Touré is a racist.

Now, Touré is black himself (and not at all self-hating as far as I can see), so, to me, this comment makes absolutely no sense. Also, if you read the article, you'll find that Touré was bashing Cain for his "foot-in-mouth moments [that] mostly involve insulting the black community". These are the insults you hear coming from black conservatives regarding how Democrats trick African Americans into dependency by offering them free stuff they didn't earn (think the Santorum comment about him not wanting to "make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money"... many black conservative actually AGREE).

In my opinion Touré put forth a reasoned Left-wing criticism of Herman Cain that was in no way racist. In fact, I find the suggestion ludicrous. According to 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".

Now, if Touré (who isn't self-hating) were a racist he would view his race as superior (as per the definition I just quoted) and would therefore NOT bash another black man for being black. That would be contrary to the definition. You can't "bash" someone for being that which is superior.

In response Dennis said, "I know, it is silly and stupid for someone to be racist against their own race, but it happens. Not that there's any racism that isn't silly and stupid".

No, it does not happen, not unless the person in question is a self-hating African American, which, as I already pointed out, Touré is not. I made this point to the disagreeing idiot, and he said, "You bring this up again and again. Yet, it does not matter at all. I don't know if he is, have never given any thought to it, and don't care. Regardless of what his self esteem issues are, this nut-job has no problem heaping hate upon another African-American for reason that include that person's skin color".

So, the idiot Dennis ignores a valid point because it interferes with the nonsensical argument he is making, which is that a "racist" Black man bashed another Black man for being Black. Even though, if he were racist he'd see being Black as superior. Also, is it not racist to accuse a Black man of racism when what you're really objecting to is a Liberal (Touré) criticizing a Conservative (Herman Cain)?

Touré clearly never says anything racist about Herman Cain. What's going on here (with Dennis' absurd accusation of racism) is that the dope is masking his own prejudices by accusing a African American of racism (something he does very frequently). It is a common conservative ploy... they say things like, "I consistently oppose all racism and all racial injustice", and then use that as an excuse to oppose Affirmative Action programs on the grounds that they discriminate against Whites (when, in reality, AA programs are meant to combat racism); and to bash minorities for discriminating against Whites.

SWTD #131, dDel #3. See also PPP #14.