Rasmussen Asks Leading Question To Discredit Black Lives Matter Movement

To say that Black lives matter is not to say that other lives do not; indeed, it is quite the reverse - it is to recognize that all lives do matter, and to acknowledge that African Americans are often targeted unfairly... ~ Rev. Dan Schatz, Minister of the BuxMont Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Warrington PA(and White man), in his 12/15/2014 HuffPo article On Being Asked to Change 'Black Lives Matter' to 'All Lives Matter'.

The following poll results from an 8/20/2015 Rasmussen Reports survey.

Rasmussen: Yes, black lives matter, but don't all lives matter? That seems to be the subject of some political dispute. When asked which statement is closest to their own views, 78% of Likely U.S. Voters say all lives matter. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 11% say black lives matter. Nine percent (9%) say neither statement reflects their point of view. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Thirty-one percent (31%) of black voters say black lives matter is closest to their own views, but just nine percent (9%) of whites and 10% of other minority voters agree. Eighty-one percent (81%) of whites and 76% of other minority voters opt instead for all lives matter, and 64% of blacks agree. (source).

The bias of Rasmussen is evident in the very fist sentence. Black Lives matter is NOT saying all lives don't matter... yet Rasmussen says it's "a subject of some political dispute" when IT IS NOT! The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is in reaction to a system that says Black lives don't matter. What they're really saying is Black lives matter just as much as White lives, although our system doesn't act as if they do.

So, because OF COURSE "all lives matter", Rasmussen get responses that indicate most people agree that "all lives matter" is the statement that is closest to their own views. 69% of Black respondents choose "all lives matter" because ALL LIVES DO MATTER!

But notice that Rasmussen did not also ask if the respondent supports the Black Lives Matter movement? Why didn't they? Because those responses would have revealed the boggussness of their poll. A poll CLEARLY intended to discredit the BLM movement. Had they asked people if they also support the BLM movement, I strongly suspect that there would have been a huge amount of overlap.

People would have said, YES "all lives matter" is the statement is closest to their own views, while at the same time supporting BLM. As for the 31% of African American respondents who chose "black lives matter" as their statement? I believe (most/a large percentage of) those people realized they were being asked a leading question designed to get the response Rasmussen wanted... and they refused to play Rasmussen's game.

Personally, I would have also asked if "do you support the BLM movement" was a followup question, and if I was told "no" I would have replied that "black lives matter" is closest to my view, whereas if they had said yes, I would have said "all lives matter" is closest to my view. I would have refused to play their game and give them the response they wanted in their leading poll, in other words.

BTW, for proof that this was a leading poll - just take a look at how the Rightwing-o-sphere has responded... they trumpeting this poll result. It's proof that the BLM movement has no support... even among the Black community. But note that "do you support the BLM movement" is NOT the question that was asked!

Is this proof that Rasmussen Reports is a tool of the Rightwing? Are they Conservatively biased? I'm not sure. I Googled for confirmation of this suspicion, and found some evidence that backs up this suspicion, but not a lot. Nothing that said, oh yes, that Rasmussen is Conservatively biased is well know. I do know that this specific poll was biased, however.

Here is another example (from the same page I pulled the above Rasmussen poll results from).

Rasmussen: ...82% of black voters think most black Americans receive unfair treatment from the police. White voters by a 56% to 30% margin don't believe that's true. Other minority voters are evenly divided. But 70% of all voters believe the level of crime in low-income inner city communities is a bigger problem in America today than police discrimination against minorities. (source).

OK, so Rasmussen is obviously trying to discredit the idea that black Americans receive unfair treatment from the police by following that question with another question that gets a response of "70% of all voters believe the level of crime in low-income inner city communities is a bigger problem in America today than police discrimination against minorities".

The two aren't mutually exclusive! Both are big problems, although I would say African Americans receiving unfair treatment from the police is the more serious problem... because the police are supposed to serve and protect all law abiding citizens regardless of race!

Sure, numbers-wise, the level of crime in low-income inner city communities is a bigger problem, but criminals commit crimes... that is what they do. The police treating people unfairly based on skin color is not supposed to be what they do! Yet, it seems that it is. Which is why the BLM movement exists... to draw attention to this problem.

It does not exist to say that ALL LIVES don't matter or that Black lives matter more... although this is EXACTLY how the Rasmussen poll question is phrased... and why they did not ask if respondents also supported the BLM movement.

Which is why my conclusion is that Rasmussen (at least with this poll) is obviously and transparently (IMO) shilling for the Rightwing... by asking a leading question to get the response they were looking for. A response that discredits the BLM movement and scrubs race from the conversation altogether.

In response [to "Black Lives Matter"], some white folks have countered with the phrase, "All Lives Matter". While this is seemingly a more empowering as well as a diversity affirming response, it is neither ..."All Lives Matter" is a form of willful colorblindness - the erasure of the issue of race. When people say "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter," they are not simply opening their arms to the greater diversity of humanity. Instead, they are taking race out of the conversation. While the statement masquerades as a bright and inclusive light, in the shadow of this statement hides a willful ignorance of America's racist past and present. (What's the Matter with "All Lives Matter" by David Bedrick. The Huffington Post 8/24/2015).

Erasing of the issue of race is the goal of the Whites pushing back against BLM in my opinion. There are some clueless people going along with this, but much of the pushback (replace "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter") is racist in nature. That's why it's mostly Rightwingers getting offended and claiming that BLM is "racist" and saying things like "All Lives Matter is beautiful" and "If your self-righteous, pompous, racist activism clouds the cognitive portion of your brain... Fuck You".

Speaking of FUs, Glenn Beck led a rally of 20k similarly clueless and/or racist individuals in an "All Lives Matter march" along the historic civil rights route from Kelly Ingram Park to Birmingham City Hall on 8/29/2015. Chuck Norris and Jon Voight were there, along with African American pastor Bishop Jim Lowe and Alveda King (a Conservative Fox Nooz contributing niece of civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr).

Because Rightwingers love it when they can get Black dupes to tell them their racism is OK.

It is also "unfortunate" that Rasmussen Reports participated in the discrediting of the BLM movement (via replacement of "Black Lives Matter" with the color-blind history-ignoring "All Lives Matter"). Although I'm not at all convinced the Rasmussen poll was "unfortunate"... but rather it was calculated, in that Rasmussen asked the question that elicited the response they wanted. Too bad more respondents didn't realize they were being played.

Image: Protestors show the real message of the BLM movement, which is that Black lives matter as much (not more) than White lives. We need to laud this movement, not denounce it. We need to emulate it, not shut it down... which is what the Right wishes to do with their "all lives matter" counter-slogan... shut down BLM.

SWTD #311. See also TADM #80.

On The Octopus & dmarks Friendship (A Cyberspace Peeve)

I don't have pet peeves; I have whole kennels of irritation ~ Whoopi Goldberg (11/13, 1955) an American comedienne, actress, singer-songwriter, political activist, author and talk show host who won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role as psychic Oda Mae Brown in the 1990 film Ghost.

If you read this blog it is likely you know I am not a fan of the blogger known as dmarks (real name Dennis Marks). Although you most like are not a regular reader (as this blog as few, if any). In which case I will outright tell you that I do not like Dennis.

The reason is because Dennis lies. He lies frequently and he lies often. Frankly I think his lying is pathological. Meaning Dennis lies but he believes his own lies. Or he believes many of them. Others I have a hard time believing he thinks are true. Because they are so pernicious, vile, ridiculous, etc.

Recently I attempted to alert a Progressive blogger known as Octopus to the truth about Dennis when he named Dennis as a friend (for "calling out antisemitism"). The post itself was an account of extremely bad treatment that Shaw Kenawe received upon visiting the site of a Rightwinger. EXTREMELY bad. Most of it coming from the known racist Radical Redneck (who also revealed himself to be quite the misogynist with his comments directed at, and harassing emails sent to this exemplary Progressive blogger).

Anyway, I decided that I'd relate an experience I had with another blogger (Dennis) who treats people he disagrees with badly by lying about them. While also alerting Octopus to the true nature of his friend".

Dervish Sanders: Looks like this commentary is generating a lot of laughs over on another blog, the proprietor of which has previously noted that Octopus literally makes his skin crawl. And he's done more than one commentary disparaging Liberals he does not like, Shaw included. And one of the commenters there who is also "a friend of this forum" said "Shaw has no integrity", [and] that she "has become quite unhinged lately"... I admit I am more biased against this "friend", but I have been subject to quite a few dishonest comments from him. This "friend" says both bin Laden and Stalin are "heroes" to me, I defend antiSemitism, support sex crimes against children, am an apologist and supporter of domestic violence, and that I strongly favor abortionists being given the power of... executioner... by killing children after they are born out of nothing more than a sick thrill of bloodlust... Link (10/2/2014 AT 12:17pm).

Dennis replied with a comment indicating I was "whining" about being caught praising Stalin (TADM #5). So I asked Dennis where this "praising" had taken place (it had not, by the way, and this is an example of what I meant above when I referred to ridiculous lies). Dennis later deleted his comment and "apologized" to Shaw for taking the "troll bait"... meaning my comment - defending myself against the lying of Dennis - was a TROLL in the mind of Dennis.

Despite this obviously lie, it was yours truly that got chewed out by Octopus!

Octopus: Consider yourself "caught". This post is NOT ABOUT YOU and your peeves in Cyberspace! It is about HARASSMENT and THREATS aimed at Shaw. This post is also about a kind of hyper-partisanship that HURTS [and] about anger and resentment that causes good people to forget their COMMON DECENCY and HUMANITY. There is no reason to heckle, jeer, provoke, and taunt people just because you were misquoted or slighted. It makes you NO BETTER THAN THE CULT. (10/2/2014 AT 4:12pm).

Hmm. I guess he has a point. Perhaps I should apologize to Octopus' friend Dennis? No, wait... first the question has to be asked - does alerting Octopus to the fact that Dennis is not as good of a guy as he thinks he is amount to heckling, jeering, provoking and taunting?

I say HELL NO! In my comment I emphasized with Shaw by relating a similar experience I had with a blogger who harassed with unending lies (and continues to harass). I mean that literally. Dennis repeats his lies over and over. The lies I mention above have and are brought up continually on the blogs of Willis Hart and rAtional nAtion (to a lesser extent) for literally years.

And I never said Octo's post was about me. I addressed Octo's statement that Dennis is a friend of the Swash Zone. How could anyone consider a dishonest person like Dennis a friend? Dennis has lied about me, yes, but he has also lied about other bloggers who dared stand up to him (and not back down after a few comments and allow Dennis to have the last word).

For example, Dennis had the following to say about the blogger John Myste for daring to defend Affirmative Action.

Dennis Marks: Myste, You were clearly making and defending racist statements, including that all blacks were inferior and "damaged". Not only that, you were too stupid to realize that such views are by definition strongly racist. Good riddance, Grand Wizard of the Myste. And don't let your white robe get caught on the door on the way out. (12/9/2012 AT 10:58am).

Dennis' comment, in addition to being exceedingly repugnant, is complete fiction. John Myste never said any of these things, as Mr. Myste points out in his defense of himself.

John Myste: I request that anyone who reads DMarks last comment, read the entire thread, so it will be obvious that he made up a position for me that I don't hold. (12/10/2012 AT 7:25am).

John Myste is ENTIRELY correct with his charge that Dennis "made up a position for me that I don't hold". This is what Dennis Marks (dmarks) does. He makes up positions for other people that they do not hold. And he brings them up again and again, referring to them as if they are factual.

Dennis Marks: African-Americans just need an environment of economic opportunity, and don't need affirmative-action quota policies that treat them as if they are inferior beings (damaged, in the words of that Myste guy) that can't compete on a level playing field. (2/1/2014 AT 7:30pm).

Note that this is nearly 15 months after John Myste left the blog of Willis Hart (and did not return), yet Dennis continues lying about him.

Another example...

Dennis Marks: Fox News is in a position of being a voice of dissent against the most powerful ruler on the planet. In this they deserve support. Damn those like that Progressive Soup guy who want Fox silenced. That's bootlicking. (2/4/2014 AT 2:40am).

The "Progressive Soup Guy" is a blogger known as Malcolm Bondon. Granted, this charge of "bootlicking" is quite a bit milder... but Malcolm never said he wanted Fox "silenced". He wrote a blog post concerning Fox Nooz's "decision to make a big deal over the recent White House performance by rapper Common". Malcolm disagreed with what Fox Nooz said. That was what his post was about. He never said Fox should be "silenced". This is a total fabrication of Dennis.

This, by the way, is a commentary on Progressive Soup from 5/16/2011. So why the hell is Dennis still referring to it 33 months later? And on the blog of someone (Willis Hart) who never commented on Malcolm's blog? Dennis commented on the PS blog and I commented on it as well. Both Dennis and I left comments (and argued) on Malcolm's blog about Common/White House story. But Willis (to my knowledge) never did.

And, in regards to this conversation, Dennis references it again on 9/5/2014, almost 40 months after the conversation on Progressive Soup.

Dennis Marks: wd... thinks it is great to call black people the N word and use other slurs. (9/5/2014 AT 3:38am).

This stupidity refers back to a comment by Malcolm (once again in regards to the Common/White House story) in which he said "simply using the N-word in lyrics is not bashing black people". Malcolm was talking about the rapper Common) using the N-word in his raps. I agreed with Malcolm that it was not "bashing".

And, as a White person I feel that it isn't for me to say if Black people can "take back" the word by using it themselves. I'll leave that for the African American community to hash out (some are for and others are against it). I certainly never said it was "great to call black people the N-word and use other slurs". White people are absolutely not allowed to use the word. I (as a White man) wouldn't use it, in any case.

(Note: see TADM #59 for an expanded commentary on the subject of Dennis' problem with racism and SWTD #175 for more informaton regarding the conversation that lead to Dennis referring to "that Progressive Soup guy" as a bootlicker).

Lastly, I must call bullpucky on Octo's statement that Dennis "deserves kudos for confronting anti-Semitism", given the fact that Dennis wanders into antiSemitic territory himself when criticizing Jewish people who have views he does not like. The following repugnant comment from Dennis in regards to Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish man whose parents were both Holocaust survivors.

Dennis Marks: Forget his [Finkelstein's] genocidal hatred of Jewish Israelis. This man is one of those Holocaust-deniers. The kind of person WD defends, probably with the usual "calling people who dare criticize Israelis antisemitic" canard..... Yeah, these people are antisemitic because they criticize Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens (12/8/2012 AT 7:25pm). Note: Dennis deleted this antiSemitic comment after I linked to it in TADM #37. See here for a screengrab.

Dennis might have deleted the comment, but it was NOT because he retracted anything or came to the correct realization that what he said was antiSemitic. He deleted it because I linked to, and apparently Dennis gets some "amusement" out of deleting his comments when I link to them (TADM #40).

As for the comment itself... a Jewish man whose parents were Holocaust survivors criticizes "Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens"?! This crosses a line and is antiSemitic itself. There is simply NO excusing such a despicable fabrication, in my strong opinion. Mr. Finkelstein is a critic of Israel who is an advocate for the two state solution. He believes in Israel's right to exist and does NOT have any kind of "genocidal hatred" for his fellow Jews living in Israel.

(Note: see SWTD #234 and TADM #61 for expanded commentaries on the subject of Dennis' problem with antiSemitism. Also see here for a screenshot of the now deleted comment above which I grabbed before Dennis removed it).

So, in conclusion, and in regards to the chewing out by Octopus... I do not consider such lying (the examples I give above) to be "misquotes" or "slights", which is how he characterizes Dennis' offensive perjurious slanders (not "peeves"). This is another example of someone (Dennis) forgetting his COMMON DECENCY and HUMANITY... which is why I submitted the comment.

And, NO, I did not think the post was about *me* or *my* "peeves in Cyberspace". I responded with an on-topic comment. Octopus mentioned Dennis and labeled him a friend, and THAT is what I was responding to... as well as the meat of the commentary and how the lying of Dennis related to it. Dennis lies not just about *me*, but about others who dare disagree too strongly with him. And continues telling his lies for years after the original disagreements took place!

Lastly, in regards to these vulgar comments directed at Shaw, I am absolutely "with the program", if by that you mean I'm in agreement that such behavior is unacceptable and should be called out. I NEVER said anything to indicate I was not. In actuality I agreed with everything Octopus wrote in his commentary.

Except his thinking that Dennis is a friend. In regards to Dennis, it is a fact that he harasses people by making up positions for them to hold (as John Myste said). Positions that paint those Dennis targets as terrible people. But I guess Octopus wishes to keep his head in the sand in regards to this unfortunate reality about his friend Dennis.

Which will only encourage Dennis to continue this type of behavior, sadly. In fact, the comments by Octo likely made Dennis smile, and further convinced him that he only calls 'em as sees 'em. Including a comment by him on Progressive Eruptions (in response to my comment calling him out) where he claimed to have "caught" me "praising Stalin". That actually happened, in Dennis' imagination... now reinforced by Octo. So, thank you for that, friend of Dennis.

(Note: my last line is meant to express my disappointment and not anger. I still think Octo is a good person and I agree with him in most cases. Just not in regards to his giving kudos to Dennis. Dennis deserves no kudos, only condemnation and shaming - along with the Radical Redneck, an individual who is clearly worse - in his bigotedness. But comparing one to Radical is a very low bar).

SWTD #271, dDel #21. See also TADM #61

Straight from The Warped, Psychotic, Brain-diseased, & Idiotic Mind of A Lunatic Libertarian Douchebag

The Bowles-Simpson proposal has become a kind of short-hand in Washington for what a balanced, bipartisan deficit-reduction deal could look like. When given a closer look, the plan is anything but balanced. Bowles-Simpson is touted by inside-the-Beltway pundits who think that cutting benefits for seniors who have an average income of $22,000 a year is the type of "hard choice" we need to be making. We should not and need not reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors and others who survive on a low income ~ Jan Schakowsky (dob 5/26/1944) the Democrat representing Illinois's 9th congressional district, serving since 1999. The Congresswoman was a member of the 2010 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (AKA Bowles-Simpson Comission). The Rep voted against the commission's final proposal.

Refuting lies about me in regards to past comments ("old bones" some might say) on another blog are why I have decided to author this commentary. Lies from the blog "Contra O'Reilly" put forward by one Willis Hart in a blog post of his from 7/12/2014.

Willis Hart: On the Assertion that Bowles-Simpson is a "Conservative Plan"... Only in the warped, psychotic, brain-diseased, and idiotic mind of a lunatic leftist douchebag would anything even remotely along these lines even be considered. The fact of the matter here is that the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1, and the only reason that it's even this high is because of interest apparently having been included. Compare this to the ratios of the ACTUAL conservative debt consolidation packages which have consistently put forth a cuts to revenue ratio of approximately 5 or 6 to 1... or even to that deal which Obama almost had with Boehner which was pretty damned close to 4 to 1 and, if anything, Bowles-Simpson is probably a little bit to the left of center. Of course, if you yourself are so brazenly to the left that you actually consider people like Bernie Sanders, Van Jones, Francis Boyle, and Bill Ayers as mainstreamers, and even go as far as to quote Joseph Stalin, you're probably going to think that pretty much anything is "conservative", I would think. (7/12/2014 AT 12:32pm).

Yet another post from this doofus in which he, for some strange reason, makes it out to be that I alone in the entire world hold a position that is so incredibly ridiculous that all those negative adjectives are necessary. And he lies about people I view as "mainstream", none of which I really view as "mainstream".

I like Bernie Sanders, and I like Van Jones. Senator Sanders describes himself as a socialist. His voters seem to like him, although I will absolutely admit that Senator Sanders is to the Left of mainstream... although Bernie Sanders is the founder of the House Progressive Caucus, which is the largest Congressional Congress. Isn't being the largest a hallmark of being mainstream?

Van Jones I would describe as a Progressive that fights for the Middle Class. The Middle Class isn't "mainstream"? But he may be a little to the Left as well when compared to the Democratic Party at large, which I would describe as skewing Conservative. Bill Clinton described himself as a New Democrat, which means he considered himself a Democrat who was "economically neoliberal".

New Democrats claim to be "an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party" but their adoption of neoliberal policies also advocated for by the Right makes New Democrats CONSERVATIVE Democrats.

New Democrats were more open to deregulation than the previous Democratic leadership had been. This was especially evident in the large scale deregulation of agriculture and the telecommunications industries. The New Democrats... were responsible for the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). (Wikipedia/New Democrats/Bill Clinton as a New Democrat).

Also, under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) the Democrats began (more) aggressively pandering to the business community (which the deregulating and free trading advocating was a part of) in order to secure more campaign cash (bribes). DLC/New Democrats viewed their past losses (losses that sent Reagan and Bush Sr) to the White House as being related to Republican campaigns being better funded. Better funded because GOP candidates had greater greater access to the Conservative Business (plutocrat) money pool.

The "New Democrat" movement was a response to this funding issue. Incorporate Conservative ideas in order to get Conservative business money. New Democrats are Conservative Democrats.

The Blue Dog Coalition "is a caucus of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party who identify themselves as moderates and conservatives". This caucus was formed in 1994 during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Wikipedia notes that "the term Blue Dog Democrat is credited to Texas Democratic Rep. Pete Geren... who later joined the Bush Administration.

Our current president, the fellow who appointed Bowles and Simpson to co-chair the so-called "bipartisan" commission tasked to produce debt reduction legislation, is a self described Blue Dog. Erskine Bowles is a Conservative Democrat [1] who served as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff. Alan Simpson, a former Republican Congressman who "George H.W. Bush reportedly considered Simpson for the vice presidency in 1988".

So what we have in this "debt reduction" commission is Conservative Democrats partnering with Republicans. And, if that is not enough information to know for a fact that ANY "compromise" that MIGHT have come out of the commission would most certainly skew to the Right, there is also the fact that reducing the government's debt in response to a poorly performing economy (AKA austerity) is an ENTIRELY Conservative idea.

Keynesian economics - the economic theory subscribed to by TRUE Leftists and Left of Center Democrats - "is the view that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy)". Talking debt reduction (austerity) in response to an economic downturn is a wholly Conservative concept.

Heck, the NAME of the commission was the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. "Fiscal responsibility" is code for "austerity". The idea that austerity is the answer to economic downturns is in complete opposition to the theory behind Keynesiansim.

As such, NO debt reduction (i.e. austerity) plan coming from such a commission could in any way NOT be Conservative! Now, if the Democrats had proposed a commission in which cutting waste and improving efficiency were components - but which focused on Keynesian stimulus and job creation ideas - THAT would be a plan truly befitting Democratic economic ideals.

But a plan of action that immediately concedes that the very ideals the Democratic Party is built upon are wrong and capitulates that the Republican austerity is the way to address an economic downturn? Such a plan is CONSERVATIVE from the get-go. It does not matter if "the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1".

And there is also the fact that the spending cuts included items that would actually hurt our economy like using the (bogus) chained-CPI to take money out of the pockets of Seniors (and other Social Security recipients). Non-conservatives view the chained-CPI as a non-starter.

The Nation: [Bowles-Simpson and the White House] depicted [the chained CPI] as a "more accurate" formula that "will reduce deficits and improve Social Security solvency". ...but there's no debating these simple points: Chained-CPI is both a benefit cut and a tax increase. (Top 5 Myths About Chained-CPI, Debunked by George Zornick, 4/11/2013).

In addition to the chained CPI, Bowles-Simpson wanted to "increase the early and normal retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075". But the problem with all these Social Security cuts is that the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has nothing to do with our national debt!

Truthout: [The Social Security trust fund is invested in Treasury Securities amounting to] $2.7 trillion... [This] came about not because entitlements are out of control and the government has been forced to borrow to meet retiree benefits, but rather because future retirees have paid more taxes than necessary to meet benefit obligations. Workers have essentially been prepaying into the Trust Fund in order to provide for their future benefits. So it makes no sense to try to solve the supposed problem of too much government debt by cutting benefits for current and future Social Security recipients. (The $17 Trillion Delusion: The Absurdity of Cutting Social Security to Reduce the Debt by Marty Wolfson, 1/11/2014).

So, not only is the Chained-CPI a non-starter; ANY cut Social Security benefit cut is a non-starter (this includes raising the retirement age, which also is a cut). The ABSURD idea of cutting SS benefits to "reduce the debt" is CONSERVATIVE in nature.

Other "reforms" that would take money out of the pockets of ordinary Americans included cuts to all other "inflation-indexed programs... [such as] the military and civil service retirement system". Still other "reforms" included cuts to student loan programs and cuts that would increase out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries. All which would be cuts in opposition to the theory of Keynesianism which says cutting (austerity) makes economic downturns WORSE, not better.

So, again, it DOES NOT MATTER that "the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1" because it is a CONSERVATIVE idea that austerity is economically beneficial!

Now, I'm not saying that Bowles-Simpson had nothing positive in it at all. There were actually some proposals Democrats could get behind in the Debt Reduction plan (such as reforming farm subsidies), but it absolutely did skew Conservative (for the reasons I just outlined).

Now, here I should note that Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky released an alternate proposal that actually did provide for balanced deficit reduction. A proposal that did not place so much of the deficit reduction burden on seniors, the middle class, and low-income families.

Rep. Schakowsky's plan proposes increased investment in jobs, infrastructure, education, and research and development to strengthen the economy and generate growth. The plan also calls for the protection of Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare while proposing additional steps to bring down the cost of health care overall. The plan would raise the top tax rates on the wealthy and end tax subsidies for big oil and highly-profitable corporations that ship jobs and profits overseas. It would eliminate wasteful military spending and focus on modern threats. The plan proposes additional revenue opportunities to strengthen Social Security and achieve long-term solvency without cutting benefits. (9/12/2012 Press Release as posted to the Congresswoman's website).

The Schakowsky plan is considerably closer to what I was previously talking about a plan that included cutting waste and improving efficiency, but which focused on Keynesian stimulus and job creation ideas. The Schakowsky plan IS the Progressive answer to the CONSERVATIVE Bowles-Simpson proposal.

And, if I am "so brazenly to the Left" as Willis asserts, then so too must Jan Schakowsky, as well as other critics of Bowles-Simpson, including Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, who "criticized the deficit report for omitting a tax on the financial industry, as was recommended by the International Monetary Fund" and Paul Krugman, who wrote that "Simpson-Bowles... raises the Social Security retirement age because life expectancy has risen completely ignoring the fact that life expectancy has only gone up for the well-off and well-educated, while stagnating or even declining among the people who need the program most".

Lastly, I have to wonder why the hell names like Francis Boyle and Bill Ayers are added to the mix of people he THINKS I view as "mainstream". They aren't. I've actually spoken against the views/actions of both of these individuals. Not that it matters, I suppose, as in the minds of the idiots who post/comment on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog disagreement by me somehow becomes agreement.

Hence the reference by Willis to me quoting Joseph Stalin, which he thinks I did to "buttress my opinion"... a claim that is complete bullpucky. That I quoted Stalin (which I did) to "buttress my opinion" (I did not) was something the Hartster imagined happened.

And in regards to imagining things, commenter Dennis Marks added canards concerning me defending "Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views [and] Mao worshiper Van Jones [by equating] Maoism to ending police brutality".

The truth is these are both vile lies (although quite typical for the scumbag Marks). *If* Noam Chomsky HAD "pro-Khmer Rouge" views I would NOT defend them. And *if* Van Jones was a "Mao worshiper" I would not defend that either. Both assertions are false, however [2+3].

Also, Maoism has nothing to do with ending police brutality. Van Jones belonged to a group that read the writings of Mao AND advocated against police brutality. But these were two separate things. The advocating against police brutality did not come from the reading of literature by Mao (there is/was no linkage).

In any case, Mr. Jones has changed his mind in regards "world-views and philosophies" that he experimented with in his youth. Van Jones now firmly believes our regulated market system is the best way to achieve desired reforms that will allow the middle class and working poor to prosper.

Footnotes
[1] "Like a lot of technocrats, Bowles is a conservative Democrat who has struggled to find a niche in elective politics". Source: Keep Erskine Bowles Away from Treasury By Timothy Noah, The New Republic 11/8/2012.
[2] The boring truth about Chomsky: he does not support Pol Pot by Michael Brull, The Drum 7/5/2011.
[3] Severe Conservative Delusions: Van Jones Maoist Edition SWTD #144 5/6/2013.

SWTD #269, wDel #69.

Regarding Dennis Marks Citing Osama bin Laden As One of His Heroes

There are heroes in evil as well as in good ~ Francois de La Rochefoucauld (9/15/1613 to 3/17/1680) a noted French author of maxims and memoirs. His is a clear-eyed, worldly view of human conduct that indulges in neither condemnation nor sentimentality.

I think it's intensely loathsome and highly repellent. And, yes, I'm talking about the (now deceased) terrorist leader who financed the 9/11 attacks. That Osama is the one who Dennis Marks recently cited as being one of his heroes. I know for a fact that on 9/11/2001 Dennis was walking around with a huge grin on his face. It creeped out his coworkers and family members who all thought he must not be aware of what happened. But when they told him of the attacks in which thousands of innocents perished - that made Dennis smile even wider.

So, why was Dennis so delighted? It was because he recgonized that 9/11 was the new Pearl Harbor that PNAC had been dreaming of. The PNAC manifesto cited a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" just like this as being necessary to galvanize the public into going to war in the Middle East, and now just such an event had occurred. Dennis whooped and cheered when the twin towers fell - just as loud - if not louder than any of the terrorists. Although he cheered internally and silently, as he knew everybody else would be horrified if he did it externally and out loud. But the smiling he could not help.

That is why bin Laden is a hero to Dennis. Not because he wishes to emulate him, but due to the great gift he handed the Neocons, and to the Republican preznit, George W. bush. Dictionary.com reveals that a synonym of "hero" is either a "lead" or a "star". In regards to 9/11, Osama was most assuredly both. Even though it was KSM who planned the attacks, without the bin Laden money none of it would have been possible. And money, in the worldview of Mr. Marks, is the root of everything that is good.

And the attacks of 9/11 were very good, in the estimation of Dennis. The nation was clamoring for the blood of those behind the attacks, and for that reason legislation that gave the preznit unprecedented power to wage war on "the terrorists" sailed though Congress with but one NAY vote (SWTD #244). Given that vote, the preznit did not have to take it up with Congress when it was determined that bin Laden was behind the attacks and was currently holed-up in Afghanistan.

bush desperately wanted to go to war - in order to avenge his daddy, get political capital and steal tax payer money. Dick Cheney's old company Haliburton would benefit from some war contracts, given that it was on the verge of filing for bankruptcy. VP Dick said a war or two would make him extremely wealthy, given that he still held on to some Halliburton stock options. Many other bush cronies could benefit as well. And then, after bush rubbed their backs, surely they would rub his. And he could most certainly profit personally as well. Dick had Halliburton, and the bush family had The Carlyle Group.

Unfortunately there was a problem, which was that OBL was in Afghanistan and bush wanted to invade Iraq. There was no way bush could fool the public into going to war with the wrong country! But Rummy and Wolfie assured him, "we'll do Afghanistan first, and then Iraq". All was good until a second problem arose, which was that Afghanistan's Taliban rulers offered to hand over bin Laden to a neutral third country for prosecution if bush called off the dogs of war. How to deal with that problem? bush decided to make them an offer they couldn't accept.

Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, the Taliban's foreign minister, proposed that the US and Afghanistan should negotiate either "a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference". Wakil knew bush wanted war (and he was desperate to avoid it), but he couldn't just hand bin Laden over. Afghani culture demanded aabroh (a Pashtu word for "face-saving formula"). Without aabroh those who even considered capitulating to bush's demands would have been put to death.

But the ultimatum to turn over bin Laden to the United States military by bush was not in the least bit serious. Which is why he made it. bush KNEW the Taliban could not accept. The preznit was simply putting on a act before the invasion began, as he knew it would not be proper if he went to war without even giving the Taliban the option of turning over bin Laden.

Also, if one listens to Dennis, you might think, as he does, that "the Taliban and Al Qaeda were united at that time. In lockstep", but this is false. As noted by Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, "there had always been differences of opinion between the Arab fighters of al-Qaeda and [my] Taliban colleagues". Muttawakil remembers that the Taliban "condemned the attacks because the people targeted were defenseless civilians, women, children, Muslim and non-Muslim. But al Qaeda praised it".

bush knew the Taliban and al Qaeda were not in "lockstep", because, if they had been, he would have simply declared that the attack was sponsored or approved by the Taliban. Instead bush only accused them of "harboring" him. Proof positive that the claims of Dennis do not comport with reality. But Dennis knows, as bush knew, that bringing bin Laden to justice was never a goal of attacking Afghanistan. Because, if bin Laden had been taken into custody the American people would have considered the mission to have been accomplished. And then, what of bush's plans for regime change in Iraq?

No, that would not do. That is why Dennis ridicules the notion of the OIC supervising a trial of bin Laden - referring to it as a "kangaroo court" that would have patted him on the back - even though the Taliban suggested that the OIC only supervise. No offer would have been accepted. War was on the agenda, no matter what.

If an arrangement had been negotiated that brought bin Laden to justice - going into Iraq would have been impossible. That is why the offer was rejected before it was even considered, and that is why the bushies made sure bin Laden got away at Tora Bora. That was the second time that Dennis cheered for his hero, as well as sighing in relief.

After he let bin Laden escape bush decided the time was right to make his case to topple Saddam. So he told some more lies to the American people concerning (forged) documents that showed Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake uranium, aluminum tubes that could not be used in centrifuges, and mushroom clouds incinerating American cities (by way of nukes Saddam had no way of manufacturing).

In regards to bin Laden, bush said "I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you". Dennis heard those words and grinned from ear to ear. That night Dennis kissed the poster of the terrorist leader that was tacked to his bedroom wall and said a prayer to thank God bush was president on 9/11. Because Dennis knew, as Rudy Guliani did, that if Gore were president the US wouldn't have gone to war with two Muslim countries.

"Thank you, Osama... I love you" Dennis murmured as he drifted off to sleep. As he slept Dennis drempt of the incredible riches starting two unnecessary wars was going to yield for both the bush and Cheney families. In Dennis' dream the preznit spoke, imploring Shafiq bin Laden to "pass my thanks on to your brother". Then bushie added "no need for him to worry for his safety, however, as I surely have no intention of ever finding him". Shafiq smiled and replied, "Thank you, Mr. bush. We are defintely on the same page".

Dennis woke the next morning to find his undies were soiled due to an nocturnal emission that no doubt came about due to his dreaming of bush and Shafiq discussing how much wealthier each of their families were about to become. "Good times" Dennis remarked as he removed the sticky undergarment. Dennis' eyes then drifted to the bin Laden poster, and that is when he decided a date with Palmela Handerson was in order. Laying back in his bed Dennis finished the deed, screaming out "Osama!" as he climaxed.

Note: This commentary, which contains some speculation in regards to how dmarks views OBL, was written in response to the vile liar saying "there are some (WD sides with) who want such reform [of the Pentagon] not to save money, but to make the nation weak and strengthen our enemies such as his hero Bin Laden".

Frankly, given how much Dennis wanted OBL to escape, I find it much more likely that OBL is Dennis' hero. Hence this narrative, which is intended as satire, even though it could be closer to the truth than even I realize. As for OBL being my hero, I already identified that as a vile lie. I wanted him brought to justice ASAP, which the Taliban offer would have provided for, 10 freaking years earlier (SWTD #76).

And, the OIC could not have let Osama go, BTW, as their position would have only been supervisory, if they had been involved at all.

Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, Taliban's last foreign minister, told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview... "Even before the [9/11] attacks, our Islamic Emirate had tried through various proposals to resolve the Osama issue. One such proposal was to set up a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference [OIC]"... (Taliban offered bin Laden trial before 9/11 by Mujib Mashal. Al Jazzera, 9/11/2011).

Certainly we could have given it a shot - as opposed to selecting war as the first and only option. It wouldn't have been as if we were throwing away a chance to catch him, as WE DIDN'T CATCH HIM! On purpose, perhaps... (SWTD #33).

SWTD #240, dDel #19. See also TADM #28 and TADM #33.

Bullplop On Blowback

Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world ~ Lt. General William Odom (6/23/1932 to 5/30/2008) a retired U.S. Army 3-star general, and former Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan, which culminated a 31-year career in military intelligence.

In a 3/9/2014 post the Libertarian-leaning blogger Willis Hart (WTNPH) gets all un-libertarianish in disagreeing with the head guru Ron Paul. According to said blogger, "for Mr. Paul or anybody to think that 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings, and Benghazi wouldn't have happened had only our troops not been placed in Saudi Arabia for a spate is a little bit silly and naive in my estimation".

In reply I must say "what a dope". Our military presence in Saudi Arabia was cited by bin Laden as his rationale for the 9/11 attacks (a "spate" of 12 years), but a LOT has happened since then (both before and after we withdrew from Saudi Arabia in 2003), such as an illegal invasion of two countries and sustained drone strikes in several others we aren't at war. Drone strikes that continue to claim the lives of innocent civilians. The Boston Marathon bombings and Benghazi were blowback for those things, you dolt!

A 5/17/2013 CNN article reports that bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wrote "in a message scribbled on the boat where he was found hiding [that the] bombing victims were collateral damage in a strike meant as payback for U.S. wars in Muslim lands".

The author of this idiocy goes on to list his problems with "radical Islam", and WTNPH has very valid concerns, but, in my estimation, a large number of those who have been "radicalized" chose the "revenge" route exactly because of our response to 9/11, which was for bush to take advantage of the shock of the nation - as well as the strong feeling at the time that we needed to strike back - and go to war with two Middle Eastern countries.

Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American citizen, and attempted Times Square car bomber acted "because of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009 because of U.S. military strikes in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-American, planned a suicide attack on New York City's subway system because of the U.S. role in Afghanistan" (excerpt from the 4/27/2013 Consortium News article "The Blowback from Interventionism" by Melvin A. Goodman).

Following 9/11 bush saw an opportunity to become a "war president", get political capital, use that to further his other agenda items and get elected to a second term. The attacks also presented a wonderful opportunity for the bushies to plunder the treasury by way of "no bid" Afghanistan and Iraq "reconstruction" contracts. A 3/20/2013 International Business Times (IBT) article puts the cost of pilfered loot at $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts. IBT reveals that "ten contractors received 52 percent of the funds" with Halliburton's KBR receiving $39.5 billion "over the past decade".

Dick Cheney, as a result of Halliburton contracts, profited over $7 million dollars (stock options he received while working for the company increased by 3,281%). In addition, Cheney continued to receive a "deferred salary" while VP, to the tune of an average of 200k a year. The IBT article further points out that "the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan [estimates that] the level of corruption by defense contractors may be as high as $60 billion". Halliburton and KBR were in on that corruption.

That WTNPH consistently has defended bush in regards to his lying and thieving is, in my opinion, thoroughly disgusting. Yes, he does criticize him for the way he went about it, but he does agree "Saddam in fact did have to go". And he absolutely refuses to believe that bush ever lied about WMD, even though the evidence proves otherwise. bush lied, Iraqi civilians and US soldiers died (and were maimed)... and bush cronies profited tremendously.

Ron Paul, while I may strongly disagree with MOST of what he believes, is correct when he said 9/11 "was blowback for decades of US intervention in the Middle East". And he was also correct when he said "the last thing we needed was the government's response: more wars, a stepped-up police and surveillance state, and drones".

Yes, OBL "publicly denounced Saudi dependence on the U.S. military, arguing the two holiest shrines of Islam, Mecca and Medina, the cities in which the Prophet Mohamed received and recited Allah's message, should only be defended by Muslims" and cited our military presence in that country as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks, but Al Qaeda was (prior to 9/11) an obscure Islamic movement and most likely faded from existence if not for our military response.

It was our response post-9/11 that continued the blowback (and made it worse). Another response and the problem of radical Islam surely would be a lot serious than it is today. That Willis thinks Ron Paul believes Saudi Arabia is the only reason for the rise of radical Islam is more than a bit silly and naive in my estimation. And, where the usually Libertarian Mr. Hart should be agreeing with Ron Paul he goes the interventionist regime change route. Which is odd, because when it comes to the US economy he is stridently opposed to intervention.

Also, I think it should be noted that, while the Hartster insists there is "no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public", he is positive Obama lied about Benghazi.

The main point of the Hartster's commentary is, in my opinion, to push his Islamophobic (and more Republican) POV in which the US is blameless and all fingers should be pointed at the "rag heads" practicing a religion he is biased against. For the record WTNPH doesn't use the term "rag head", but reading his commentary you very much expect him to.

Further proof that WTNPH is full of bullplop when he says "the argument that U.S. foreign policy has sowed the seeds of discontent and prompted Islamic retaliation -- ultimately fails"... ->Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 by WashingtonsBlog, 9/5/2012. Excerpt: Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of Al Qaeda in the 1970s to fight the Soviets. ->More Blowback from the War on Terror by Jennifer Daskal, Salon 10/1/2008. Excerpt: In late 2006, the Bush administration backed a full-scale Ethiopian military offensive that ousted the Islamist authorities from Somalia's capital, Mogadishu... [That innocents were caught up in the fighting and killed or tortured has] fueled anti-American rancor in Africa.

See Also: Dennis Marks Sez Ron Paul Speaks With One Voice Alongside The Terrorists tadm-21. 3/12/2014.

 swtd-239. ost-52. 

Severe Conservative Delusions: Al Gore & The Invention of the Internet Edition

The day I made that statement, about the inventing the internet, I was tired because I'd been up all night inventing the Camcorder ~ Al Gore (dob 3/31/1948) an American politician, advocate and philanthropist, who served as the 45th Vice President of the United States (1993–2001), under President Bill Clinton... joking about the deluded liars who think he claims to have invented the internet.

Al Gore, the only person ever elected to the presidency who did not serve, also happens to be the victim of an (old) lie about him having claimed to be the inventor of the internet. Actually, this "lie" is more of a joke... because we all know he didn't say it. That Al Gore claims to have invented the internet has been debunked by Snopes. Follow the link and you will see that the judgment of this well-known resource for validating and debunking "urban legends, Internet rumors, email forwards, and other stories" (Snopes) is that the meme is false.

Yet, this does not stop Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) from lying and stating that, no, he truly believes that Gore said he invented the internet...

Dennis Marks: Al Gore did not use the word invent, but he did use the word create, and said that he created the Internet. Yes are no: are you aware of the existence of synonyms? And if you are, how can you argue that invent does not mean create? Face it: Gore claimed to have invented it (correct paraphrase), which is untrue since he never did. (4/18/2012 AT 5:49am).

So, Dennis has to resort to synonyms to "prove" Mr. Gore "lied"? How pathetic. At best it could be argued that Mr. Gore misspoke. He surely did not lie, as we know Mr. Gore was referring to legislation he sponsored during his time in Congress. The Wikipedia page "Al Gore and information technology" notes that "in the 1980s and 1990s, [Gore] promoted legislation that funded an expansion of the ARPANET, allowing greater public access, and helping to develop the Internet".

What follows is the statement by Gore; from an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 3/9/1999...

Al Gore: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Gore directly references the legislation he sponsored after CORRECTLY pointing out that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet". While it is true that "create" and "invent" are synonyms, Dictionary.com defines a synonym as "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the [English] language". In the context of Al Gore's quote, the meaning is NOT the same, as Snopes points out...

Snopes: Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions... (excerpt from the Snopes article Internet of Lies).

In the context of Mr. Gore's quote an honest person can NOT use the "synonym argument" and thus conclude Gore was claiming to have invented the internet, as a synonym can mean a word that has NEARLY the same meaning and not EXACTLY the same meaning. A honest person would look at the CONTEXT of the word being used and conclude - as Snopes did - that those who claim Gore invented the internet are full of bullplop. But Dennis is not an honest person. Also, he most certainly is full of poop.

Proof that Dennis dissembles is that when I said "he [Gore] was CLEARLY referring to the legislation he sponsored", Dennis remarked...

Dennis Marks: Now that is a flat out lie. You are defending Gore on what you think he said, not what he actually said. He CLEARLY took credit for bringing the Internet into being. Which in fact he never did: it existed before the point in time in which he claimed to have invented it (exact word "Created"). (3/28/2012 at 8:46am). [Note: Dennis deleted this comment, but I quoted him in my response immediately following the deleted comment].

No, Dennis, you delusional lying sack of excrement, Al Gore actually said "I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives..." and he was referring to the legislation he sponsored. The only one thinking (or imagining) Al Gore said something that he did not is YOU. Mr. Gore did NOT "clearly" take credit for bringing the Internet into being.

Conclusion? We should all thank Gore for helping set up the environment that lead to the internet as we now know it. Without the foresight and genius of the ex-Vice President, I would not be online blogging today. If only Mr. Gore had invented a method of ensuring the integrity of elections, then perhaps George bush would not have stolen the presidency from him. It is a shame, as with a President Gore, we may have stopped the terrorists and prevented the tragedy of 9-11. At least we have the internet, I guess... and for that I say... THANK YOU, Mr. Gore... the only man ever elected president who never served. The world owes you a debt of gratitude.

As for Mr. Marks, I think we (all of us in the reality based community) can conclude he is a delusional nutter who will now - if he reads this commentary - start claiming Gore lied about inventing the camcorder.

Video: Al Gore tells the truth about how he took the initiative in creating the internet.

Update 10/6/2014: In regards to the comment by Dennis that he deleted above, according to him he did it "for the amusement factor".

SWTD #236, dDel #18. See also TADM #15.

Unbelievable Idiocy From Wing Dinger of A Libertarian Lunatic

What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy? ~ George Orwell (6/25/1903 to 1/21/1950)... Eric Arthur Blair was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic known by his pen name George Orwell. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and commitment to democratic socialism.

The following post from Libertarian lunatic wing dinger Willis V. Hart, via his blog.

Willis Hart: On the Lunatic Left and War Criminals... Call George W. Bush (an admittedly ineffectual President) a war criminal and then quote mass murderer Joseph Stalin, not to underscore the evil of the madman but his good 'ol common sense. Thoroughly unbelievable. (2/25/2014 at 2:47pm).

This because I posted the following quote by Joseph Stalin on another blog where the topic at hand was "political quotes to ponder". Quote as follows...

Joseph Stalin: Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.

The quote doesn't continue from there with "and the way to right this wrong is by subjecting the people to the rule of an elite class who will live like kings by stealing from the people and also murdering millions of them". That would represent the truth of what Stalin did, but he promised to right the wrong he describes with this quote in another manner. Obviously Stalin lied to the people. Now, that does not change the fact that the quote DOES represent a "fundamental fact", even if a mass murdering madman said it.

So, what the eff is Willis' problem? Likely he agrees with his buddy Dennis who remarked that Stalin is my "hero". No, his problem (which I didn't know before) is articulated with yet another commentary that he posted 2 hours and 13 minutes after the first one.

Willis Hart: On Buttressing Your Opinion Via Quoting Joseph Stalin... Call me old fashioned but once a person slaughters over 40 MILLION people, I really don't give a rat's ass what the fiend thinks about ANYTHING, and it astonishes me beyond comprehension how anybody would. Really. (2/25/2014 at 5:00pm).

Now I understand the Hartster's mistake... I wasn't "buttressing my opinion" by posting the quote, asshole. While I do agree with the fundamental fact contained within the quote, if I had actually been presenting an argument (or attempting to "buttress my opinion") I wouldn't have quoted Stalin (for obvious reasons). I posted it because I was curious as to the reaction it would get. I never figured it would result in 2 posts from Mr. Hart, as well as a decelaration that my posting the Stalin quote "creeps me out the most" from the idiot.

OK, I don't even know why this should be necessary, but let me say that I condemn the murdering that took place under both bush and Stalin. Both lied and presided over murdering for which they are (or will) surely burn in hell for (and yes, I am aware that more people were murdered under Stalin). Quoting someone is NOT an endorsement of them, nor is it the same as declaring said person to be your "hero".

That Willis persists with these vile lies, even after I issued a clarification for the half-wits who concluded that a quote sans any commentary was the same as me saying I admired the murdering under Stalin.

And I didn't say anything when Lester and Dennis both quoted the sociopath Ayn Rand. And I do know at least one of them believes in this POS and her "greed is a virtue" evilness... evil that includes referring to those who accept government assistance as "parasites" and "leeches".

I'm not afraid to call out evil when I encounter it; as with Rand, who fantasized about killing a train full of parasites and leeches (and their enablers) in her weighty tome "Atlas Shrugged" (AS).

when a railway worker in AS decides to punish the wicked socialist government by making a train crash happen, Rand implies the passengers had it coming. She runs through the politics of the train crash victims, implying they were accessories to the socialist government that is being justly punished... [one victim was] an elderly school teacher who who spent her life turning class after class of helpless schoolchildren into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil..." And so endlessly on, through over a dozen deserving victims. "There was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas", she notes - so let them burn. (excerpt from a 3/10/2009 HuffPo article by Johann Hari).

I also call out the evil of Stalin, a wicked liar who preyed upon his countrymen who only desired fairness and a life in which they were the ones who benefited from the fruits of their labors. And the evil of George W bush, a man who greatly desired a war with Iraq so he could gain political capital (and hand out "reconstruction" money to his cronies) - and lied about WMD that Saddam didn't have - and scared the American people with imaginings of mushroom clouds - to get it.

In conclusion I'd like to say Willis can take his "creeped out" BS and shove it. Stalin also said "one death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic", and there is truth in that... but I surely am not "buttressing my opinion" that mass murder is a inconsequential thing in quoting him.

The vile liar Dennis can take his absurd accusations of "Stalin worship" and stuff them even further.

The quote at the top of my post is a "buttressing of my opinion", BTW. George Orwell, author of "Animal Farm" and a democratic socialist, was an outspoken critic of Joseph Stalin. Wikipedia notes that Orwell was "actively opposed to the controversial ideology of Stalinism. The Soviet Union, he believed, had become a brutal dictatorship, built upon a cult of personality and enforced by a reign of terror".

For the record I am in agreement with Orwell... on lunatics (like Willis V. Hart) as well as in regards to Stalin. Also in regards to his support for democratic socialism.

See also: Dennis Lies Concerning "Heroes" That Are Not Heroes (TADM #5) 2/23/2014.

SWTD #235, wDel #51.

Dennis Butt-Kisses In Gratitude For rAtional Hypocrisy

Someone who does anything to get their boss/co-worker/a$$hole friends to like them. Also someone who should be punched in the jaw ~ definition of Butt Kisser, courtesy of the Urban Dictionary, which is "a Web-based dictionary of slang words and phrases" (entry #1).

I have a long history of arguing with crazy, pathological liar Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks), and, as a result, Dennis drops lies about me into any conversation he can (even when I am not present), the latest example as follows...

Dennis Marks: [In regards to] unnecessary regs, RN, add those put in place... [by] big business [who] does mere lip service complaining about it, because these regulations destroy mom-and-pop operators (which some have called "plutocrats" anyway and want wiped out) and strengthen the fat-cats. (2/9/2014 AT 3:50pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

There actually is some truth contained within this comment by Dennis. Big business does often lobby for regulations they believe will harm their smaller competitors, but the lie here is that (1) Liberals love regulations, regardless of whether the are needed or not (because they empower bureaucrats and allow them to help cronies over their competitors) and (2) Conservatives support smart regulations. They do not. They put forward this reasonable sounding argument as a way of chipping away at ALL regulations.

Corporations (in lobbying for regulations that harm smaller competitors) are simply playing both sides (as they always do). If there must be regulations, then they're going to find a way to make them work in their favor. This DOES not mean corporations like regulations (they still hate the ones that protect consumers from their malfeasance), and Dennis, in arguing against "unnecessary" regulations, actually argues against ALL regulations.

Lies About Who I've Referred to as Plutocrats

But those lies aren't the lies of Dennis I was referring to. The lie about me that Dennis dropped into his anti "unnecessary" regulation argument is that "some" call "mom-and-pop" operators (small businesses) plutocrats and "want them wiped out". This is a call-back to a prior discussion wherein Dennis lied and insisted I called small business operators "plutocrats"...

Dennis Marks: ...anyone who believes that the way to stop plutocrats (identified by Dervish Sanders as small businesses, school boards, doctors) is with a strong state is an extremely gullible "bootlicker": the exact type of person who is first in line saying "Yes SIR!" when stuff really went bad in Mao's China... 1990s Serbia... Lenin's Russia, or mid 20th century Germany. (1/26/2014 AT 5:36pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

This is just one example of Dennis promulgating this absurd lie. Here is another...

Dennis Marks: ...don't take Mr. Sanders' references to "plutocrats" too seriously. He has painted the term with very broad strokes, having in the past accused small business owners, doctors who are good at what they do, and school boards all of being plutocrats. (1/24/2014 AT 11:54am via the rAtional nAtion blog).

And here is another one from a little further back in time...

Dennis Marks: Remember, this is the same WD who called school boards that want to fire bad teachers and small business owners who want to pay a fair wage all 'plutocrats'. Then he said they were all engaged in some sort of genocide and called them Nazis. (8/15/2012 AT 3:31am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

I'm not sure, but I think the lie from Dennis about who I've referred to as plutocrats began during a discussion from August of 2012 that concerned tenure. I said "getting rid of tenure is part of the plutocrats' plan to destroy all good paying middle and upper middle class jobs. That way there is more money for them. It's all about greed" - and from that Dennis deduced that I was calling "school principals and school boards plutocrats".

Then Dennis said "we were discussing people who hire, fire, and pay teachers. You slammed these people as plutocrats". This is where Dennis made his mistake. He may have been talking about these people, but I wasn't (not with that comment). Attempting to set Dennis straight, I clarified that "we were discussing people who oppose tenure. I referred to a certain group of people who oppose it and gave their reason".

But did Dennis accept this clarification? No, he continues to lie about - and make a joke out of - who I refer to whenever I use the term "plutocrat". And, despite the absurdity of this lie, it not only persists, but continues to grow - with more and more people being in included in the "plutocrat" category by me in the delusional mind of Dennis - even after I posted the following to the rAtional nAtion blog...

Dervish Sanders: I never said [Mom-and-pop store operators are plutocrats]. But, for the sake of argument, let's say I did. I am now changing my mind. I categorically reject the idea that the operators of mom-and-pop stores are plutocrats. Will Dennis stop saying this now? (note: I'm asking a question, not requesting he do this). I predict no. (8/16/2013 AT 8:50pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

As you can see my prediction was 100 percent accurate. I said I categorically rejected calling small business owners (or "mom-and-pop" owners) "plutocrats" - and Dennis responded by saying "I am glad WD changed his mind" (even though I couldn't "change my mind", as I never believed that to begin with). But still Dennis repeats this lie again and again. Even though he acknowledged I "changed my mind".

Also, I never called teachers being denied tenure "some sort of genocide" nor did I call anyone a Nazis. This addition to the lie is nothing but pure imagining by Dennis.

Lies About Others

But I am not the only person Dennis likes to tell absurd lies about. Anyone who talks back to Dennis, or (God forbid) agrees with me, might find themselves the target of mendacious fabrications from the blogger who loves to beat dead horses. Following are two such examples, the first one concerns blogger John Myste...

Dennis Marks: [Reagan is] proof that African-Americans just need an environment of economic opportunity, and don't need affirmative-action quota policies that treat them as if they are inferior beings (damaged, in the words of that Myste guy) that can't compete on a level playing field. (2/1/2014 AT 7:30pm via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

John Myste is someone who used to comment on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog, but left over a dispute with Dennis on 11/5/20012 - and I have not seen any comment from him anywhere since (not even on his own blog). Obviously Dennis holds onto grudges - and keeps bitching about years-old arguments - even when the person in question isn't around any longer.

And, just as I never said what Dennis continually insists I said about who is a plutocrat, John Myste never said Black people are "damaged" or inferior. In regards to that false quote Dennis keeps trying to stuff into Mr. Myste's mouth, he said...

John Myste: [Contra O'Reilly] has been dominated by the repeated assertions of a completely irrational man, who insists on making up straw men and refuting them. ... I would prefer debating my opinion against someone else's on philosophical grounds to debating what my opinion is. I don't enjoy posting something and then have 50 comment long treads trying, not to defend what I believe, but having people tell me I am saying something I clearly am not saying and having this discussion (someone inventing claims and calling them my opinion) be the discussion. That is pointless, childish and boring. (11/5/2012 AT 8:35am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

Indeed, this is exactly what Dennis does. And he never lets the argument drop, even when the person says "farwell" and never returns, or even when the person in question has never commented on the blog Dennis is complaining about him on.

Such is the case with Malcolm Bondon of the blog Progressive Soup (my second example of someone Dennis keeps lying about). This time Dennis' anger stems from a June 2013 discussion about Fox Nooz complaints concerning the White House inviting the rapper Common to perform there. I agreed with Malcolm's criticisms of Fox Nooz and Dennis disagreed with them.

Approximately 6 months later and Dennis is still fuming that his efforts to slime me on another blog failed (Dennis lied about me using profanity on his blog and called me a troll... in addition to other lies (SWTD #124). And, not only were his lies about me not believed, but the proprietor of the blog actually had the audacity to agree with me that no WMD was found in Iraq (SWTD #154), MSNBC personality Toure never (SWTD #131) "bashed Herman Cain for being Black", and that the rapper Common didn't lie about no WMD being found in Iraq or "bash" Black people - by using the N-word in his raps (TADM #59).

And, although Malcolm of Progressive Soup has never commented on the blog Contra O'Reilly, and the proprietor of Contra O'Reilly has never (to my knowledge) commented on Progressive Soup - that did not stop Dennis from whining about Malcolm with this recent comment...

Dennis Marks: Fox News is in a position of being a voice of dissent against the most powerful ruler on the planet. In this they deserve support. Damn those like that Progressive Soup guy who want Fox silenced. That's bootlicking. (2/4/2014 AT 2:40am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

That "Progressive Soup guy" never said he wanted "Fox silenced" in his commentary about the Fox News/Common story. Someone exercising their free speech rights to voice their disagreement with a Fox Nooz story does not amount to wanting the organization "silenced". Not once does Malcolm suggest any such thing. In regards to "silencing", Dennis is blatantly lying, but, as I've already pointed out, this is something the dishonest Dennis does with great regularity... about me, and about others.

Butt kissing in Response to Hypocrisy Regarding Lies

Two blogs where the constant lying of Dennis is permitted (and even encouraged) are those of Willis Hart and Lester Nation. The blog of Willis Hart, because the guy hates my guts (referring to me in his latest post as a "vapid, insular, virulent, shameless, paranoid, and amoral partisan stooge"), and the blog of Lester Nation, because his opinion of me is not that dissimilar from that of Mr. Hart.

The butt kissing referred to takes the form of Dennis immediately adopting (and referring to me) using the latest nickname Lester has come up with... the current one being "Derv The Swerve". Before that I was "Canardo". Every time Lester comes up with a new nickname, Dennis latches onto it and starts using it immediately.

The reason being that Dennis is appreciative of Lester going along with his lies about who I've referred to as plutocrats, and he recognizes (as do I) that the "warnings" issued by Lester in which he says things like "it will be most appreciated if you and dmarks take your personal issues elsewhere", don't apply to him. This warning from Lester because Dennis inserted the plutocrat lie into one of his comments (first Dennis quote at the top of this commentary) and I responded. Key here is the fact that the warning wasn't issued until I responded and was clearly directed at me.

After the warning Dennis lied again and said he was only making a "general comment" and not referring to me specifically. In response the hypocrite Lester posts the following...

rAtional nAtion: dmarks... My comment was indeed in direct reference to what appears at least to me to be a running issue between Mr. Sanders and yourself. Mr. Sanders, or Derve the Swerve as I have come to call him, thoroughly enjoys taking every opportunity to toss out the bait. Ignoring the bait and not responding to it is IMO the prudent course. That and not tossing out bait of your own, which Mr. Sanders always takes. I hope you get what I'm saying. For dudes like Derv, who are always right even when they are wrong, it is advisable to let him just talk to himself. (2/10/2014 AT 8:07pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

The hypocritical part isn't the first bit (which he gets right), but the accusation that *I* "tossed out the bait", even though I was simply responding to a tired (and absurd) lie from Dennis. And, then Dennis says "I can see how it can appear to be such a reference. In light of that, I will do better to avoid such references that might trigger tantrums in the future".

An obvious lie, this "general comment" and "appearance" BS, yet Lester allows him to get away with it - and even encourages it by adding his own lies. Well, at this point I know it would be futile of me to try and reply, as Lester sometimes publishes comments I submit, but rejects many others - which is why I decided to set the record straight here. No "tantrum" throwing, just a setting straight of the record. Now I can, if Dennis brings this up in the future on the blog of Lester or the blog of anyone else, simply link back to this post; a post in which contains the unequivocal evidence of Dennis lies (as well as Lester's hypocrisy).

SWTD #231, dDel #14, lDel #15. See also TADM #57.