Aggression is all they have. If for once they debated their theory calmly, politely & rationally they would lose spectacularly. On some level they must know this, because they invariably substitute aggression, personal attacks, bullying, name-calling, insults, snark, mockery, ridicule & outright lies for honest, factual debate. They’ve been doing it for years. Heaven only knows how many posters they have driven from the site for good. That appears to be their goal—to hound, harass, harangue & demean everyone who disagrees with them to the point that detractors just hang it up and go elsewhere. They would prefer a tiny echo chamber to a large, level-playing field discussion. Because on the latter, they would lose every single time.
Thanks fantasywriter. I give everyone at least the same fair crack of the whip they give me. In my view there are no winners or losers as far as the actual personalities in such discussions go. The only winners I like to see are the somewhat more abstract things like common sense and rationality. I go wherever they might take me regarding the subject in hand. I don’t care what that might mean for the politics or personalities involved in any given conspiracy theory.
Only three conspiracy theories have attracted my close attention and caused me to do extensive boning up on them......if the truth be told part of me wishes now that I hadn’t wasted so much time researching them....they are faked moon landings, 9/11 trutherism and Obama eligibility doubting/birtherism.
So far I haven’t come across any significant aspect of any of those conspiracy theories and claims which stands up to being objectively held up to the light. That being understood, I’m by no means saying that no aspect will ever arise which stands up to scrutiny nor is it up to me to say that anyone is wrong to believe in those theories. If and when any specific aspect of those theories does actually stand up to objective examination I’d be the very first to hold up my hand and say so.
In the meantime I don’t shy away from engaging anyone who wants to discuss any specific aspect of Obama eligibility conspiracy theories, one at a time, sensibly with an open mind. However, on occasions when people become welded to belief in what are patently to all practical intents and purposes actually “impossible to be true” aspects, for random illustrative example such as the claim that “Obama attended Columbia on a Fulbright foreign student scholarship/loan/grant” even when it is explained to them with citations that for starters, apart from anything else, Fulbright loans/grants/scholarships for foreign students were never ever, and still aren’t, given to any students other than foreign POSTGRADUATE students only and that Obama, even setting aside the ‘foreign’ question, whatever else he might have been, quite clearly was not a ‘postgraduate’ student at Columbia but an undergraduate student...at those times I sometimes wish I had more tolerance and patience.
You're being hysterical again.