“This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen on FR. What is the source for that assessment? Is it just one of those cases where, if an anti-birther says it, it must be true? Or are you able to cite some actual evidence to back up that one-hundred percent false statement?”
Just my opinion of the thing. There’s no such thing as a ‘one-hundred percent false statement’ when it comes to opinions about books and stuff. I’m surprised you don’t know that. You don’t agree with my opinion? Fine. Not a problem. From the tone of your denunciation of my opinion, you clearly think very highly of the book. Great. I’m sure Obama must be very thankful to think there’s at least one person in the world who not only likes it but defends it vigorously.
“Classic, classic anti-birtherism. Something I noticed from my very first ever encounter with anti-birthers: facts are their enemies. That was several years ago, and I’ve seen nothing in the meantime to change my opinion. Present an anti-birther with facts, and they (1) ignore them, (2) ‘forget’ them, (3) attack them, or (4) mock them. In no case does a fact actually affect the thinking of an anti-birther. Nothing else does either. Their thinking is cast in concrete, facts & evidence notwithstanding.”
You didn’t present me with any facts. You cut and pasted a section of someone’s impressions about their parents wedding. I gave you my interpretation of it. If you want to get all hot and bothered about how I interpret adjectives, have at it.
I prefer to deal in real facts. The type that can be legally verified. Like the ones that demonstrate that Obama and Dunham got married in February ‘61 in Hawaii and were divorced in ‘64 as i’ve listed ad nauseam up-thread.
You’re clearly emotionally invested in the ‘Dunham in Kenya’ scenario and I can understand that being presented with hard, factual evidence against it must be upsetting. You haven’t presented a cogent argument against those facts (even though you’ve had multiple opportunities) so unless you can, I’m going to move on to other things for now.
‘Just my opinion of the thing.’
Yes, it is just your opinion. And you cannot find even one other person on earth who shares that opinion/agrees with you. You posit this opinion without a particle of evidence to back it up. You have been forced to make a ridiculous statement because that is the only way you can defend your anti-birther stance.
I wouldn’t be proud of it.
Your statement, btw, is one-hundred percent false if you cannot bring any evidence at all to bear that backs it up. You say it is just an opinion. So it is a baseless, ignorant opinion. Unless and until you substantiate it, it is just a self-serving line without any foundation whatsoever. [Yes, even opinions need back-up, if they are to be anything more than nonsense statements. If you say, ‘in my opinion so-and-so is a liar’, but cannot provide a single instance of that person actually telling a lie, your ‘opinion’ is worthless. If you cannot cite even one gibberish sentence from Dreams, your ‘opinion’ is self-serving twaddle.]
I presented you with a series of facts. If it were otherwise, then you must be saying (for instance) that Dreams was published AFTER Stanley Ann was dead. Or else you are saying that to have her own/only son describe her ‘wedding’ as something he didn’t have the courage to know the details about was a heartwarming thing for her to hear in the midst of her fatal illness...and I wouldn’t put it past you. Anything to prop up the anti-birther lies.
There is no ‘fact’ that Stanley Ann married anyone in 61. Since this discussion started, two separate cases have come to my attention re: couples that were granted divorces sans proof of marriage. In one case, there was no Marriage Certificate in existence. In the other case, it existed but was not required for the divorce proceedings. So you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re just blindly, mindlessly propping up the anti-birther narrative.
And you always will.
‘You’re clearly emotionally invested in the ‘Dunham in Kenya’ scenario’
You must be projecting. I haven’t even mentioned it. I have focused solely on the problems and issues of the anti-birther narrative. You can’t see the problems and you never will. You are so invested in anti-birtherism that even when you are presented with a fact, you are unable to recognize it as such. This is why I am not an anti-birther. I have never been able to ignore or deny the facts.