“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.”
If you’re eager for a debate on the literary merits of Dreams of my Father, start a thread on it. I doubt I’ll participate. I’ve given you my opinion of the thing. I’m indifferent if you don’t agree with me on it. Life’s too short to get involved in the debating the merits of that lacklustre effort.
“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....”
What’s curious about this is that whilst my opinion is baseless because it’s not supported by any foundation or backup, the author’s opinion of the Dunham wedding is hard fact despite it also lacking any backup. This is why I suspect you’re too emotionally involved in trying to prove that they didn’t get married in Hawaii (despite the hard evidence to support the proposition).
“There is no ‘fact’ that Stanley Ann married anyone in 61.”
The marriage index is a fact. The divorce papers are facts. The judge’s statement that he’d seen proof of it is a fact.
“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.”
Finally, something that’s possibly worthy of debating. Of course, asserting that there are two outliers doesn’t mean that those circumstances can be blithely ascribed to all cases or even another specific case without supporting evidence. It’s perfectly possible that a couple could find themselves without their Marriage Certificate and the system has mechanisms to deal with that. Care to provide details? I won’t hold my breath, you’re not famous for providing backup for your claims but I can at least hope.
“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.”
Present me with some facts and you’d have an argument. If all you’ve got are literary opinions...well, not so much. If you do have something, anything, here’s your chance to put it out there.
“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.”
‘If you’re eager for a debate on the literary merits of Dreams of my Father, start a thread on it. I doubt I’ll participate. I’ve given you my opinion of the thing. I’m indifferent if you don’t agree with me on it. Life’s too short to get involved in the debating the merits of that lacklustre effort.’
This, in a nutshell, is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. I said Dreams is not gibberish. No one, not even the book’s most virulent detractors, claim it is “gibberish”. That is the most absurd and idiotic claim ever made about Dreams. Search the world over, and you will not discover one other person who believes it is gibberish.
But you, being as slithery as the typical anti-birther and either really dense or just pretending to be dense, set up the usual straw man. If Dreams is not “gibberish”, then then the issue must be “literary merit”.
This leads to the one question I have never satisfactorily seen answered, nor can answer myself. To wit: are anti-birthers stupid, or do they just see some advantage in *acting* stupid? I honestly cannot say.
I doubt you will be able to grasp the following examples, or that if you can, you will acknowledge it. It will just be another opportunity for you to dissemble and slither away from the facts. But fwiw.
The book, Rules for Radicals, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.
The book, Our Lenin, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.
The book, Germany Awakened, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.
The book, Dreams from my Father, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.
I give exactly zero odds that you can understand the point of these examples. I don’t know if you are pretending to be deliberately dense, or if this is really the best you can do. It doesn’t matter which it is. The result is the same. & if you can’t figure out the result, after I’ve said it in so many words...then there is no ‘pretending’ going on.
I’ll put it another way. If you are operating in good faith & are not a drooling moron, you should be capable of understanding the examples I gave. If so, you will acknowledge it. If you are incapable of even such a basic, elementary function of communication, then what are you doing on a conservative site? Conservatives are capable of honest communication, & we do it routinely. It is just liberals who use language to obfuscate, dissemble, propagandize & waste time. It is their métier.
So which are you?