“& still no examples. No details. Just sweeping generalities.”
Yes. Correct. It was a general impression of the book.
“I’ll be blunt. I don’t believe any of Dreams matches your description.”
Good for you.
“Not that I imagine you followed one word of that, but nevertheless, there it is.”
It was tough going but I got there in the end. I think.
“and the unquestioned FACT of why Ayers deemed it necessary to include a passage that did not reflect well on Obama’s parents’ marital status”
That’s not a FACT. A fact is something that is known or proven to be true. You’re just making an assertion. However much the logic leads you to that conclusion in your own head, someone else could interpret that information differently. For example, it is possible that you are wrong.
Here are some FACTS. They are known and proven to be true:
1. A marriage between Obama and Dunham is listed in the official Hawaii Marriage Index.
2. A reference and date for a marriage in Hawaii in their divorce papers.
3. A judge signing that ‘due proof’ of that marriage being presented to the court
during their divorce proceedings.
Unless you’ve got something new and FACTUAL about their marriage, I’m moving on. You are too emotionally invested in your own peculiar theory about their marriage and the OCD about the word ‘Gibberish’ is disturbing. The important part of allowing lurkers to see the FACTS about the case has been done more than adequately.
I know you’ll want the final word so go for it.
‘It was tough going but I got there in the end. I think.’
No; you missed the point.
‘Here are some FACTS. They are known and proven to be true:
1. A marriage between Obama and Dunham is listed in the official Hawaii Marriage Index.
2. A reference and date for a marriage in Hawaii in their divorce papers.
3. A judge signing that ‘due proof’ of that marriage being presented to the court
during their divorce proceedings.’
Here is another fact. No one knows what was presented to the judge. All we know for sure, from Obama, was that the wedding was not ‘real’. In fact, it was so weird that he couldn’t even stomach the details. That too is a fact. Had you followed my prior post, you could concede that much. But you are too emotionally invested in your Obama-apologist-narrative to comprehend any fact that threatens it.
You are a typical anti-birther. I met quite a few exactly like you before I was a birther. Here’s what happened.
I came upon a discussion on FR, concerning birth certificates. One group claimed that computer generated short form certificates of Live Birth had totally supplanted LF, raised seal BCs. The other group said some state agencies still required LF BCs.
Well I was very interested in that discussion. Again, not because I had any idea why it mattered. Rather, I had just had a personal transaction with the state which had direct bearing on the discussion. I opted to share it, imagining that both sides would be very appreciative of a real-life, recent example.
I summarized the incident accurately but succinctly, and posted it. I expected the participants to interestedly discuss this actual occurrence.
Didn’t happen. Instead, the group I later learned were ‘anti-birthers’ wasted no time in attacking my account. They said, in so many words, I was too stupid to know what had happened. The events I claimed had happened “couldn’t have happened”, so I had to be confused at best. I was, in short, a clueless moron, unable to grasp even the simplest interaction with a state agency.
I stared at the responses in shock. Who WERE these people? What kind of mental illness could possibly lead them to instantly diagnose my true and accurate account as the result of stupidity?
I posted again. I pointed out that the entire incident was short, simple and straightforward. I assured them all that I had recounted it accurately and truthfully. I pointed out that I had no reason to do otherwise. I also pointed out that the end result validated my claim: i.e.: it wouldn’t have ended as it did, had I simply misunderstood the entire transaction.
Well that got them REALLY hopped up. Now suddenly I wasn’t stupid any longer. I was a flat out LIAR. They all agreed on this point. They either couldn’t, or wouldn’t, admit I had no reason to lie. I had presented a FACT that unsettled their anti-birther narrative, and so I had to be destroyed. They did their best to do so.
That was my initiation into this debate. Everything I have seen since has only reinforced my impression. Facts are the enemies of anti-birthers. When they encounter one that threatens their theory, they turn on the person who presented that fact. They make serial and ever less plausible false accusations. They are fundamentally out of kilter on an emotional/psychological level. Defending a pathological liar has done that to them. They will be the last to know, unfortunately. People in that situation are always the last to know.
I feel sorry for them. Obama is not worth it. His lies are so ubiquitous, no one can defend him year after year without paying a heavy price. One day the anti-birthers will realize they were used and abused. But that day has not yet come. They are still in ‘Obama is honest and birthers are the problem’ mode.
It will not last forever. The awakening will be rude.
“and the unquestioned FACT of why Ayers deemed it necessary to include a passage that did not reflect well on Obama’s parents’ marital status”
‘That’s not a FACT. A fact is something that is known or proven to be true. You’re just making an assertion. However much the logic leads you to that conclusion in your own head, someone else could interpret that information differently. For example, it is possible that you are wrong.’
How am I wrong? Do you believe that it politically helped Obama to describe his mother’s marriage this way...when she was still alive...when she was dying...when a normal son would not wish to add to her suffering?
You don’t make a case for any of your objections. You say, ‘You could be wrong’, but never suggest how. I.e.: how would it help Obama politically to be gratuitously cruel to his mother? Or how can you argue that describing her ‘marriage’ as requiring more courage than her own son possesses even to even learn the details? [I.e.” not the details that it involved no cake, guests or photographs; Obama already knew that. He is saying, in so many words, that there is something so icky about his own mother’s wedding that he, possessed of normal courage, cannot stomach the details. (I.e.: possessed of normal courage because no narcissist would ever describe himself, or allow himself to be described, as abnormally cowardly.)]
How about for once abandoning your uselessly broad generalities and telling me exactly how my reasoning is wrong. Was Ayers trying to torpedo his protégé’s political career? If so, why? Or if not, then what is so appealing about a son verbally slapping his sick/dying mother around? How was that nastiness, if it was in no way necessary to cover a possible revelation re: Obama’s sketchy history, supposed to help him get elected?
In ‘95, when Dreams was published, it was impossible to know the degree to which the press would close ranks around Obama, acting as his Palace Guard. Both Ayers and Obama had to assume he might get a question re: some of the info in Dreams. If Ayers just threw that ugly reference to Stanley Ann’s wedding in for cruel fun, it could have hurt Obama big time, had he been asked about it. Obama is not MENSA, but Ayers is not a moron. He would not have jeopardized his young black radical future-candidate just to take a vicious swipe at a dying woman.