We have a photo, we have an article interviewing the teachers who were in the photo saying they remember the boy, and that is still not good enough for some.
On the other side, we have a 4-line vital statistics blurb of a child born to the Obamas buried deep in a newspaper, we have a recollection of a conversation of a deceased doctor who overheard another doctor say something about "Stanley having a baby," and that is solid proof-positive that Obama was born in Hawaii.
I can't take the uneven burden of proof any further.
-PJ
“I can’t take the uneven burden of proof any further.”
Perhaps the dissonance you feel results from the conflict between an assumption of symmetry and real-world information that contradicts that assumption.
I start with dsc’s first axiom: All leftists lie all the time, except when they are baiting their hook with a morsel of truth. (As C. C. Colton said, “Falsehood is never so successful as when she baits her hook with truth.”)
Some people like to begin with an assumption that if one side is biased, the other side must be equally biased in the other direction.
A conservative’s bias, though, is a bias toward the truth.
If the issue were something the left wanted to be false, no amount of evidence, no proof, would suffice to persuade. If it’s something they want to be true, then, as you note, any little shreds will suffice.
Now, you complained that a photo and a newspaper article interviewing a couple of teachers is not “good enough for some.” But the only evidence that the Bamtard is the kid in the photo is an article in a newspaper—which is to say, the utterance of known liars—supposedly reporting testimony that is suspect on its face.
The likelihood that those teachers would remember Chairman Maobama after all this time is vanishingly small. Infinitessimal.
And yet, for you it is unreasonable to reserve judgement on the matter when the only evidence is a second hand report of an unlikely event by habitual liars.
Go figure.