Main Menu

Birthers, twofers and proofers

Dr. Conspiracy

Dr. Conspiracy

I am proposing a new taxonomy and terminology to try to distinguish between groups who agitate for some further process to validate the last election.

  • Birther – someone who believes Barack Obama was not born in the United States, or lost his US citizenship at some point thereafter.
  • Twofer – someone who believes that the office of President constitutionally requires two citizen parents (in addition to whatever other qualifications exist).
  • Proofer – someone who believes that Barack Obama is the legitimate president of the United States, but that either this was insufficiently verified, that releasing further documentation is warranted to make this all go away, or that calls for a court to resolve any constitutional ambiguity about presidential qualifications.

I’m not labeling the last group who don’t care a rats ass about anything, just so long as they can get Obama out of office by any means possible as soon as possible.

,

34 Responses to Birthers, twofers and proofers

  1. avatar
    milspec August 7, 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    How about Flaming nut case a, b, and c

  2. avatar
    kimba August 7, 2009 at 12:36 pm #

    Lovin’ it! Spread it far and wide so it gets picked up as the standard. ( Or scream it at your town hall)

  3. avatar
    jtx August 7, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    kimba:

    Meaningless (and misleading) categories.

    There should only be two categories:

    a) I love Obama and – whether he is legally eligible or not – I want to live in his communist utopia and I’m happy to rat on my friends and family to help him just as was done in Nazi Germany.

    b) I merely want the man to conclusively prove in a properly formed court under (US law) that he is legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

  4. avatar
    Bob August 7, 2009 at 1:09 pm #

    If you want binary definitions, how about:

    a) Those who acknowledge Obama is president; and

    b) Those who never will.

  5. avatar
    richCares August 7, 2009 at 1:30 pm #

    the tiresome babbling idiot liar judge chimes in with his tiresome rants. Go away Idiot, you waste our time!

  6. avatar
    misha August 7, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    How many birthers does it take to change a lightbulb?

    Ten. One to change the bulb, and nine to explain the conspiracy why the filament didn’t last, and how Obama and liberals sabotaged the factory.

  7. avatar
    misha August 7, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    What’s the difference between a reptile and a birther?

    One is hatched from eggs, eats insects, and sleeps under a rock.

    The other is a reptile.

  8. avatar
    aarrgghh August 7, 2009 at 2:00 pm #

    for a consistent and parallel construction, those categories should be named birfers, twofers (or toofers) and proofers. one might also include a fourth category “troofers”, for those who “just want the truth”, even if the term’s already been appropriated by the 9/11 folks.

    as for that last category, who “don’t care a rats ass about anything”, i’ll call them “crybabies”, since there’s really nothing more appropriate that can describe them.

  9. avatar
    Greg August 7, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    Are you saying that all Republicans are birthers? Do you think Ann Coulter, who called birthers “cranks” loves Obama and wants to live in his communist utopia? The head of the RNC? Bill O’Reilly?

    You didn’t really think through your two categories, did you?

  10. avatar
    Sarina August 7, 2009 at 2:17 pm #

    How do you get a one-arm birther out of a tree?

    Wave to him.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 7, 2009 at 2:18 pm #

    In re: wasting time.

    I have been involved in a discussion with some friends on another online site about a particular persistent contributor, who writes in a provocative way, making long-discredited assertions, and generally stirring up trouble. The question was whether to ban or to ignore the person.

    There is a very distinct difference between a comment that one disagrees with, but that was made by someone with half a grain of sense, and a comment mindlessly pasted, by someone half-blinded by prejudice, and unlikely ever to listen to any reply. If someone is not going to listen to a reply, then why reply? Perhaps the comment makes you angry, and that’s why a reply — to vent the anger. Perhaps someone wants to “set the record straight”, but for anything “usual”, the record has already been set straight on this blog a dozen times.

    Here at Obama Conspiracy Theories, banning is a last resort, and one which I have not found the necessity of doing. This means that right-wing provocateurs can post, and those provoked can respond. However, I hope everyone understands that “they have the right to remain silent.”

    My article is:Do Not Feed the Trolls

  12. avatar
    Sarina August 7, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    How do get a one-arm birther out of a tree?

    Wave to him.

  13. avatar
    misha August 7, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    I can’t listen to Rush Limbaugh. The string between the tin cans is broken.

  14. avatar
    misha August 7, 2009 at 3:37 pm #

    Our readers will enjoy I Love Birthers.

  15. avatar
    aarrgghh August 7, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    for consistent and parallel construction, the categories should be “birfers”, twofers (or toofers) and proofers. i might add another category, for those who “just want the truth” — the “troofers”, even if the term has already been appropriated by the 9/11 folks. as for “the last group who don’t care a rats ass about anything”, i’d call them “crybabies” since nothing better describes them.

  16. avatar
    kimba August 7, 2009 at 4:18 pm #

    jtx, you are a troll. In the future I will exercise my right to remain silent, follow Dr C’s advice of Do Not Feed the Trolls and not respond to you again. Be gone with you. There must be people wanting tax advice today at JTX.

  17. avatar
    jtx August 7, 2009 at 4:40 pm #

    Bob:

    See b) above bobbie … since you seeingly cannot understand what that means, let me help you.

    It means if the man is found eligible, he is deservedly President; if not – he is something else indeed.

    So your b) is meaningless. There are millions of citizens who merely want to have a correct – and legally meaningful – determination. Apparently you don’t give a rat’s rear end.

    The issue is whether or not the man legally holds the office he now occupies; he has never shown that to be the case – but perhaps he can in a real (non-kangaroo)court.

  18. avatar
    jtx August 7, 2009 at 4:44 pm #

    Greg:

    I thought you were able to read bot should have known better since you apparently haven’t read Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution.

    Nowhere did I say anything at all resembling your oddball claim … that’s you saying that … though perhaps you’re not too far off. But perhaps they’re merely uninformed or – like you – misinformed.

  19. avatar
    jtx August 7, 2009 at 4:46 pm #

    kimba:

    Good idea since your responses make little sense anyway.

    And I doubt you’d know a troll despite the fact you perhaps look in a mirror occasionally while shaving.

  20. avatar
    Bob August 7, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    It means if the man is found eligible

    Who will find Obama eligible? Under what authority?

    There are millions of citizens

    Millions? Citation, please.

    he has never shown that to be the case

    What law requires him to demonstrate eligibility?

    but perhaps he can in a real (non-kangaroo)court.

    What court? What case?

  21. avatar
    NBC August 7, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    It means if the man is found eligible, he is deservedly President; if not – he is something else indeed.

    And until such a hearing takes place, and the chances of such are minimal, President Obama is deservedly our President.

    Simple really

  22. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 7, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    “a) I love Obama and – whether he is legally eligible or not – I want to live in his communist utopia and I’m happy to rat on my friends and family to help him just as was done in Nazi Germany.

    b) I merely want the man to conclusively prove in a properly formed court under (US law) that he is legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.”

    That must mean that you believe that anybody who thinks that Obama has proved his eligibility, such as Ann Coulter, or Bill O’Reiley, must fit into the first category. So, would you say, that they “want to live in his communist utopia”? Would you say that they “love Obama no matter what”? Would you say that they are “happy to rat on my friends and family to help him just as was done in Nazi Germany”?

    You must, because you put them into the first category.

  23. avatar
    Greg August 7, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

    You didn’t say it anywhere?

    Hmm.

    Was it not you who said:

    “There should only be two categories:”

    As for not reading II.1.5 of the Constitution, I think what you meant to say was that clearly I hadn’t read de Vattel who, despite being an obscure Swiss philosopher never once quoted approvingly by any court (outside of dissent) on the issue of citizenship is the only person we should read on the subject.

  24. avatar
    Bob Weber August 7, 2009 at 6:04 pm #

    Dr. C wrote:

    “There is a very distinct difference between a comment that one disagrees with, but that was made by someone with half a grain of sense, and a comment mindlessly pasted, by someone half-blinded by prejudice, and unlikely ever to listen to any reply. If someone is not going to listen to a reply, then why reply?”

    *****************

    Birferism refutes the notion that the internet, and bloggers, form a “self-correcting community.” Birfer websites endlessly recycle the same misinformation.

    They’re still repeating the Occidental College April Fool Hoax and the Pakistan Travel Ban. Months from now, they’ll still be on Orly’s phony Kenyan BC. More like a gigantic circle-jerk than a self-correcting community.

  25. avatar
    jtx August 7, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    Bob:

    The law is the US Constitution and a Federal Disrtrict Court or higher has the justiciability of the matter. It is one of those courts who can judge the matter.

    Since this is not a court (but merely a kangaroo court), bobbie, no citation is needed. If you don’t wish to believe there are millions who are concerned about the man’s eligibility, that’s your privilege. Just keep thinking that if it makes you comfortable.

    The WND website has a petition to demand proof of eligibility that is now approaching 1/2 million signers. And that is clearly only those motivated to go on record. Many who voted for this guy are now quite concerned also.

  26. avatar
    jtx August 7, 2009 at 7:01 pm #

    NBC:

    Simple??? Certainly you are if you believe that the term “deservedly” is appropriate. He has never shown himself to be eligible so you are grossly misusing the term.

    I say again:

    The issue is whether this man is eligible to hold the office he now occupies. since he has never yet demnonstrated that he is.

  27. avatar
    jtx August 7, 2009 at 7:05 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    That’s not a very cogent observation since YOU are the one putting others into those categories. I just presented the categories.

    You’re welcome to think whatever you like no matter how ridiculous your notions.

  28. avatar
    jtx August 7, 2009 at 7:06 pm #

    Greg:

    You show your ignorance of the use of Vattel within the US legal system.

    Good for you! Very indicative of you and the other Flying Monkeys.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 7, 2009 at 7:22 pm #

    Somehow the concept of “superconductor” comes to mind.

  30. avatar
    Bob August 7, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    The law is the US Constitution and a Federal Disrtrict Court or higher has the justiciability of the matter.

    Which section of the U.S. Constitution requires Obama to demonstrate eligibility?

    And there have been many suits already filed in federal court, and they’ve all been tossed. So how will your mythical case succeed where others have failed?

    Since this is not a court (but merely a kangaroo court), bobbie, no citation is needed.

    Citations improve credibility; it makes it look like you are not talking out of your ass.

    If you don’t wish to believe there are millions who are concerned about the man’s eligibility, that’s your privilege.

    And if you want to literally make up numbers, that’s your privilege.

    The WND website has a petition to demand proof of eligibility that is now approaching 1/2 million signers.

    445,000, actually; that’s a far cry from “millions.” And it is very easy to sign that petition multiple times.

    Many who voted for this guy are now quite concerned also.

    “Many”? Is that like “millions”? Is that your ass talking again?

  31. avatar
    nbc August 7, 2009 at 7:47 pm #

    Vattel was never really used in the legal system, certainly in Wong Kim Ark, it was found that the legal foundation for the term Natural Born was to be found in Common Law which in the US was strongly affected by English Common law. English Common Law defines natural born as a child born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents.

    Simple

  32. avatar
    Bob Weber August 7, 2009 at 8:03 pm #

    I should add that the birfer habit of purging doubters and questioners is a big factor. FreeRepublic just “zotted” someone after one comment. They pointed out, in re Orly’s phony BC, that Kenya didn’t use shillings and pence.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 7, 2009 at 8:19 pm #

    So that was the purpose of the coin in the image with the typewriter!

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 7, 2009 at 8:27 pm #

    I’ve been doing some offline reading of academic material on the history of citizenship in America and Great Britain. I was read how the law actually developed over a period of 300, and at the end my reading session the idea of de Vattel flitted into my mind, and it was a shock to realize how totally NOWHERE de Vattel was in any of it. The concept of “natural law” was there all right, but the British and American understanding of natural law was totally out of line with de Vattel’s Swiss tradition. The common law view was that God made natural born citizens based on where they were born.