Main Menu

“Birther” is finalist for “word of the year”

The Oxford English Dictionary names the “word of the year” each year to encapsulate the year’s mood. The winner for 2009 was “unfriend” (a verb meaning to remove someone from their social network). However the 24 runners up included “birther” and “teabagger”.

As reported at Examiner.com.

8 Responses to “Birther” is finalist for “word of the year”

  1. avatar
    JoZeppy November 19, 2009 at 10:19 am #

    I wonder if they were considering including all the defintions of “teabagger” when it made the list?

  2. avatar
    TRUTH November 19, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    Was “TRUTHER” anywhere near the top 20 I wonder?

    A thought. Which is your opinion is worse, the person asking to see ANOTHER piece of paper as proof of citizenship, or the person that thinks our own government would attack our own country killing thousands, risking many many more. Just a thought.

  3. avatar
    misha November 19, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    You’re probably going to be surprised, but I believe both positions are equally insane.

    I will add that the vile things said about Obama are a new dimension. I will point out that a significant number of liberals voted in favor of the Iraq resolution, because they did not want to be portrayed as weak on defense.

    I repeat: our foreign policy is set by oil companies and defense contractors, not the “Israel lobby.”

  4. avatar
    TRUTH November 19, 2009 at 9:49 pm #

    I repeat: our foreign policy is set by oil companies and defense contractors, not the “Israel lobby.”

    Not really sure WHAT to make of THAT statement, since none of it is true or sensible.

    As for the initial question, which is worse. your response sounds vaguely familiar…let me think…. {{{ . . General George Casey, the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Army, said that the deaths of 12 soldiers and one civilian at Foot Hood would become a far greater tragedy “if our diversity becomes a casualty.” . . }}}} Oh yeah, thats it. Hey, your Dad isn’t a General is he?

  5. avatar
    G November 20, 2009 at 1:09 am #

    My answer: BOTH are just as bad – delusional, idiotic loser conspiracy movements with no valid evidence to support them, both anti-patriotic in their real intent, both full of either people with an agenda, the extremely paranoid and misguided, ill-informed, ignorant stubborn fools.

    The sad thing is that polls show that surprisingly large percentages of people that identify as either GOP or conservative (particularly in the South) claim to “buy into” the “Birther” crap. I’m sure that some of those folks just respond to the polls that way to try to “score” political points against the current administration, but then again, on a whole, the “Birther” movement isn’t really about Constitutional eligibility concerns.

    Because if it was, the preponderance of credible evidence and case law only point in one direction, in support of Obama’s eligibility.

    Therefore, those that continue to pursue such foolishness obviously have other deep-seated issues really motivating their desire to blindly give more credibility to unsubstantiated rumors, false information and a cast of questionable characters over judges rulings, the State of Hawaii and archived birth announcements.

    The true motivations seem to be a mix of the following: an agenda based on fear or hatred , those who can’t bear that their candidate lost an election, those with cognitive dissonance, the paranoid, the crazy, the gullible and ill-informed and of course, those that seek to scam or seek fame/profit off of all of the above.

    The stupid “Truther” movement seemed to have a similar mix, and indeed, there is some overlap between both crazy groups. In fact, one of the original “Birther” movement leaders, Phil Berg, held a similar role in the “Truther” movement.

    I do think the “Birther” movement is larger than the “Truther” movement actually was. There is a lot of misreporting or misleading stats on this – particularly as of late, as a false equivalency of trying to equate recent polls showing support for “Birther” concerns on the Right with polls on “Truthers” and the Left.

    The problem with the latter is that it falls apart in the actual analysis of what those polls actually asked people, which was if they thought the government knew about the possibility of 9-11 in advance and could have taken steps to prevent it.

    The problem is, that is a TRUE statement, as the NIE briefings given to President Bush as late as August of 2001 clearly stated such a threat and it is true that the administration pretty dismissed such concerns at that time.

    Therefore, many people answering “yes” to such a question are likely just referring to that known, revealed intelligence failure and in no way is their any direct link to what the crazy “Truthers” actually believe.

    “Truthers” are those fools which believe that the 9-11 attacks themselves were an orchestrated and planned conspiracy with either our own government or Israel behind the plot instead of Al-Qaeda.

    I seem to recall that these crazy “Truthers” got very little coverage and were routinely mocked and derided by most people on all sides of the political spectrum (as well they should).

  6. avatar
    Scientist November 20, 2009 at 6:43 am #

    I totally agree. The way the 9/11 question was worded, I would have answered yes. But I certainly don’t believe that Bush planned and executed the operation. After all, it was successful, so that would rule out any involvement by Bush.

    As far as the birthers, if they were truly sincere that they are pursuing this as a legal and constitutional matter then they would conduct themselves accordingly. They wouldn’t file multiple idiotic cases all over creation and make wild-ass claims of conspiracy every time they lost. No, they would pick their best case, take it all the way to the SCOTUS and then, when they get rejected, as they inevitably will be (SCOTUS has already indicated their opinion when Roberts swore Obama in), they will hang it up. That’s what real lawyers with a real case do. Political hacks with axes to grind and PayPal accounts do what the birthers are doing.

  7. avatar
    Loren November 25, 2009 at 6:17 pm #

    Which is your opinion is worse, the person asking to see ANOTHER piece of paper as proof of citizenship, or the person that thinks our own government would attack our own country killing thousands, risking many many more.

    What you’re asking is whether it’s worse to believe that the President is evil, or that the President is an illegal usurper of his office. The former may be more personally accusatory, but the latter is an open invitation to civil unrest.

    And Birtherism is not simply a matter of asking for a document, and the production of that document would be the end of it. That’s precisely what was said before Obama released the COLB, and how many conspiracists responded to that document by simply asking for another one?

    Notice the amicus brief in this post. Midway through, attorney Lawrence Joyce flat-out ADMITS that proving Obama’s Hawaiian birth won’t shut him up. “It was my idea to refer to Soetoro as Soetoro rather than as Obama, on the grounds that many individuals think this whole issue will be resolved solely by reference to his place of birth…”

    Obama could publish a long-form Hawaiian birth certificate online TONIGHT, complete with every sniggling detail about his birth, and what would be the Birther response? That that’s only a JPEG and they want an official statement from the Hawaiian government vouching for the image’s authenticity. I know this because that’s exactly the treatment that’s been given to the COLB.

  8. avatar
    misha November 25, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    And their backup argument, is that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he still cannot be president, because of his father.

    They are denialists, not Constitutionalists.