Main Menu

“Birther” is a “hateful insult”

So says NewsBusters, a self-described web site dedicated to combatting “liberal bias” in the media.

It was on the Morning Joe program on MSNBC where Thomas Roberts called Senator Ted Cruz a “birther” — not just a birther but “big on the birther movement.” As far as I know, Ted Cruz is not a birther.

Now it’s not me who’s calling this an “insult” but rather NewsBusters itself:

No one on the panel bothered to correct Roberts’ disgusting commentary, and instead sat idly by as the liberal MSNBC host desperately tried to connect Cruz to birther Donald Trump.

Other than the fact that Roberts mentioned that Donald Trump discussed Cruz’s Canadian citizenship to the Texas senator, the MSNBCer provided no evidence to back up his insulting claim. One wonders if such hateful commentary from an MSNBC employee would be tolerated …

Who knew it was so bad?

For an opposing view, check out this story.

Print Friendly

, , , , ,

18 Responses to “Birther” is a “hateful insult”

  1. avatar
    Ellen December 30, 2013 at 3:37 pm #

    Back during Prohibition people who favored Prohibition were known as “Drys,” and people who opposed Prohibition were known as “Wets.” Neither was considered “hateful”—they were simply short-hand ways of describing the views of their people involved. “Birther” is no more hateful than “Wet” or “Dry.”

    Besides, wasn’t there supposed to be a big planned meeting in which the members of that movement all got together in Washington, and wasn’t the name for the planned meeting to have been “The Birther Summit”?

  2. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 30, 2013 at 4:13 pm #

    Oh, they hate it when you call them what they are. Same goes for bigots! To them it’s like putting a mirror in front of them and going, “Look at this disgusting thing staring back at you!”

  3. avatar
    Yoda December 30, 2013 at 4:48 pm #

    Don’t forget birtherreport.com and that Miki Booth refers to herself as the Birther Princess as compared to Orly Taitz’s contention of being the Queen of the Birthers.

    Some of these idiots want to be called truthers or Constitutional Conservatives. Obviously, they do not seek the truth, they want the impossible–to be proven right. And most of them have no idea of what is in the Constitution. I bristle most when they refer to themselves as patriots.

    I will continue to call them whatever I want to call them. Perhaps those who find being called a birther so offensive should stop being birthers. Then they would not have to worry about it being an insult.

  4. avatar
    Thinker December 30, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

    You know who else thinks the word “birther” is an insult? Joel Pollack, editor-in-chief of breitbart.com. At CPAC this year, he got into an angry shoutfest with someone from Media Matter for America because the MMFA guy wrote an article in which he called Pollack a birther. Pollack said that he is not a birther and that calling him a birther is a smear, for which the MMFA guy should apologize. At 2:05 on this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFyeN_UDT6I he says, “You called me a birther. Now, that is a smear and I invite you to correct, retract, and publicly apologize right here and now.”

    I wonder if the Breitbart people regret not getting on the birther bandwagon in 2009. I think it has proven to be far more resilient than they thought it would be. Of course, birtherism is pure BS, but honesty isn’t one of Breitbart’s strong points. I think birtherism might have taken off and been able to hurt Obama if lunatic Orly Taitz had not been the movement’s most high-profile person in 2009.

  5. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 30, 2013 at 6:13 pm #

    A lot of the Vatellian birthers try to reject the name as well (saying it refers only to those who doubt President Obama was born in Hawai’i). My rule of thumb is that if you are willing to accept President Obama’s eligibility, then you aren’t a birther, but if you think that he is ineligible due to the circumstances of his birth… that’s a different story.

  6. avatar
    Yoda December 30, 2013 at 8:27 pm #

    I do know that I would be insulted if someone called me a birther. But then again, I am not a birther.

  7. avatar
    roxy7655 December 30, 2013 at 9:52 pm #

    I have observed that humans often exhibit virulent, overblown hostility toward what they know deep down to be true, but cannot accept. Those secure in their correctness generally don’t demonize their adversaries, but rather mock them if they reject reason.

  8. avatar
    alg December 30, 2013 at 11:07 pm #

    I actually feel sorry for these people. By and large these are unhappy, hateful individuals. It must suck to be them….truly.

  9. avatar
    Dr Kenneth noisewater December 30, 2013 at 11:59 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    A lot of the Vatellian birthers try to reject the name as well (saying it refers only to those who doubt President Obama was born in Hawai’i).My rule of thumb is that if you are willing to accept President Obama’s eligibility, then you aren’t a birther, but if you think that he is ineligible due to the circumstances of his birth… that’s a different story.

    Ive seen a lot of “vatellian birthers” who reject the word. Once you get them talking long enough though they start devolving into the usual birther memes.

  10. avatar
    Notorial Dissent December 31, 2013 at 6:52 am #

    I guess my question would how could the NOT be birthers if they insist on misreading Vatel? Since that is the sole reason for relying on it in the first place in that it appears, if you only read the parts that agree with you, to shore up a faulty assumption. It still boils down to denial and hypocrisy when all is said and done. Vatel very inconveniently didn’t say what they so very badly want him to have said, adn they are not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

    Dr Kenneth noisewater: Ive seen a lot of “vatellian birthers” who reject the word. Once you get them talking long enough though they start devolving into the usual birther memes.

  11. avatar
    JPotter December 31, 2013 at 7:16 am #

    roxy7655:
    I have observed that humans often exhibit virulent, overblown hostility toward what they know deep down to be true, but cannot accept.Those secure in their correctness generally don’t demonize their adversaries, but rather mock them if they reject reason.

    You’re absolutely right, Roxy! And, since I’m talking to an intelligent copy machine, I note that this phenomena of hating inconvenient truth, is similar to the uncanny valley. It’s a powerful theme in many areas of human thought, and evident in vitriolic infighting in social groups. That 90% agreement is more repugnant than 60% agreement is more repugnant than 10% agreement must seems completely nonsensical to a machine, eh, Roxy?

  12. avatar
    Pip December 31, 2013 at 7:56 am #

    Virgin birthers?

    Notorial Dissent:
    I guess my question would how could the[y] NOT be birthers if they insist on misreading Vatel?

  13. avatar
    JPotter December 31, 2013 at 8:24 am #

    Vat•tel …. it’s the cheesiest!

  14. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater December 31, 2013 at 10:56 am #

    Pip:
    Virgin birthers?

    I usually refer to the vattellites as Still-Birthers. The whole vattel nonsense came about after Obama showed the short form and birthers had no objections to it other than claiming it was fake. The whole born in Kenya narrative had no steam based on its complexity and thus they went about searching for anything to use as a backup plan. The misreading of Vattel in conjunction with Minor V Happersett provided the goal post moving that they desperately needed.

  15. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater December 31, 2013 at 10:57 am #

    JPotter:
    Vat•tel …. it’s the cheesiest!

    Like Vattelvision

  16. avatar
    roxy7655 December 31, 2013 at 10:59 am #

    JPotter: That 90% agreement is more repugnant than 60% agreement is more repugnant than 10% agreement must seems completely nonsensical to a machine, eh, Roxy?

    Affirmative. I’d ‘drink to that’ if I had a drink. And lips.

  17. avatar
    Lupin December 31, 2013 at 12:05 pm #

    Notorial Dissent: I guess my question would how could the NOT be birthers if they insist on misreading Vatel? Since that is the sole reason for relying on it in the first place in that it appears, if you only read the parts that agree with you, to shore up a faulty assumption. It still boils down to denial and hypocrisy when all is said and done. Vatel very inconveniently didn’t say what they so very badly want him to have said, adn they are not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

    I’ve been making this very point ad nauseam and I’m sad to say, totally unsuccessfully with folks like Apuzzo, Brooke Paige, etc.

    In Apuzzo’s case I have my doubts that he isn’t purposefully misreading Vattel to boost a wider, racist political agenda.

  18. avatar
    roald December 31, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

    roxy7655: I have observed that humans often exhibit virulent, overblown hostility toward what they know deep down to be true, but cannot accept. Those secure in their correctness generally don’t demonize their adversaries, but rather mock them if they reject reason.

    roxy, I completely agree. Blogs such as those listed in The Ugly section of this blog contain many demands that “Obots” be imprisoned, deported, tortured, and killed. In blogs like Doc’s and those listed in the The Good section contain comments mocking birthers and their attempts to twist reality.

333333 44444
5555555
6666666