Far be it from me to defend Robert, but he is right. The term "birfer" is derogatory just as "Obot" is.
That's a definition in the urban dictionary online. NOT name calling.
Obot is in the same dictionary, so I guess you would believe it is not name calling either? (Even though you have stated it is.)
And if you search 'birfers' on Google?
And if you search for "Obot" you get over 12 million hits. That is the problem with using such a ridiculous method to try and justify childish name calling in a open forum.
The problem is that terms like "birfers" and "Obots"are used simply to demean without making any type of rational argument. Some may think it is cute or effective when in fact it is not.
Such terms become divisive in the long run and the people they are dividing is us.
For someone who claims to be looking at the White House and wanting all eyes focused on it, you have a funny way of trying to unite people, Jimmy.
Actually, it isn't funny at all.
Since I do not, that's a lie and derogatory. That's the difference.
And since "birfers" are not crazy, that is a lie and derogatory.
That's the difference as well.
Jimmy, where's your proof? You constantly clamor for proof. Yet you cannot provide any INDEPENDENT evidence to support your claims? [Where's the beef?]
Thanks, Anthony for pointing out that both terms are derogatory. Thanks for standing up for Robert, even though you disagree with him on other things. I'm even more impressed than I was before. Shucks, I might even buy YOU a Dr. Pepper. :D
Jimmy Z said:
Anthony: I'm not here to unite people. I'm here to INFORM people. Some get it, some resist it.
You are the one who has called to keep the eye on the prize. You are the one who keeps refereing to a "flow chart" (which it is not) because you want everyone to be focused on the election.
(Of course you forget that the issues the birthers bring up may go past the election.)
After watching you for awhile Jimmy, I think it is more than fair to say that you are more interested in advertising your show. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but that is your primary goal.
Controversy sells and that appears to be why you enjoy it,
Mary Hartzler said:
Thanks for standing up for Robert, even though you disagree with him on other things.
Given our history, I am sure that at this moment Robert is having a heart attack. ;)
Okay, I'll be very clear here, because the difference is subtle, and hard for some to understand.
There's a big difference.
Congratulations! In three short sentences you manage to contradict yourself.
Yes, the election is the goal but that does not mean other legal paths should stop.
We should not stop investigating Fast and Furious because the election is the prize. We should not stop looking at crony capitalism from Obama because the election is the prize.
Birthers have latched onto an issue they believe is one way to influence the election by getting Obama removed from the ballot. I happen to disagree with them (and will argue with them) on many of their supporting "beliefs," but it is a path they have chosen. It is not my path.
But their goal is still the same in that they seek to have Obama be looking for work after November 2012.
I'm not here to sell controversy. Never said you were. I said "controversy sells."
Whether you peddle it or someone else peddles it matters not.
But my goal is not to be controversial, but to be honest, direct, truthful and correct.
Oh? Let's see how that lines up with your next statement, shall we? I believe there is more than enough evidence on Freedom Torch that some folks dedicated to the birther agenda are crazy.
So despite labeling everyone as a "birfer," you now admit that in your opinion only some folks are crazy. How is previously labeling every birther as "crazy" being "truthful?"
Fast and Furious has real news agencies really investigating and providing real facts concerning a very real scandal.
Are you really trying to say that something is true only because a "real news agency" investigates it? That is an interesting point of view. However, in your zeal to legitimize one investigation, you miss the point. The investigations are different paths to what is ultimately the same goal.
It's funny how you make a great case against the birthers and their 'natural born citizen' agenda, but your dislike for my style puts you at odd with me, and now you're attacking me outright. *L* Don't worry, I'll take on all comers.
I want to make sure that I understand you. You are against birthers because in you believe they have produced a "whole lotta nothing," but yet you want to defend your style of demeaning and denigrating people by calling them names. Can you see anything coming out of name calling, Jimmy? Other than a "whole lotta nothing?"
There is precedent, you know. And he was on the ballot already.
You are mistaken on "precedent." "Precedent" is applying a standard to the same set of facts. If the birthers are right, the facts have changed. Obama's eligibility, once stated to be true in 2008, may now be at risk because of new facts. Do I think those facts will be produced? No. I don't. that doesn't matter. What does matter is that in this instance, your stance on "precedence" is at best, flawed.
I stand by that.
Fine. In doing so you lose all credibility in the discussion. It shows that you are not only unwilling to enter into a discussion civilly, it shows that you are unwilling and unable to accept facts.
That is odd as you are the one who rails against birthers and their lack of facts, and here you are trying to stand proudly on being an ostrich with your head in the sand.
As for Erick Erickson, that is as ridiculous an argument as there is.
You do believe that you are responsible for your own choices and your own choice of words, don't you? To lay the term you have chosen to accept and use on someone else is as deceitful as some of the things the democrats do. (Or in some case, birthers do.)
Birtherism makes no sense, is based on a slew of fallacies, and interrupts the work that MUST be done
And included in that work is for Conservatives to stop attacking each other using childish names that only widen the differences between us.
You aren't helping in that area at all.
So perhaps instead of relying on some silly graphic, maybe you should start with simply saying your stance on calling people names is contrary to your stated goal.
Not exactly. I'm saying that without reputable and reliable agencies reporting and documenting, you get what the birthers have - nothing.
Okay. Using your logic, the James O'Keefe videos on Acorn had no meaning or bearing because no "established media" had ever exposed Acorn until O'Keefe. You and I know you don't believe that, so your premise is false.
I didn't realize that Issa was an Obama supporter. Learn something new everyday, I guess.
Even so, the birthers contend they are looking for the truth as well. Once again, your point goes down in flames.
I don't call names other than on the Fight Club threads,......
We have already concluded and you have agreed using the term "birfer" is name calling. Under the very standard you brought forth, it is name calling.
Why are you arguing with me in that case?
Because you are being divisive. Your style is divisive.
Your own assertions are belied by your actions.
Argue that with Mr. Erickson.
Erickson is not putting forth the argument "he did it so I can too!" You are. That is why your position is ridiculous. You are in fact trying to justify your actions based on something a second grader would say. You are better than that.
Excellent. There are many birthers here at FT who should hear your words and abide by them.
They may be listening. That is their call. But once again you seem to be saying "I can do because they do it as well."
The graphic is completely and totally true to real life.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. (You have incorrectly labeled it as a flow chart, which it is not, but that is anther issue.)
Now take your name calling routine and preach it to Robert, his pal and Mary.
Splinter, eye, plank in eye ring a bell to you?