What's The Difference Between "Birther" And "Truther"?

November 28, 2009 | Man50D

[Man50D]

This morning I posted a thread titled " Obama Orders 1 Million US Troops To Prepare For Civil War". My comment, " Fact or speculation? You decide", in the thread I posted clearly indicated no particular position for or against and with the assumption Freepers could openly debate the merits, or lack thereof, and provide input concerning the article located at another website as has occurred with many other dubious articles posted at FreeRepublic in the past.

The thread was pulled with the premise the article was based on the "trutherism" subjectively defined as a conspiracy. I then posted a subsequent vanity thread titled "Censorship At FreeRepublic? Aren't Freepers Smart Enough To make Their Own Decsions?" with the following sincere questions and remarks:

I was perplexed by these remarks since I never had heard such a word and don't recall it listed in the dictionary. Accept my apologies up front if I am wrong. Regardless of this point, isn't FreeRepublic all about revealing the truth that would otherwise be buried by the socialist media? Consequently I responded "What is “trutherism”? Can you confirm none of this article is true?"

It also begs the question: How is it known any or all of the article is a conspiracy?" It may very well be a conspiracy or none of it is a conspiracy or the truth lies somewhere in between. I don't know myself and that prompted me to call upon the collective intelligence of my fellow Freepers for their input. It is from this point of view I also have the following questions and remarks:

What are your sources to confirm all of what is written is mere conspiracy and that none of it is true? You have enough intelligent people at FR to discern the accuracy or inaccuracy of the article for themselves. Freepers will shoot it down in a New York minute with sources if it is not true. That was the premise of my comment “fact or speculation?, you decide”. Removing the article reflects a presumption they lack the necessary intelligence and a lack of confidence amongst your fellow freepers."

Such a response also leaves me wondering since when did FreeRepublic deny debate to determine the legitimacy of an article or website? We do it all the time with socialist websites and articles. Why not do the same with this article? How does open and honest debate harm FreeRepublic? If the source of the website I posted a link to the article consists of a bunch of conspirators then why not let the combined vast knowledge of Freepers call them out with specific and detailed information? Making a simple statement without credible evidence is tantamount to slander.

I apologize in advance if I'm wrong but It seems to me given Freepers have exposed disingenuous stories many times in the past, they could do so again with the article I posted and that FreeRepublic have the same confidence in its members. I'll know I'm wrong if I am suspended or banned from Freerepublic for posting this vanity on the sincere confidence of my fellow Freepers."

This thread was then locked with the comment "You were told what trutherism was via freepmail, but you pretend you don’t know here. We don’t cotton to liars on FR." A lie based on whose definition? Therein lies the problem. The socialists have been attempting to discredit those demanding BO abide by Article 1 Section 2 requiring any person seeking the office of President be a natural born citizen. He he has refused to do so by producing a birth certificate. The socialists have responded with their same old tired tactic of isolating and attacking a target by discrediting the object of their wrath. They have tried to implement this tactic by labeling people who believe in the Constitution as "birthers" implying if not out right claiming it is a conspiracy.

Many threads have been posted at FreeRepublic regarding the eligibility issue without being pulled nor reprimanding the poster on the assumption it is a conspiracy. There has been extensive open and honest discussion and debate on the subject. It is with this premise in mind I posted the original thread. Many Freepers agree BO has usurped the Constitution by occupying the White House. Clearly FreeRepublic doesn't consider questioning of BO's eligibility as a mere conspiracy. Given that fact, isn't it reasonable to at least consider the possibility he would commit another unconstitutional act of deploying U.S. troops against Americans?

It is incongruous to summarily dismiss the latter proposition outright since the former is considered plausible. Instead the mere debate of the issue concerning the deployment of troops is denounced. As I stated earlier I was not taking a position on the issue but was merely trying to start open and honest debate as indicated by initial "you decide" comment. Instead I am called a liar for merely questioning the term "trutherism". I sincerely hope FreeRepublic has not been reduced to attacking its own members for simply wanting to have an honest discussion.

[BGHater]

Dude, your asking for it. Just play the game.

[skeeter]

Incoming...

[Man50D]

Dude, your asking for it. Just play the game.

What game? The game that denies open and honest debate?

[rightly_dividing]

IBTZ

[Just mythoughts]

What's The Difference Between "Birther" And "Truther"?

The were both 'birthed' by Hillary Clinton for her self serving political purposes. The 'truther' gave way for a Soviet style inquisition to make President Bush look like a liar and a deceiver.

Now clearly Hillary stayed well outside of the perimeter of the 'birther' movement, but she has NEVER denounced it either. And somehow in spite of the delivery she got to be in charge of WHAT? State Department!!!!

[Michel12]

Open debate on a crazy report by a lying rag?

[verity]

You seem to have an abundance of free time on your hands.:-)

[ncfool]

5 -4-3-2-1 gone

[Jeffrey_D.]

[cripplecreek]

Fire does melt steel and we haven’t seen the birth certificate.

I may not believe about the military being prepared for war but I’m certainly not going to get nasty with you about it.

[SnakeDoctor]

Let it go, man. This isn’t a public site, and it isn’t your site. The owner has the right to filter unwanted content.

The problem with conspiracy theories is not that people on here aren’t smart enough to decipher — it is the type of people that will be attracted to the site if conspiracy theories are allowed to run wild. It’d be a self-fulfilling prophecy ... conspiracy theories attract conspiracy theorists, and the site spins off the deep end.

SnakeDoc

[StatenIsland]

Well, in answer to your question, I’ve always thought that a *birther* is a birth-certificate skeptic and a *truther* is a 9/11-was-an-inside-jobber.

I didn’t think that the million-man army rumor fit into either category.

[240B]

Clearly this guy, or someone who is using his account, is begging for the zot.

Maybe a DU thing?

[Man50D]

Open debate on a crazy report by a lying rag?

That could very well be. I'm not disputing that point but at least some credible evidence to buttress the claim and allow other people to express their opinions instead of summarily pulling the thread.

[thecabal]

LOL, you must have a FR death wish.

[Man50D]

I may not believe about the military being prepared for war but I’m certainly not going to get nasty with you about it.

Glad to hear it. I feel the same way. I certainly wouldn't outright call someone a liar simply because they post a thread on a particular subject.

[JoSixChip]

"What's The Difference Between "Birther" And "Truther"?"

The truther's have been proven wrong many, many times. The Birther's have yet to be proven wrong.

[fr_freak]

I don't think it is appropriate to lump the birth certificate issue in with every conspiracy theory out there. The "birther" issue is simply a demand for proof, rather than an assertion of facts. Obama and his people have claimed that he is qualified to be president, yet his family history and birth circumstances leave room for doubt in a couple of different ways and "birthers" simply want to see documentation to resolve the issue. This is a fundamentally different approach than an assertion that Obama is readying the military for civil war or that Bush bombed the WTC. In the latter two examples, people are asserting facts which they have no real reason to believe and which cannot be disproved with simple documentation. There is no possible way, for example, to disprove the WTC truther conspiracy theory because it is a theory not based on facts which can be disproved. The "birther" issue, on the other hand, could be resolved with simple documentation, although there is a legal question regarding the definition of "natural born".

In short, not all conspiracy theories are equal.

[jessduntno]

“Clearly this guy, or someone who is using his account, is begging for the zot. Maybe a DU thing?”

That reminds me; I have to check the strings of lights for the Christmas tree to see which bulbs are too dim to stay on the tree...I remove the ones that are really dim and just creating a dull spot...since it’s my tree, I have a right to do that, don’t I?