[Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
g. crabtree
jampot at roadrunner.com
Fri Oct 3 17:48:25 PDT 2008
I didn't say I felt unqualified to say anything about Mr. Witmer, I said
that I had no idea if he was NW.
I don't believe that I have ever attempted to tell others what it is that
you think. I'm not sure how I possibly could considering the emotional
nature of your posts.
Lastly, I find your remark '...for someone who finds something to say after
everyone one of my posts..." curious. You do realize that since the last
couple of meltdowns & protracted pouts I only respond to the posts in which
you address me specifically by name don't you?
g
----- Original Message -----
From: <joekc at roadrunner.com>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
See what I said! I knew you would help me to make my point! I find it
interesting that, since
you've never met Chris Witmer, you don't feel qualified to say anything
about him. Yet, even
though you've never met me, you do feel qualified so say something!
Again, there are lots of people from churches who post on Vision 2020,
myself included. All I
really have a problem with is dishonesty, and hypocrisy, and unwarranted
arrogance. But don't
let me stop you from telling everyone what I really think since you're the
expert there!
I'm amazed that for someone who finds something to say after everyone one of
my posts, you
never answer the serious questions or challenges. Just yesterday there were
two.
1) What was wrong with my abortion analysis?
2) Name one valid argument for a worthwhile point that Dr. No has given?
Just one.
--
Joe Campbell
---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> From what I've read in your previous posts I take it that you believe that
> No Weatherman is a nom de guerre that hides the identity of Chris Witmer.
> I
> suppose that this could be the case but, having never had the pleasure of
> meeting Mr. Witmer, I certainly couldn't say with any degree of confidence
> that it is or isn't and I'd love to see or hear the evidence that you
> might
> have to support your conviction. It could just as easily be someone else.
> For all I know it could be you setting up the ultimate straw man and for
> all
> you know it could be me padding the visions ranks. I seriously doubt you
> have anything other than a gut feeling and I'm afraid that is not
> something
> that is going to sway me very much. So, now that I've "made your point"
> what
> was it exactly? It reads as though you have a problem with an individual
> who
> may or may not be affiliated with a local church posting topics and
> expressing a point of view regarding the democrat candidate for president
> and I'm perplexed as to how this would wad up your panties or drive you
> "fricken nuts." People from churches get to have and express opinions just
> the same as everyone else. Maybe I'm not as intelligent as you give me
> credit for since I really don't understand why it upsets you the way you
> claim that it does.
>
>
> g
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joekc at roadrunner.com>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
>
>
> I have supported J. Ford for personal reasons. But as has been pointed
> out.
> Other than that I'm
> not sure what you're talking about. But since you seem to have all of my
> posts saved and
> categorized -- or one of your friends does -- no doubt you'll bring one up
> if I'm mistaken!
>
> I am not reading Dr. No's posts for the simple reason that what little I
> did
> read contained, as I
> noted, obvious and numerous fallacies. There is not much of a challenge
> there and little interest.
>
> He does get my panties in a wad, I'll admit. But not because of his
> arguments, or even his insults.
> I still can't get over how a local church could so blatantly act like a
> political machine. That they
> can continue to do so while most people, intelligent though most may be,
> fail to notice what
> strikes me as being so dang obvious.
>
> Just to make my point, I'll ask you straight up, Gary. Are you really
> going
> to tell me that you don't
> know who No Weatherman is, and with what church he is affiliated? We may
> have our differences
> but, previous name-calling aside, I certainly consider you to be
> intelligent. But my guess is, you'll say "No" and "No." And that just
> makes
> my point. I am stunned that they could pull the wool over
> even your eyes, a crafty, no-nonsense man of the people. Just thinking
> about
> it, let alone being
> reminded of it on a daily basis, drives me fricken nuts.
>
> And since I'm not reading Dr. No's posts and you consider him to be so
> challenging, could you just
> repeat for me what you take to be his best point, and the best argument
> for
> that point. Just one.
> If it is not an easily identifiable fallacy, I'll be shocked. But prove me
> wrong! Just one example.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > What is not so much offensive as hilarious is someone who chooses to hop
> > up
> > onto their moral high horse concerning one anonymous contributor while
> > having ignored or lauded so many others. Where was your massive concern
> > when
> > we were regularly receiving missives from B. Herodotus, P.Place, T.
> > Scimitar, J. Flores, and last but far from the least (prolific) J.Ford?
> > I
> > seem to recall several instances of your leaping to the defense of at
> > least
> > one of these miscreants. Clearly the problem that you are having with
> > Mr.
> > Weatherman is that he has the unmitigated gall to bring up topics along
> > with
> > citations that you find uncomfortable and difficult to reconcile. So,
> > rather
> > then respond to the matter at hand, you attempt to divert the discussion
> > with phony outrage at the commentators anonymity and/or his potential
> > affiliations. I guess if you can't answer the questions, attack and
> > vilify
> > the questioner. I personally prefer to evaluate the argument, taking
> > into
> > consideration the lack of a name or a face as just one more piece of
> > information. So far, the mysterious nature of the anti-weather dude has
> > no
> > bearing on BHO's unsavory affiliations and his and his supporters
> > inability
> > to account for them.
> >
> > g
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <joekc at roadrunner.com>
> > To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
> >
> >
> > > I'm not reading this but I just wanted to point out that if Doug
> > > Wilson
> > > thought that this was
> > > inappropriate, then the posts would stop in a heartbeat. Otherwise,
> > > I'm
> > > not sure what to say
> > > about No Wetherman's bad joke on the Courtney blog. {Just because you
> > > don't use your name, Dr.
> > > No, it does not mean that many of us do not know who you are.}
> > >
> > > So, I ask you Area Man and Roger Falen, Harkins and Crabtree: do you
> > > not
> > > find it offensive that
> > > someone might post such comments without revealing his name? If it
> > > turns
> > > out that this person
> > > was affiliated with a church, one that might be a political group
> > > instead
> > > of a religious one, would
> > > that offend you? Do you think that such groups should reap the
> > > benefits
> > > sanctioned by the first
> > > amendment? Warning: If you say that this is OK, then you are
> > > sanctioning
> > > a
> > > similar approach by
> > > a pro-Obama spokesman, perhaps on a national level. What do you think
> > > in
> > > this light?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Joe Campbell
> > >
> > > ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> At the risk of offending those of you who have already taken offense
> > >> by my cowardly, anonymous, and purely factual presence in this
> > >> one-sided conversation, please allow me to ask a terribly awkward
> > >> question that I hope will cut to the heart of this issue about when
> > >> life begins.
> > >>
> > >> We all know that Barrack Hussein Obama is the illegitimate son (one
> > >> of
> > >> many) of a Kenyan father who knocked up a teenager from Kansas.
> > >>
> > >> Let's say that Roe v. Wade was in place back then and that Obama's
> > >> mother attempted to terminate her pregnancy, via a saline abortion,
> > >> but things went sadly awry — the baby, or as some on this list prefer
> > >> to call it, the "potential human being," refused to die.
> > >>
> > >> What moral obligations, if any, do you believe should be on the
> > >> attending physicians:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Kill the baby.
> > >> 2. Abandon the baby (which is number 1 by another name).
> > >> 3. Save the baby.
> > >> 4. Other.
> > >>
> > >> As I said, this is a terribly awkward question but it helps put flesh
> > >> and bones on this sensitive subject and it's not beyond the realm of
> > >> possibility because it happens more often than Americans want to
> > >> know:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anieuWFWe8s&feature=related
> > >>
> > >> Barrack Hussein Obama said that this question was above his pay
> > >> grade,
> > >> but we all know he was just avoiding the uncomfortable truth. That
> > >> "potential human" in the womb is a precious human life and Obama
> > >> should get on his knees every night and thank his maker that his
> > >> mother couldn't resort to Roe v. Wade to kill him.
> > >>
> > >> Part of the daily fudge.
> > >>
> > >> =======================================================
> > >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >> http://www.fsr.net
> > >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> =======================================================
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > =======================================================
> >
> >
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list