[Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma

[Andreas Schou]

Gary --

Incidentally, this pretty much covers the relationship between Ayers
and Obama, from top to bottom:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

As far as I can tell, it's a recapitulation of the incredibly hostile
Stanley Kurtz article, but without scare quotes and the spurious
accusation that a Nixon ambassador was funding radical education
reform. It proves that two people belonging to the same political
party, who lived within three blocks of each other, who served on a
board of directors together, crossed paths several times.

-- ACS

On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> I'm glad you're managing to keep your sense of humor. I was becoming a bit
> concerned. From my side of the monitor it looked as though you were having
> an extremely difficult time with consistency (same old, same old) and as a
> result der weather dude was enjoying your lunch after all!
>
> nighty nite,
> g
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joekc at roadrunner.com>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 3:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
> Wow, talk about getting emotional, Gary!
>
> Most of these are versions of the ad hominem fallacy, guilt by association
> in particular, which
> you noted was fallacious. And these are the BEST arguments that have been
> presented!?!
>
> I'm not saying that Obama's "connection" with Ayers is good. I'm saying it
> is irrelevant to whether
> or not he should be president. And I said it was irrelevant when the issue
> was first posted.
>
> And how could you, or No Weatherman, have the nerve to say that someone's
> "association" with
> a "nut ball pastor and mentor" is reason for condemnation?  Let's get
> serious. If it is, you are in
> a heap of trouble! Since you are not, it is a bad argument. Again, guilt by
> association.
>
> And how about this argument: "McCain was born in Iraq. If I'm wrong, prove
> it." Is that worthy of
> consideration? Is your failure to prove me wrong relevant? No. The argument
> is a complete joke.
>
> The only thing that isn't surprising is that you think that these are all
> good arguments. Oh, dear!
> That will keep me laughing for the rest of the day! Thanks!
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>> >"You implied below that No Weatherman's posts we challenging and that is
>> >why myself and others
>> >do not respond to them, Gary. Name one good argument that he has given.
>> >Just one."
>>
>> Talk about distorting posts,  I said nothing about "good arguments." My
>> exact quote was "that he has the unmitigated gall to bring up topics along
>> with
>> citations that you find uncomfortable and difficult to reconcile."
>>
>> That said lets look at some of the topics NW has presented:
>>
>> BHO's  affiliation with Bill Ayers. Unquestionably a legitimate issue to
>> examine.
>>
>> The One's twenty plus year even closer affiliation with his nut ball
>> pastor
>> and mentor, Jeremiah Wright and his crackpot hate whitey/hate America
>> church.
>>
>> Next we have the dual citizenship topic. I would have thought this you and
>> your pals could have handled immediately. Either your savior does not have
>> dual citizenship or he does. If not, present your documentation and case
>> closed, you win your "argument." If so, a definite subject for inquiry and
>> comment.
>>
>> Which of these have you reconciled? Have you made a convincing case that
>> Ayers isn't a terrorist? Have you squared Wright's rhetoric with a
>> potential
>> president of all the people in America, not just the one covered by his
>> mentors questionable theology? Have you even answered the simple yes/no
>> question of the dual citizenship?
>>
>>  To turn the topics into a winnable arguments, which you seem to be so
>> desperate to do, tell me why it's good that our future president be
>> closely
>> associated with a bomb planting terrorist. Why it's a boon to a
>> presidential
>> resume to spend twenty years as a religious follower of  an America hating
>> racist. Any answer that starts with "Well, McCain...," which is all that
>> I've heard up to now, is no answer at all, it's a different discussion.
>>
>> Have a good weekend,
>> g
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <joekc at roadrunner.com>
>> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 8:11 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
>>
>>
>> It is fine with me if you want to distort my posts. I'm powerless to stop
>> it. But would it be too
>> much trouble to have some substantive contributions, to attempt to back up
>> some of your claims?
>>
>> You implied below that No Weatherman's posts we challenging and that is
>> why
>> myself and others
>> do not respond to them, Gary. Name one good argument that he has given.
>> Just
>> one.
>>
>> He strikes me as a narrow-minded bigot. The fact that you defend him is
>> curious. So since you
>> think he is fine and makes good points, list one argument that he made
>> which
>> is not fallacious.
>> Just one. You cannot do it which is why you haven't done so yet.
>>
>> --
>> Joe Campbell
>>
>> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>> > > > > =======================================================
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>