[Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
joekc at roadrunner.com
joekc at roadrunner.com
Sat Oct 4 22:26:23 PDT 2008
Sorry but given your inability to determine what is and is not a fallacy,
I don't think your judgments about consistency are worth a whole lot!
But what do I know. I just teach logic for a living!
--
Joe Campbell
---- "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
> > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list