[Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma

[lfalen]

As briefly mentioned in this article: Obama announced his candidacy for the US Senate from Ayers home. This would suggest a some what closer association that you would like us t believe. Even though Wrght's Church has done some good. His rhetoric is still disgusting and 20 years association wth some one who makes those kinds of statements is questionable.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Andreas Schou" ophite at gmail.com
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:19:58 -0700
To: "g. crabtree" jampot at roadrunner.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma

> 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
> > =======================================================
> >
> 
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>