[Vision2020] this disagreement seems like racism
keely emerinemix
kjajmix1 at msn.com
Thu Jan 29 22:03:38 PST 2009
Ummm, guys?
Would it maybe be best to take this one off-line?
Keely
http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
To: jampot at roadrunner.com
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:10:19 -0800
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] this disagreement seems like racism
You're wrong, Gary. I said YOU pick the time and place, within reason. It is a challenge that you won't accept. Why?
I'm trying to figure out how someone as apparently sensitive as you are (I mean you are practically sobbing in this last post) could not think the stuff in question is racist, offensive. I'm just trying to help you and I'm trying to understand you, that's all.
If everything you say is right, you have nothing to loose by accepting my challenge.
Joe Campbell
On Jan 29, 2009, at 6:23 PM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
I'll write
Rush's comments and No Weatherman's subject lines on a piece of paper and we'll
put you on a street corner in Newark and you explain to people who pass by that
the comments aren't racist. If you convince them, I'll rest my case."
So, because your point of view would be more
popular in The Murder Capital of New Jersey, I must be wrong? Coming from
someone who lauds himself as a master of logic, that's a rather awkward
argument don't you think? (anybody out there want to tell the rest of the
class which logical fallacy Perfessor Campbell has been repeatedly making in the
last few posts using this line of reasoning? Bueller?)
"I'll be happy
to take the same sheet of paper and ask the folks coming and going into your
shop on any given day what they think. What better audience could you
have?"
Despite your
blatantly transparent intent to bully by attempting to
falsely identify me with racist attitudes, this is the course of action I
choose for two reasons. First, I believe that my clients are much smarter
then you (heck, I think lawn furniture is smarter than you) and will see your
actions for what they are, another spineless and ultimately ineffective attempt
to inflict a little character assignation on someone you have
repeatedly and publicly expressed your hatred for. Second, you have
made repeated threats to come to my shop and do this thing or that thing
but in the end you've never had the fortitude to follow through. It seems
very unlikely to me that you're going to man up at this late
date.
As a dry run for this imaginary undertaking
that you propose, why don't you post your "sheet of paper" containing these
comments and subject lines, verbatim, In quotation marks, with citations
along with my exact remarks in support. (you have, after all been known to
make it up as you go along) I'm quite sure that without your adding
your own special spin to the remarks that the whole thing is going
to come across as weak and not a little pathetic.
g ----- Original Message -----
From:
Joe
Campbell
To: g. crabtree
Cc: Saundra Lund ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:13
AM
Subject: Re: Crabtree once again defends
racism (was blah, blah, blah)
Rush resigned like Nixon resigned.
Let's it simple. I'll write Rush's comments and No Weatherman's
subject lines on a piece of paper and we'll put you on a street corner in
Newark and you explain to people who pass by that the comments aren't racist.
If you convince them, I'll rest my case.
If
you prefer, I'll be happy to take the same sheet of paper and ask the folks
coming and going into your shop on any given day what they think. What better
audience could you have?
Or
you pick the street corner, shop, or audience (not members of your
favorite church, though). However you want to do it. Put your theory to the
test. What have you got to loose if you're right.
Joe Campbell
On Jan 29, 2009, at 6:23 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
wrote:
"I, and most sensible people?" looks as though
we're off to a great start.
It would seem that you are not very well
informed with regard to the Donovan McNabb/Rush Limbaugh incident. From the
ESPN web site:
George Bodenheimer, president of ESPN and ABC Sports, issued the
following response: (to Limbaugh's
resignation)
"We accept his resignation and regret the circumstances surrounding this.
We believe that he took the appropriate action to resolve this matter
expeditiously."
The comments referenced by Limbaugh came during Sunday's pregame show
when the conservative talk show host offered the opinion that McNabb wasn't
as good as the media perceived him to be.
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The
media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,'' Limbaugh
said. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit
for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried
this team."
It is an unambiguous fact that the media was
rooting a little extra for McNabb and if you watched any of the reporting
and commentary at the time you couldn't miss it. It is hardly racist to
acknowledge this reality. Jump ahead five years and substitute BHO for DM.
It isn't racist to point out the obvious.
In the first two games of the 2003
season McNabb's performance was sub par. To offer up the opinion that
he was currently over rated was just that, an opinion on his performance,
not his color. McNabb went on to have a pretty good year so consequentially
Limbaugh's comments may have been premature, or poorly informed,
or flat out wrong but they were opinions on a quarterback and not
racism.
Let's review. Rush did not say that McNabb "was not subject to criticism because he was
black." Rush was not "FIRED" (note to jc: all caps
and repetition do not constitute truth) from ESPN. That being cleared up, it
really isn't at all hard to characterize your misinterpretation of the
incident as liberal bias.
For the record, I do not think that it's racist
to disagree with people of color. I don't think that it's racist to not get
all tingly in my lower extremities when a person of color gets elected to
high office and I most assuredly don't think it's racist to offer up the
same criticism to a person of color that I would to any other public
figure where it's warranted. In fact, I do think that it's more then a
little condescending and, quite frankly, racist not to.
Now, All that having been said, I don't think
YOU'RE a belligerent, racist, liar but, you sure do sound like one. Oh,
and by the way, you have on several previous occasions called me a bigot
when the subject was race, making the first two sentences along with the
general theme of your post prevarications.
g
----- Original Message -----
From:
Joe Campbell
To: g. crabtree
Cc: Saundra Lund ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009
5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Crabtree once again
defends racism (was blah, blah, blah)
I'm not trying to pick a fight. Nor did I call you a racist. I just
find it curious that you keep putting your stamp of approval next to
comments that I and most sensible people consider to be racist. First
there was your defense of No Weatherman and then your recent defense of
comments by Rush.
The recent Rush comments, by the way, were similar to comments he
made about Donovan McNabb - that DM was not subject to criticism because
he was black. Those comments, if you remember, got Rush FIRED from espn.
You don't have a problem with the comments but enough people did that he
was FIRED.
It is hard to pass off my disgust for Rush's recent comments as some
kind of liberal bias in light of this history, these facts. And it is
equally hard to make sense of your support for Rush's comments in light of
this history, these facts.
Lastly, I like how you brush off my suggestion that you characterize
all liberals as holding the same stupid view but you do it again below! I
never said anything negative about Soul, or Williams, or Steele. I never
said anything about any of them. I don't even know who some of them
are!
But somewhere, somewhen, some stupid liberal made some stupid comment
about one of them and the rest of us have to pay - because we're all the
same.
And somehow this all explains why a comment made by Rush, which would
have gotten him fired were he still on espn, isn't as racist as common
sense suggests.
Look, maybe you're not a racist, Gary. But you sure sound like
one.
Joe Campbell
On Jan 28, 2009, at 7:43 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
wrote:
First line, irrelevant babble, no response
required.
Second, same as first. Yawn.
Third. Like calling someone a nazi when
your argument is floundering, hurl out the "racist" appellation when
you're desperate to make some sort of a point and nothing else is
sticking. If you would like to continue down this woeful road, why not
explain for me and the rest of the readership what, exactly, is racist
about not being impressed (or distressed) by our new leaders fathers
skin color? How does it make BHO's policy's divinely inspired
while the ideas put forth by Thomas Soul, Walter Williams, and Michael
Steele something to be disregarded as irrelevant and beneath contempt?
And finally, what the hell do your pals pockets have to do with
anything? Are they packed full of moon beams and fairy
dust?
g
----- Original Message -----
From:
Joe Campbell
To: Saundra Lund
Cc: g.
crabtree ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009
6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020]
Contradictory Crabtree (was RE: Say What?)
Sandra, no sense in letting the facts get in the way of the
radical right rhetoric. Those who disagree are all communists,
God-haters.
On the other hand, we're all a team, accepting all of the
same views. How else could the Bush ideology win, unless it was black
(liberalism, communism, atheism) against white (truth, justice, and
the American way)?
And Tom's original post about Rush's racist comments - which
Crabtree supported without a blink, just like he supported the racist
rants of No Weatherman - is smoothly swept under the rug. What's a
little racism when what is at stake is God Himself? Or the pockets of
my friends?
Joe Campbell
On Jan 27, 2009, at 4:33 PM, "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
wrote:
Yet
again, what an enormous crock, but that’s what many of us have come
to expect from you in this forum J
And, how
wrong you are, as usual. As everyone who knows me knows, Obama
wasn’t “my” candidate, let alone any kind of deity to me. I
did, however, vote for the candidate out of the choices we wound up
with who I thought would do the best job, a decision a clear
majority agreed with. So take your sour grapes and go make
some more whine – continue to be part of the problem rather than
part of a solution . . . that’s what you’re good
at.
It’s not
surprising at all to me – nor should it be to any of us here -- that
you don’t bother to even try to correct what you say I got wrong in
summarizing the positions you’ve taken here. It would be
pretty difficult for you, what with the V2020 archives being open
for all J
Saundra
Lund
Moscow,
ID
The
only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to
do nothing.
~
Edmund Burke
*****
Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through life
plus 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or
reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express written
permission of the author.*****
From: g.
crabtree [mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:42 AM
To:
Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] Contradictory Crabtree (was RE: Say
What?)
Ms.
Lund,
I'm not sure exactly how pointing out that I will support your new
god when (if) I see him doing good for the country and oppose him
when he's not qualifies as whining but, I guess it's in the ear
of the termagant. I defer to your mastery as eight continuous years
of effort have, without a doubt, left you well
practiced on the matter.
I
find it highly amusing and not a small bit refreshing that you feel
comfortable enough in your creative writing style to forge ahead
without feeling even the slightest need to anchor yourself to
anything resembling a fact. The errors in your brief communication
are many, and I'm just sure that you'll forgive me if (what with
life being short and all) I don't bother to enumerate them. Lets
face it, as one of The Chosen Ones most fervent followers it's clear
that you have gotten beyond the need for accuracy and reason where
it comes to your cute little school girl affaire
d'coeur with your freshly minted deity. My only request would
be that if you are going to do the other members of this little
electronic community the service of pointing out that evil
"Crabtree's" position on any given topic that you provide a cite so
that the others can make a reasonable distinction between my actual
stand on any given matter and what is a fantasy fueled by
your freshly found religious
fervor.
My most
heart felt thanks in advance,
g
-----
Original Message -----
From: Saundra Lund
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent:
Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:31 PM
Subject:
[Vision2020] Contradictory Crabtree (was RE: Say
What?)
LOL –
let the whining begin!
Gary
Crabtree wrote:
“As I
said previously, if there is an issue that "our" president should
come up with that I think makes America a better, safer, or
less restrictive place to live, I'll support
him.”
Note
the quotation marks Crabtree uses – he’s clearly wanting to
continue with the divisiveness that doomed the election for the
GOP.
Of
course, he contradicts himself here:
“If BHO
plans on making good on his campaign promises with regard to
abortion, education, taxes, health care, the second amendment, the
global warming hoax, and the war on terror, then I suspect a
huge portion of the 53 million American's who didn't vote for him
(once) hope he fails miserably, myself
included.”
So,
Crabtree only wants a less restrictive place to live if it suits
his notion of a “less restrictive place to live” – he’s against
reproductive rights, even for rape victims. Let’s keep them
thar women broodmares! Remember, he’s a staunch supporter of
misogynistic “conscience laws” that enable pharmacists to refuse
to dispense contraceptives, emergency or otherwise, which would
certainly make America a much more restrictive place for women to
live. The broken health care system folks like Crabtree want
to cling to has made America a much more restrictive place to live
for many regular hardworking Americans – he’s seemingly proud of
the fact that we are the only industrialized nation where people
lose their homes due to unconscionable health care costs.
The Second Amendment our founding fathers gave us isn’t good
enough for Crabtree and his ilk – they want a Second Amendment on
Steroids. He’s content that the War on Terror has lead to
the terrorization of US citizens through the erosion of our
guaranteed civil liberties and put us on a path to a police state
– that sure seems like a much more restrictive place to live to
me, and that’s without even getting into the shame of torture and
denial of due process to suspects. He’s pleased with a tax
system that unfairly burdens the least among us while providing
nothing but loopholes ripe for exploitation by the greedy amongst
us, especially those who benefit from the special interest
lobbying they fund. Education – his solution is
I don’t know what, but it would likely look similar – and have
results similar to – the deregulation that’s caused the financial
crisis that came crashing down around Bush’s ears. God only
knows what nonsense fills his head about global warming – it would
appear his understanding of science is limited to the right-wing
whack jobs who flunked science.
Fortunately,
the election was a resounding rejection of those like Crabtree who
want keep doing things that don’t work. And, I’m sure we
have his sore loser whining to look forward to for the next four
years. After all, this was a legitimate win for Obama, which
must make the win that much more difficult to swallow
J
Saundra
Lund
Moscow,
ID
The
only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to
do nothing.
~
Edmund Burke
*****
Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008 through life
plus 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt,
or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express
written permission of the
author.*****
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of g. crabtree
Sent: Sunday, January
25, 2009 12:38 PM
To: Chasuk
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] Say What?
I guess
that it all depends on which side of the Kool-Aid jug you sit on.
I can't believe that you can say with a straight face that what
you might find on drudge or the freep is as over the top as some
of the mindless, howling at the moon, wackiness found at
kos or huffington.
As I
said previously, if there is an issue that "our" president should
come up with that I think makes America a better, safer, or less
restrictive place to live, I'll support him. On everything else
I'll fight him to the best of my ability and hope for
his catastrophic failure. Since I am unaware of a single
issue with which I am in agreement major policy wise, I don't
think that there will be much to support. If every mega
leftist measure your hero puts forward is an abject failure
it will hopefully discredit the ultra liberal wing of the democrat
party and hasten the rise of a truly conservative candidate. All
to the greater glory of our republic, in my
opinion.
g
-----
Original Message -----
From:
"Chasuk" <chasuk at gmail.com>
To: "g.
crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc:
<vision2020 at moscow.com>;
"Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
Sent:
Sunday, January 25, 2009 11:43 AM
Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] Say What?
> On
Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 06:51, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
wrote:
>
>> Remember how your side wished
President GW the best? Sort of like that but
>> without
the shrillness and childish demonstrations.
>
>
Sorry, I read a lot of blogs and new sites, across the
political
> spectrum -- including http://drudgereport.com,
>
http://www.freerepublic.com, and
http://worldnetdaily.com --
and
> "shrill" and "childish" are words that much more
accurately describe
> the conservative side of things.
Other accurate words would be
> inarticulate and
ungrammatical.
>
> And how about wishing that Obama
simply fail to successfully implement
> those policies and
agendas with which you disagree? As far as
>
conservatives go, you are the voice of reason on this forum,
Gary.
> You really don't strike me as subscribing to
the
> cut-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face
philosophy.
>
=======================================================
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
=======================================================D================
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
=======================================================nbsp; http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
BODY>
=========================nbsp; http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
BODY> >
D==========================
BODY>
=========================nbsp; http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
BODY> >
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090129/aeca1c59/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list