[Vision2020] [Vision2020) adversarial boob
Sunil Ramalingam
sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
Fri Jan 30 09:18:07 PST 2009
Obvious? No, I just thought you were either having a hell of an evening or had taken up dairy farming as a sideline.
Sunil
PS While we're on typos, it's 'Sowell,' not 'Soul.'
From: jampot at roadrunner.com
To: jampot at roadrunner.com; philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:43:06 -0800
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Vision2020) adversarial boob
Oops, second to the last. I would imagine that
it's obvious but, that should have read "tears." I'm finding it difficult
to maintain my sanctimonious outrage with all the derisive laughter going on in
the background.
g
----- Original Message -----
From:
g.
crabtree
To: Joe Campbell
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 7:04
AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] this
disagreement seems like testosterone fueledstupidity
I believe that Mr. Arnold & Ms. Mix are
correct and this will be my final world on this topic.
Campbell, you are an blithering idiot, a liar, a
coward, and a dolt with poor reading skills. I have already said that I
accept your simple minded challenge. (at least I think I did, it was
tough to see my keyboard through the wracking sobs and copious teats) I also
said that it's one more threat in a long line of threats you won't carry out
but, to make it as easy as possible for you to work up the nerve to execute
your little imaginary assault, you pick the day, any day, any time of
day. Make it a surprise attack, phone ahead, or take out an ad in the
paper, I really don't care. When you're finished and you go home to
a rousing chorus of, what I can only imagine will be "I told you that was
a bad idea!" perhaps you'll find someone else to "help."
g
----- Original Message -----
From:
Joe Campbell
To: g. crabtree
Cc: Saundra Lund ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:10
PM
Subject: Re: 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> >
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090130/600d15d8/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list