[Vision2020] Teabaggers

Sat Mar 13 18:41:47 PST 2010

Prof. Campbell,

You are being very disingenuous, and everyone knows it, especially you.  

Your Friend,

Donovan

--- On Sat, 3/13/10, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
To: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Saturday, March 13, 2010, 7:53 PM

First, NO argument means NO ad hominem fallacy. I'm not sure why it is so hard for you to understand this, now that I've said it three times. Of course, likely you do understand it and you're pretending not to. Another bit of the Wilson jackass rhetoric -- just make negative comments about your opponent and keep repeating them even after hearing the well explained denials. Tell the lie long enough and folks believe it. Nice trick -- if you don't mind being a public liar.

Second, "teabaggers" is at most ambiguous. If your dirty mind keeps picking up the one (of five or six) dirty meaning, it says more about you than me. And since I see your disapproval as being based on your homophobia, you'll get no sympathy from me. No more than if your bigotry caused you to complain about my use of the term "blacksmith." Sorry but change won't happen if we follow advice from those who have the prejudice. In any event, it is clear that I'm not intending the sexual meaning of the term, so your comments are offbase. 

Third, you are NOT Donovan. Maybe you're fooling others but not me. Donovan would not complain about the difference between "horses" and "horse's", a mistake he would be unlikely to notice. And he wasn't homophobic. 

Folks should wonder why so many people from the same church lie and why they won't post using ther own name. My guess is because they are more of a political group than a religious group. That should concern us all -- liberal or conservative. It should concern folks from the church, who are being used for political purpose. 

I'll point out that you are a liar and a fake whenever I can. You can always prove me wrong by joining me for lunch -- you and Glenn Schwaller and Selena Davis. I'll pick up the tab! Again, why do fundamentalist Christians lie so much -- or at least the local ones? That is another question folks should ask!

Your friend, Joe

On Mar 13, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Joe,

You got a PhD. So I am going to assume you aren't an idiot, and just pretend to be one sometimes like the rest of us on the V.

Teabaggers is an ad hominem attack, because it is an attempt to degrade some of the legitimate concerns of tens of millions of Americans by giving them a name which is perceived as an sexual pejorative. It is a red herring and an ad hominem.

Your Friend,

Donovan 

--- On Sat, 3/13/10, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
To: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Saturday, March 13, 2010, 5:01 PM

"Teabaggers" is a name, not an argument. Something must be an argument before it can be an ad hominem argument. I keep making this point and you don't seem to get it. Not sure I can make it any simpler than this. Joe 

On Mar 13, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Prof Campbell,

I know the definition of an an ad hominem attack. But that is not how your friend Wayne Price was using it and I used it under his understanding.

I do make personal attacks, but only to people that personally have attacked me first or members of my family. When they throw punches at me, I will throw them back, and twice as hard--just as you do with with local lock shop keeper. 
If you get your buddies to not personally attack me, I will be happy to see your wager. But I am not going to idly stand on the sidelines while your friends attack me personally for my opinions while they throw accolades to you and your ideas which are mostly identical to their own and pretend it is a fair and even wager.

You don't think teabaggers is an ad hominem attack?

Your Friend,

Donovan 

--- On Sat, 3/13/10, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
To: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Saturday, March 13, 2010, 3:16 PM

Donovan,

Not all personal attacks are ad hominem arguments.

If I say "anyone who thinks that slavery is OK is an idiot" that is not an ad hominem attack. It is just an insult and a comment. First, ad hominem arguments are ARGUMENTS, not comments. Second, they are invalid arguments.

I admit I'm insulting at times but I don't use fallacies. And you are not in any position to be lecturing people who are insulting. I'll tell you what, let's see who can go longer without insulting opponents: you or Me.

Your friend, Joe

On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Mr. Price,

When Prof. Campbell, you, Rev. Keely, Sgt. Hamster, and Batman, attacks me personally or someone else on the list or in our community is that called an ad hominem attack too, or is that definition reserved for only when I do it in response to someone else doing it to me first?

Donovan Arnold

--- On Fri, 3/12/10, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:

From: Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
To: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Cc: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com>, "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Friday, March 12, 2010, 5:50 PM

Joe, 

Arnie's continued use of  ad hominem attacks that  have no validity are just proof that it doesn't take all kinds, we just have all kinds.
The good thing is that once he makes these outrageous  attacks and  fractured historical ideas, he shows himself for what he is.
The readers of his diatribes on here can make up their own minds as to what that is.

Wayne

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mar 12, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:

What is pro-slavery about saying it is ALWAYS wrong to buy and KEEP slaves? You need to get away from the Wilson crap rhetoric. You are starting to believe your own lies! Joe  

On Mar 12, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Dr. Joe Campbell,

Why are you Pro-Slavery? I don't understand. Don't you know slavery is wrong.
I would think someone with a PhD would know that owning another person is a grave ill against Humanity.

It strikes me as a great concern that a Professor at a major University would be defending the institution of Slavery. 

I understand your obsession and ability to relate to the past, but slavery is not something I think you should embrace in any form, shape or manner, much less want to bring back into modern society.

I pray you will reconsider your pro-slavery, and pro-segregationist attitude, for the good your own life, and your students at Washington State University. 

Your Friend,

Donovan Arnold

--- On Fri, 3/12/10, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
To: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Friday, March 12, 2010, 3:46 PM

Nothing sounds mote bigoted than a defense if slavery!

On Mar 12, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com> wrote:

"Arnie believes that the Democrats were pro-segregation and the Republicans
were anti-Vietnam back in the 60s and 70s." --Sgt. Hamster

I suppose the following Democrats and laws were figments of my imagination or perhaps The Hamster believes the KKK was not a racist movement.

Jim Crow Laws
Senator Robert Byrd
Hugo Black
Senator Strom Thurmond 
Gov. George Corley Wallace, Jr. 
Senator Ernest Hollings
Richard Russell, Jr. 
James Eastland 
John Stenni
Jesse Helms 

Recently, Democrats have been better at not being bigoted toward Blacks, Gays, Women, and minorities. But that is only a general rule, not applicable in every case.

Nixon and Ford ended the Vietnam War, both Republicans. JFK and Johnson escalated it. So indeed, the parties have switched positions since the 1960s. In fact, many people switched political parties after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. 

Your Friend,

Donovan Arnold

--- On Thu, 3/11/10, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
To: "Wayne Price" <bear at moscow.com>, "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Thursday, March 11, 2010, 10:06 PM

Wayne -

To put Arnie into appropriate perspective, here is one of his similarly
profound quotes:

"Both parties are completely different than they were in the 1960s and
1970s when Democrats were pro-segregation and Republicans were anti-war."

- Donovan Arnold (March 5, 2010)

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-March/068911.html

That's right, Wayne.

Arnie believes that the Democrats were pro-segregation and the Republicans
were anti-Vietnam back in the 60s and 70s.

It's as if President Johnson's Civil Rights Act of 1964 and President
Nixon's 1968 campaign promise that we would be out of Vietnam by the end
of 1969 (followed five years later with his "Withdrawal With Honor"
concept of 1974) never happened.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

> Clearly Dr Donovan, you are correct and the Mount Vernon Society ( The
> folks that OWN Mt. Vernon) are wrong. How could I have been so silly
> to trust what they said and not you?
>
> http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/
>
>
> "George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was
> accepted. He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the
> age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he
> began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he
> had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha
> Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their
> marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population
> also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own
> families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves
> living on the estate."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
>> Rev. Keely, nobody is defending slavery. Let me say it twice so even
>> you understand, NOBODY is defending slavery. I was just explaining
>> inaccuracies in his (Mr. Price's) posts about Thomas Jefferson
>> sleeping with his slaves and George Washington being a large slave
>> owner. They are factually incorrect statements.
>>
>>
>> I forgot, accuracy of the facts was not a concern for you, just
>> unfounded misguided displays of fake catty emotional outrage, Keely
>> when slandering people on both the local and national level, living
>> and dead.
>>
>> Your Friend,
>>
>> Donovan Arnold
>>
>> --- On Thu, 3/11/10, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
>> To: donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com, garrettmc at verizon.net, "Chris
>> Price" <bear at moscow.com>
>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Date: Thursday, March 11, 2010, 3:37 PM
>>
>> This eloquent defense of slave-owning American Presidents is
>> something less than heartening.  It's almost as if we've heard
>> similar arguments before from local folks interested in convincing
>> us that, you know, on the whole, slavery wasn't, like, THAT bad,
>> really.
>>
>> That George and Thomas are numbered among anti-slavery
>> abolitionists, as appears to be the contention here, is as ludicrous
>> as it is offensive.  They may not have been the absolutely worst
>> slaveholders ever, but I don't think either man's biographies are
>> testimonies to their egalitarian, Christian, progressive morals.
>>
>> Keely
>> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:48:58 -0800
>> From: donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com
>> To: garrettmc at verizon.net; bear at moscow.com
>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
>>
>> Wayne,
>>
>> The tea was tipped overboard not because most people drank it, but
>> because it denied revenue to the British. The average colonists
>> didn't want to be independent from the British, but they were not
>> happy under them either.
>>
>> The British government prevented western expansion which seriously
>> hindered the expansion of the economy and the well being of many
>> western colonists and farmers.
>>
>> Thomas Jefferson bought slaves and freed them when they paid their
>> price of purchase off. Many anti-slavery people did this.
>>
>> Thomas Jefferson did not sleep with his slaves, DNA tests from his
>> know relatives prove this. His brother did sleep with Sally
>> Hemmings, who was the half sister of his wife who passed away and
>> looked a great deal like her. He cared for her greatly and she lived
>> in his house because she was his wife's sister and didn't want her
>> living as a common slave.
>> George Washington had willed his slaves to be freed upon the death
>> of his wife. Although she freed them earlier because she felt
>> uncomfortable with all the slaves asking if she was dead yet (a
>> little humor, but true). Little do people know, but George
>> Washington did not own many slaves, his wife owned most them, she
>> obtained from her previous husband, Daniel Parke Custis a wealthy
>> plantation farmer, upon his death.
>>
>> Your Friend,
>>
>> Donovan Arnold
>>
>>
>> --- On Thu, 3/11/10, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
>> To: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Date: Thursday, March 11, 2010, 12:52 AM
>>
>> Garrett,
>>
>> While the Tea Bag movement has hijacked the name, I'm not so sure
>> they even realize what the 1770's movements were all about!
>> The average colonist was happy being British!
>>
>> At that time in the colonies, TEA was not the drink of the average
>> (read that as NOT wealthy) colonist.  Rather they drank cider,
>> because they could make
>> it locally, and could afford it. Ever wonder why real tea chests of
>> the period have a locks on them? Because it was expensive and the
>> rich didn't want the servants to
>> steal it!   The original so called "patriots" were nothing more than
>> a bunch of folks with money trying to avoid taxes. Sound familiar?
>>
>>
>> Same deal with the folks that shot at government troops on their way
>> to and from Lexington and Concord to bring the GOVERNMENT owned arms
>> and powder back
>> to Boston, so the colonists/traitors/early american terrorists
>> couldn't use it. Can you imagine today if that happened? Makes me
>> wonder what would happen if the
>> average citizens marched on the local National Guard armories so
>> that they could prevent the government from using the arms! Think
>> they would be considered
>> "patriots"?
>>
>>
>> I have to laugh when I see the fractured history that  George
>> Nethercutt is trying to sell on TV..... Did the boy never read a
>> history book!  I laughed when I saw one about
>> George Washington being anti-slavery!  One of the richest slave
>> OWNERS in Virginia at the time! And then there is that scion of
>> colonial america Thomas Jefferson,
>> he not only owned slaves, but would bed them too!  Or was that just
>> for the benefit of the slaves?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Garrett Clevenger wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Joe, you summed up well what I've been thinking.
>>
>> It is rather presumptious of the teabaggers to think their "tea
>> party movement" is anything close to the real deal back when the
>> colonies were fighting for independence.
>>
>> The contemporary tea partiers are more like carpetbaggers in that
>> regard, so it seems "teabagger" is a rather appropriate term.
>>
>> I have no idea what the sexual definition of teabagger is and don't
>> really care to so when I say "teabagger" I'm describing "tea party"
>> people who are exploiting the patriotism of the Boston Tea Party.
>>
>> But are we really surprised that people who carry guns in the open
>> to rallies and shout down those who disagree with them would be
>> anything less than arrogant?
>>
>> Teabaggers, indeed.
>>
>> Garrett Clevenger
>> =======================================================
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign
>> up now.
>>
>>
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================

"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
and the Realist adjusts his sails."

- Unknown

=======================================================
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
=======================================================
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

=======================================================
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
=======================================================

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

=======================================================
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/20100313/35b3047b/attachment-0001.html 