[Vision2020] Obama to Name Sotomayor as Supreme Court Pick

[Saundra Lund]

Roger:

You wrote:
"You continue to beat up on Joe the Plummer, but you still do not say anything about the tax cheats that Oboma has appointed."

No, I don't "beat up" on him -- I state facts.  Period.

You also asked:
"Is is ok by you that that rich lefts in a position of power cheat on their taxes"

No, as you should know, I'm against tax cheats of all kinds, including those who are local.  I don't post on or respond to every topic that strikes my fancy, but I am more inclined to respond to posts that put information I know is incorrect or incomplete out there -- like yours.

You also wrote:
"I think it a little sanctimonious to claim that you never inadvertently posted erroneous information."

That's not what I wrote.  What I wrote with respect to your false accusations about the posts I did about Palin was, "I posted facts and corrected rumors."  Please read a little more carefully before you hurl baseless accusations around!  I know this list sometimes has a lot of traffic and that not everyone (perhaps anyone!) can remember it all, but I have *never ever* had any qualms about correcting things I've posted that were inaccurate or incomplete here.  I can think of several instances where I had to correct myself, either for things I found out after posting or when other Visionaries brought more information to my attention.

And, guess what?  I accepted responsibility and didn't make excuses for those errors.  Maybe you should try it sometime?

As for your list, STOP IT, Roger!!!  Quit making false accusations about what you "venture" to guess as to what Palin "rumors" I posted because you are DEAD WRONG.

You wrote:
"Africa was a country not a continent."

Nope -- I posted nothing of the sort.  I did post about her ties to the infamous Muthee.  However, I'm quite sure I remember FOX News making a very big deal about Palin not knowing that Africa was a continent rather than a country . . . yuppers, there are quite a few videos available of the various discussions on FOX News -- here's only one such link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Whj_bu4YhE

You wrote:
"A long list of books that she wanted banned which included Harry Potter and books by Mark Twain. She did ask how a request to ban books would be handled, because a patron had asked the library to remove a book and she wanted to know how should disputes were handled. The Librarian was fired, but was hired back the next day.There was no list of books submitted by her."

Wrong again, Roger:  I was the first one here to point out -- repeatedly -- the facts about that.  Before you accusing me of things I didn't do, you should at least have the common decency to get your facts straight.  Feel free to take your precious time to look at my posts on 9/7/2008, and then apologize.

You wrote:
"Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. She did go to one meeting and Todd was a member from1995 to 2000"

Nope -- I sure didn't post anything of the sort.  Perhaps what you're remembering is my post on 10/11/2008 that greatly illuminated her ties to right-wing radicals like Mark Chryson and Steve Stoll.

You also wrote:
"Palin charged victims of rape for rape kits."

Wrong again -- I posted that the police chief ***Palin*** appointed was against legislation prohibiting municipalities from charging rape victims for rape kits, legislation that was required to stop Wasilla from charging rape victims.  See my posts from 9/9, 9/10, and 9/12/2008.

You wrote:
"Palin faked a pregnency and Trig was actually Bristol's"

I'm sounding like broken record, but you are absolutely wrong:  I posted absolutely nothing of the sort!

You also wrote:
"Palin had a affair with Todd's bussiness partner."

For the love of God, STOP IT, ROGER!!!  I posted no such thing, and I vehemently object to you dishonestly attributing outrageous things to me!

Look -- if you want to post things on V2020, then you need to be willing to accept the discussion that follows WITHOUT resorting to making scurrilous accusations against those who disagree with you or respond with more accurate &/or complete information.

Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself, Roger.  It's one thing to (repeatedly) pass along the kind of knee-jerk stuff you do without taking 30 seconds to check for accuracy, but it's a completely different think to make blatantly false accusations about those who respond to your nonsense.  Some of us who participate in these discussions actually CARE about our reputations for accuracy.  You don't care about yours, and that's your choice, but how DARE you make absolutely baseless accusations against those of us who do.


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.*****


-----Original Message-----
From: lfalen [mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:32 AM
To: Saundra Lund; 'Saundra Lund'; 'keely emerinemix'; 'Tom Hansen'; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Obama to Name Sotomayor as Supreme Court Pick

Saundra
I readily admit that I have posted material that turned out to be false. I have never intentionally done so. I check Snopes on material that I receive that I think is suspect. There are some that I did not check that I should have.
My computer is slow, If  something does not come up in a couple of minutes I move on. I have other things to do than camp on the internet.
You continue to beat up on Joe the Plummer, but you still do not say anything about the tax cheats that Oboma has appointed. Is is ok by you that that rich lefts in a position of power cheat on their taxes How abut equal treatment.
I think it a little sanctimonious to claim that you never inadvertently posted erroneous information.
Here is a partial list of false information that is out there on Palin. This list is no means exhaustive.
Africa was a country not a continent.
A long list of books that she wanted banned which included Harry Potter and books by Mark Twain. She did ask how a request to ban books would be handled, because a patron had asked the library to remove a book and she wanted to know how should disputes were handled. The Librarian was fired, but was hired back the next day.There was no list of books submitted by her.
Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. She did go to one meeting and Todd was a member from1995 to 2000
Palin charged victims of rape for rape kits.
Palin faked a pregnency and Trig was actually Bristol's
Palin had a affair with Todd's bussiness partner.
I do not have  the time to check out your posts on the archives, but I would venture that some of these show up there.
Why not just admit that we all make mistakes?
Roger

-----Original message-----
From: "Saundra Lund" v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:19:15 -0700
To: "'lfalen'" lfalen at turbonet.com, "'Saundra Lund'" sslund_2007 at verizon.net, "'keely emerinemix'" kjajmix1 at msn.com, "'Tom Hansen'" thansen at moscow.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Obama to Name Sotomayor as Supreme Court Pick

> Roger wrote:
> "While I did not quote her full statements I do not think it skewed the
> meaning."
> 
> Then I can only assume you didn't bother to read the links or else you'd
> readily admit that your talking heads have excelled at nothing so much as
> taking the snips out of context.
> 
> You also wrote:
> "For someone who posted every rumor about Sarah Palin yo do not have much
> room to talk."
> 
> Wrong again:  I posted facts and corrected rumors.
> 
> You also wrote:
> "Also If i remember correctly you landed all over Joe The Plummer for being
> a tax cheat."
> 
> Yes, he was a tax cheat & a liar, and it was idiotic for the GOP to try to
> dress him us as anything different.  Don't blame me for his very own
> transgressions -- blame your compatriots for not having the sense God gave a
> billy goat.  Sheesh -- anyone with a scintilla of intelligence knows better
> than to trot out a new poster boy without doing even simple Google search.
> 
> Please do tell us why you're going ape over Sotomayor while not giving a rip
> that what she said isn't much different than Scalia's opinion in REPUBLICAN
> PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE
> (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-521.ZO.html):
> "This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of
> "representative government" might have some truth in those countries where
> judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the
> legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do
> state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the
> immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker
> v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the
> election of state judges became popular."
> 
> AND
> "Although Justice [John Paul] Stevens at times appears to agree with Justice
> [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg's premise that the judiciary is completely separated
> from the enterprise of representative government, post, at 3 ("[E]very good
> judge is fully aware of the distinction between the law and a personal point
> of view"), he eventually appears to concede that the separation does not
> hold true for many judges who sit on courts of last resort, post, at 3 ("If
> he is not a judge on the highest court in the State, he has an obligation to
> follow the precedent of that court, not his personal views or public opinion
> polls"); post, at 3, n. 2. Even if the policy making capacity of judges were
> limited to courts of last resort, that would only prove that the announce
> clause fails strict scrutiny. "[I]f announcing one's views in the context of
> a campaign for the State Supreme Court might be" protected speech, post, at
> 3, n. 2, then-even if announcing one's views in the context of a campaign
> for a lower court were not protected speech, ibid.-the announce clause would
> not be narrowly tailored, since it applies to high- and low-court candidates
> alike. In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law,"
> since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and
> not every case is reviewed. Justice Stevens has repeatedly expressed the
> view that a settled course of lower court opinions binds the highest court.
> See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 74 (1990) (concurring
> opinion); McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 376--377 (1987)
> (dissenting opinion)."
> 
> 
> Get your shovel & start digging, Roger, because the more you keep saying,
> the deeper you keep digging your hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>