[Vision2020] A Plea to Saundra Lund

[No Weatherman]

Paul:

I believe you wrote these questions in response to the dialogue
between Chas and I because that would be the appropriate context for
them.

In case I'm wrong, however, my thesis regarding Ms. Lund is that she's
a bit undone with Palin envy and her friends should schedule an
intervention before she hurts herself.

With regards to my exchange with Chas, he specifically asked,

"You appear to demand a level of scrutiny for Obama that you don't for
the other candidates. Why?"

I answered his question by listing a myriad of concerns about Obama
that scares the holy Shiite out of me and that the msm and this forum
have completely ignored.

You ask, "What's the actual point you're trying to make?"

The point that I'm trying to make and the point that hitherto for I
thought I made is that the msm has not vetted Barack Obama at all, let
alone to the same degree it has vetted the other ticket.

I have no other thesis than that.

With regard to you other questions, I have not gone that far because
we simply do not have the data.

But I think you are terribly naïve to repeat Obama's sound bite, "I
don't get what the implications are of Obama knowing someone else who
was a "domestic terrorist" when Obama was eight years old."

It does not matter if Obama was 8 years old when Ayers declared war
against the US government or if he was 88 years old. Obama's age is
irrelevant. What's relevant is that Ayers has not surrendered his war
against the US, i.e., his radical agenda to overthrow the government,
and Obama has spent an inordinate amount of time palling around with
the creep. Ayers is much more than "just a guy who lives in my
neighborhood," and how much more than that we need to know.

I also find it curious that he wants to scrub his history with Ayers
from the record.

He can hide the smoke but he can't douse the fire.



On 10/20/08, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> So what is your thesis, here?  That Barack Obama is a closet domestic
> terrorist?  That he wants to take down the government from the top down?
> That he wants to open our defenses and invite the terrorists in to trash our
> country as they please?  I don't get what the implications are of Obama
> knowing someone else who was a "domestic terrorist" when Obama was eight
> years old.
>
>  What's the actual point you're trying to make?
>
>  Paul
>
>
>  No Weatherman wrote:
>
> > Ms. Lund:
> >
> > I made it clear from the beginning that I had only one objective in
> > this exercise — to force the question of Barack Obama's long-standing
> > personal and professional relationship with domestic terrorists.
> >
> > Joe Campbell accused my of making a "guilt by association" argument
> > while he pronounced me "guilty by association" because of his
> > delusional perception that I belong to a local church. He called me a
> > "neo-Nazi" even though I have decried anti-Semitism with every other
> > post or so.
> >
> > My objective changed early on when the name calling began in concert
> > with the continued gang banging of Gov Palin. Now I consider myself
> > balance to your catty, shrill, dishonest, disingenuous, and
> > discombobulated and hormonally imbalanced posts as well as Mr.
> > Hansen's and Dr. Gier's.
> >
> > You now claim that you object to the "***quantity***" of my posts. But
> > this was not the case last month when you wrote this literary
> > masterpiece:
> >
> >
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/057066.html
> >
> > Let's see, you called me a "monster," a "racist monster . . . puffed
> > with pathetic notions of grandiosity." You called me a "troll," a
> > "piece of moral slime properly to be shunned by all decent people."
> > You declared that shunning me was a religious duty of yours lest you
> > be "bad Samaritans" who add to my "hate-mongering propensities."
> >
> > Funny, though, you never mentioned the "***quantity***" of my posts.
> >
> > Personally, I think you're unhinged by Palin envy though I would not
> > begin to speculate why.
> >
> > They say that friends don't let friends drive drunk. You seem to me to
> > be inebriated by hate for Palin. If I was your friend I'd pull you off
> > the road ASAP before you end up hurting yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Saundra Lund <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Roger,
> > >
> > > I think you're completely wrong on this.  I think what Tom and many,
> many,
> > > many other forum members really object to is the ***quantity*** of the
> > > troll's posts.  The anonymous coward made it clear from the beginning
> that
> > > he wasn't interested in honest dialogue or debate but rather in simply
> > > hurling invective and insulting those who disagree with him.  When
> someone
> > > pointed out to him that the convention in the V2020 living room was to
> try
> > > to limit posts to 2-3 per day, he said he'd post as much as he wanted.
> And,
> > > he's proceeded to do so:  just in October, he's posted OVER THREE
> HUNDRED
> > > TIMES.  Get a clue:  he's nothing more than a cowardly rude troll with
> an
> > > agenda to disrupt and destroy this forum with his invective.
> > >
> > > While I refuse to interact with nameless cowards, I also refuse to allow
> > > this troll to turn this COMMUNITY forum into his own one-sided
> playground.
> > > Only when it became undeniable that the troll has absolutely no respect
> for
> > > the way the V2020 community works did I start standing up to the bully
> by
> > > posting news from the other side, and even then, my "count" is still way
> > > under a hundred for this month -- and barely over a daily average of
> three
> > > posts per day.  And, I'll add that I've received more than a few offlist
> > > responses from folks all along the political spectrum thanking me for
> the
> > > articles I've been posting in response to the troll's firestorm.
> > >
> > > I see your subsequent post where you suggest that people apply Donovan's
> > > (joking or not) suggestion about dealing with the troll's record posting
> > > frequency by doing the same to me.  Shame on you, Roger -- you've been
> > > around here long enough to know that I am a genuine participant who has
> > > posted according to our "on our honor" posting guidelines for years now.
> > >
> > > I do find it telling that you once again come out in defense of those
> with
> > > whom you agree while ignoring their multitude transgressions and insults
> > > against those with whom you disagree.
> > >
> > > So, what -- if any -- suggestions do you have to deal with trolls like
> the
> > > one trick pony No Weatherman's attempts to take over this forum for his
> own
> > > anti-Obama agenda by posting OVER THREE HUNDRED TIMES in fewer than 20
> days?
> > > He's drowning out legitimate conversation and driving away list members
> and
> > > their participation in this COMMUNITY forum, which is indisputably one
> of
> > > his goals.
> > >
> > > Yes, you're completely wrong Roger -- those of us who object to the
> cowardly
> > > anonymous troll's attempt to take over this forum would be just as
> > > frustrated by the volume regardless of the topic or political direction.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.*****
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> > > On Behalf Of lfalen
> > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 11:09 AM
> > > To: No Weatherman; vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Plea to Visionaires
> > >
> > > Tom apparently only wants left wing views to be aired. Anything else is
> > > racist and profane. I would like Ton to demonstrate where No
> Wheathermans
> > > posts have been any more objectionable than  some of his. I submit that
> they
> > > are objectionable and profane because he disagrees with  the veiws
> > > expressed. No Wheatherman seems to me to do a petty good job of
> > > documentation when listing facts. Everyone have the right to an
> > > opinion(within reason) without documentation as long as it not presented
> as
> > > fact.
> > > Roger
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > >  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
> > =======================================================
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>