Get over it!

Naomi Erickson NErickson at elcabop.org
Mon Mar 5 09:49:42 EST 2001


M. Todd Harper,

Get over my get over it attitude!

The "They can do it" line may not be the most intellectual sound but when
has politics ever been the ivory tower?  Polilitics is an art and like all
arts, it's aimed at a result, not a knowing.  Therefore, they can do it, is
the strongest argument.

'Bout those arguments from authority, (ya know the ones that don't carry any
weight), isn't this website dedicated to one man's authoritative rep?

As for Pops, he's in the minority amoungst The Oh so Vast, Right Wing
Conspiracy (we even control the Supreme Court now).


-----Original Message-----
From: M. Todd Harper [mailto:tharper at kennesaw.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 7:12 PM
To: NErickson at elcabop.org
Subject: Re: Whatever......


Naomi and Randy,

I have not jumped into this conversation. However, I was surprised by the
note, response, and response to the response.  I am not sure how Randy is
asking anything that others on this list would not expect of any argument
that is made here.  For me, Randy is does not sound preachy.  Rather it was
your original "get over it note" that I took as preachy.

Nevertheless, I would like to hear others who can offer valid reasons other
than "they can do it."  I will note that there were in fact many who
supported Bush who did not like the supreme court's involvement because they
felt it deligitimized Bush's claim to the presidency.  My father, who works
for one of the  Republican senators from Kansas, was one such individual.  I
also know that he was far from being alone in his group of Republican
cronies--friends who work for the Republican party at high levels and who
benefit from Bush's presidency. 

todd


>>> Naomi Erickson <NErickson at elcabop.org> 03/02/01 18:41 PM >>>

Randy,

Gee, how did ya ever figure out I liked the ruling?

Anywho, drop the logistical adages that come off too preachy.

The disgruntled have provided some reasons, but a lot of folks on the other
side have a lot of reasons too.  

What it comes down to is, the supremes had the authority to make the ruling
for whatever reasons they thought. They made the ruling.  The ruling is
final, and a bunch of hand wringing doesn't change it.

As for my snideness, it's a real charmer and I'm great at parties!

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Lake [mailto:rlake at rcf-fs.usc.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:27 PM
To: Naomi Erickson
Cc: 'kb at purdue.edu'
Subject: Re: Whatever......


Oh, where to begin . . .

Can you seriously assert that your rage against this "embttered bunch of
disgruntled thinkers" is not based SOLELY upon the fact that you liked the
ruling? Claims without warrants do not an argument make. So far, the
disgruntled have provided extended *reasons* why they found the ruling to
be intellectually vacuous, reasons which your own characterization as
simply not "liking" it ignores; moreover, you, on the other hand, have
provided no reasons in defense of the ruling at all. I hardly think that
being snide possesses greater intellectual integrity.

Randy Lake

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Naomi Erickson wrote:

> Just a cursory glance at the emails reveals a really embittered bunch of
> disgruntled thinkers.
> 
> Can you seriously assert that your rage against the Supremes is not based
> SOLELY upon the fact that you didn't like the ruling.  
> 
> If you think you are applying intellectual integrity to your labored study
> of court minutia,  I have a bridge to sell ya'll.
> 
> In a more enlightened age, your mothers would have told ya to quit your
> whining.
> 
> 



More information about the KB mailing list