Ya'll win? Huh?
jroberts at stacmail.stac.edu
Mon Mar 5 11:11:44 EST 2001
I thought the party of Bush's point was that the US Supreme Court applied "equal
protection" properly rather than cynically as those of us who know that this
argument is rarely if ever made on behalf of a candidate and always on behalf of
the voters. Scalia and his hand puppet Thomas, moreover, have rejected "equal
protection" arguments in anti-discrimation rulings. I guess this is what Les,
sorry, I mean "Naomi"--wink, wink--means by the "race card."
I respect the point made by the gentleman who called for a cessation of
ax-grinding activities, and will desist from future forays into the political
except where Burke's ideas can be illuminated.
Boy, Les, you are a kidder. You can stop now. You really had all of us going..
Naomi Erickson wrote:
> Part 1: the argument
> Part 2: David's point
> Part 3: "Naomi"
> Part 1
> Since you all are so stuck on the fact that I haven't given an
> "intellectual" argument (as if intellectual arguments are the goal of
> politics), here's an attempt. I am giving the argument that those who are
> on the other side give. All I propose to do in this argument is to state
> the Other Side to the best of my knowledge.
> Florida law states that if a vote is within one half of 1%, a recount is
> commenced using the same method as the original vote. Bush won Florida
> within one half of 1%, a recount using the same method was done, Bush still
> won. Kathleen Harris certified the vote. Florida court blocked Harris'
> certification. The Other Side claims at this point that the Florida courts
> was "criminal, usurping the election" etc.
> Next, Military votes being systematically rejected. e.g. box of naval votes
> found it's way to Denmark... etc.
> And of course, the usual race card was played.
> Now, I really don't care about any of the arguments that the political hacks
> on either side think.
> Part 2
> As much as David means to insult me, he's right. If you'll want to
> participate in the Eternal Discussion, than do so. Politics is not the arena
> for the Eternal Discussion.
> David, it was still a cheap shot, and for someone claiming to be above the
> fray, you're not.
> Part 3
> Oh and lastly, I AM NOT LES BRUDER. I work with Les. You can choose to
> believe that or not.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JON ROBERTS [mailto:jroberts at stacmail.stac.edu]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 9:04 PM
> To: 'kb at purdue.edu'" "
> Subject: Money talks. Sound rhetorical reasoning walks.
> I'm sure "Naomi" is a real charmer at parties. (I know that's not you're
> name, but I'll play the game. No one would say the things you're saying and
> their real name.) I find most people who outrageous statements without any
> support entertaining. In fact, two of hers strike me as the funniest things
> heard in a long time. Are you always such a cut-up? .
> "The disgruntled have provided some reasons, but a lot of folks on the other
> side have a lot of reasons too."
> Show me the money, Naomi. Give an "opposition" reason that stands up against
> analysis I've seen here. I'll follow your argument wherever it goes. But
> first have to make one. Just saying there are reasons on the other side
> don't do
> nothing. But what do I know.
> Here's another howler:
> "What it comes down to is, the supremes had the authority to make the ruling
> whatever reasons they thought. They made the ruling."
> May I be presumptuous and restate this as "the court had the authority to
> whatever ruling they wanted to make whether its grounds were legal or not."?
> You're right. But I guess your getting tired of living under the rule of
> Sound legal reasoning based on thoughtful application of precedent is so
> after all. The Court needed to mix things up a bit. Is that it Naomi?
> really matter whether the ruling was legal or not as long as it shut down
> democratic process. Nullify them votes. Yee haaa!!!! Aren't you jes sayin'
> the court may have acted criminally but that don't matter none now.
> Thanks for the laughs, Naomi. Keep 'em coming. At least, President Dick
> is laughing. As for W, nobody told him about the Court's decision; he still
> thinks Poppy bought the White House for him. It would ruffle him to think he
> beat that robot Gore by one measly vote.
> As for Randy's being preachy, I wish my minister sounded like that. Atta boy
> Happy Trails "Naomi." You're too much. Good one. I'm still laughing.
> Here's another good one: Impeach and convict the Washington Five and put
> them in
> jail for treason. Hah ha ha....
> Let the hearing begin...ha ha...
> > 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
> > side have a lot of reasons too.
> > What it comes down to is, the supremes had the authority to make the
> > 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 "embittered 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
> > > SOLELY upon the fact that you didn't like the ruling.
> > >
> > > If you think you are applying intellectual integrity to your labored
> > > 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