Dear Mr. or Ms. ?“Dipshit?” ?– NO, I have been advised by my wife to not use that term, just to say Mr. or Ms. UNINFORMED and UNENLIGHTENED:
I don?’t know why you chose to send to me directly your commentary on my electability and on my ?“pompous, arrogant Bubba?” stand who shoots from the lip. I don?’t know to whom your message was originally intended ?– I only hope they gave it the credence it deserves, from an anonymous source.
In many respects you are absolutely correct. I am legitimately a ?“Bubba?” having grown up as a fourth generation South Austinite. You ain?’t going to correct that ?– it?’s heritage, and as a kid, I hunted on what is now Circle C property. If you hoped for or believed in something else, and still consciously moved to SouthWest Austin, I don?’t know what to tell you. I am arrogant ?– all grey hairs, and especially those who have existed for 6 decades are, almost by definition ?“arrogant?”. It?’s just that we have seen and experienced most of the challenges of those younger, and we remember the outcomes, and make decisions accordingly. That makes one arrogant, and correct.
It is probably true that I am ?“pompous?” (although there is an argument about exactly what that means according to which dictionary one refers). If we are talking about one being absolutely sure of his opinion in the face of opposition, then I am ?“pompous?” according to that definition. If I am alleged pompous above the positions of my neighbors, please refer to the above-mentioned heritage of growing up in South Austin ?– how the Hell could somebody who endured that be pompous after that? If ?“pompous?” means correct irrespective of opposition, then I?’m guilty. If not, I?’m not.
Now, there has been some discussion about my cavalier commentary about ?”Texas Law?”. I used to help make Texas Law, and I understand how that is done. With all due respect, a default to cumulative voting via Texas Law is at very best, an extreme extension of reasonableness ?– and is almost solely dictated by courts of law in North Texas, all assigned the task of finding some way to provide a system whereby minorities get more access to the control of the respective system. That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is NOT Texas Law. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, I will oppose on the surface to whatever extent is necessary, as a Texan. Lots of times lawyers typically claim that ?“it?’s in the book ?– which means what? Only that there has heretofore never been anybody able or conscious enough to beat it out in a court of law. Having seen the examples of a Court of Law that we have seen, I really don?’t give much respect or regard to whatever might happen if some Court should review such-and-such. The fact remains that, in that case, cumulative voting is undemocratic and, in my opinion UnAmerican. And, if that conflicts with somebody?’s interpretation of Texas Law, bring ?‘em on.
I don?’t know why you chose to send to me directly your commentary on my electability and on my ?“pompous, arrogant Bubba?” stand who shoots from the lip. I don?’t know to whom your message was originally intended ?– I only hope they gave it the credence it deserves, from an anonymous source.
In many respects you are absolutely correct. I am legitimately a ?“Bubba?” having grown up as a fourth generation South Austinite. You ain?’t going to correct that ?– it?’s heritage, and as a kid, I hunted on what is now Circle C property. If you hoped for or believed in something else, and still consciously moved to SouthWest Austin, I don?’t know what to tell you. I am arrogant ?– all grey hairs, and especially those who have existed for 6 decades are, almost by definition ?“arrogant?”. It?’s just that we have seen and experienced most of the challenges of those younger, and we remember the outcomes, and make decisions accordingly. That makes one arrogant, and correct.
It is probably true that I am ?“pompous?” (although there is an argument about exactly what that means according to which dictionary one refers). If we are talking about one being absolutely sure of his opinion in the face of opposition, then I am ?“pompous?” according to that definition. If I am alleged pompous above the positions of my neighbors, please refer to the above-mentioned heritage of growing up in South Austin ?– how the Hell could somebody who endured that be pompous after that? If ?“pompous?” means correct irrespective of opposition, then I?’m guilty. If not, I?’m not.
Now, there has been some discussion about my cavalier commentary about ?”Texas Law?”. I used to help make Texas Law, and I understand how that is done. With all due respect, a default to cumulative voting via Texas Law is at very best, an extreme extension of reasonableness ?– and is almost solely dictated by courts of law in North Texas, all assigned the task of finding some way to provide a system whereby minorities get more access to the control of the respective system. That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is NOT Texas Law. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, I will oppose on the surface to whatever extent is necessary, as a Texan. Lots of times lawyers typically claim that ?“it?’s in the book ?– which means what? Only that there has heretofore never been anybody able or conscious enough to beat it out in a court of law. Having seen the examples of a Court of Law that we have seen, I really don?’t give much respect or regard to whatever might happen if some Court should review such-and-such. The fact remains that, in that case, cumulative voting is undemocratic and, in my opinion UnAmerican. And, if that conflicts with somebody?’s interpretation of Texas Law, bring ?‘em on.
