--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Well, we've each stated our own arguments about twice all around,
and we still
> disagree. Such is life! Let's get over it.
get over life
we apparently cant
it appears to keep coming & to never end
get over this discussion
ok i am complete for now
>
> It would be interesting to find Van Zandt still vertical somewhere!
even oblique or horizontal would be fantastic
>
> It is indeed uncharacteristic of him to hedge at all, much less
twice in the
> same sentence. I note that my 1966 edition has a footnote for that
sentence
> that was eliminated in the 1976 edition. The footnote, number 62a,
says: "See
> speech by Representative Garner relating to this proposal (Cong.
Record, June
> 17, 1930, p. 11459)."
>
> Now, we know that John Nance Garner (then a Democrat Congressman
from Uvalde,
> Texas, and about to be Speaker of the House in 1931 and Vice
President in 1933)
> was the greatest 20th-century advocate of the division of Texas.
If anyone has
> access to that speech, it might shed some light on his thinking
that influenced
> Van Zandt's. I would caution, however, that Garner was a
politician, not a
> legal scholar. He was a "lawyer," but he'd attended Vanderbilt for
only one
> semester, after which he "read law."
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@r...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:45 PM
> Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New
Mexico (?)
>
>
> > ... a distinction with no "apparent" difference, I would say.
It's ok. All I
> > meant to do was to reinforce what I thought was a clear
circumstance setting
> > Texas apart from other states, one that you blurred as not
representing any
> > particular advantage over the other 49. You still maintain that,
and I still
> > disagree, so I don't understand your nitpicking, even after I
plow through
> > your excess verbiage.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:39 PM
> > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New
Mexico
> > (?)
> >
> >
> > really its ok kevin but look below & see that you did indicate i
> > concluded something which in fact i merely expressed as an
appearance
> > or
> > as how something seems to me & as what i see or dont see
> > just as i think van zandt also did when he so carefully used the
word
> > appear
> > & not only once
> > & just as it all still appears to me at least
> >
> > & i would add
> > even after lowells latest redoublements as well
> >
> > but i think we really should look for van zandt next
> > to see what more than my 3 meager flatulations he had in mind
> >
> > he doesnt usually relieve himself of such utterances
> >
> > & what fun it will be if we find he is still physically focused
too
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@r...>
> > wrote:
> > > I absolutely didn't alter anything you said, sir. My point was
to
> > highlight
> > > that Texas has specific approval language already built into its
> > admission
> > > process that permits the division; no other state has this. That
> > means,
> > > contentious as the process surely would be, one hurdle already
is
> > crossed.
> > > This clearly and undeniably gives Texas something other states
do
> > not have.
> > > It's like Texas starts on "square two" while other states would
be
> > on
> > > "square one."
> > >
> > > But I most certainly changed none of your statements top say
any of
> > this. In
> > > fact, you're repeating the exact stance that I disagreed with.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: m06079 [mailto:barbaria_longa@h...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 9:11 AM
> > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New
> > Mexico
> > > (?)
> > >
> > >
> > > ah kevin but as usual you are altering what i said in order to
> > > disagree with me
> > >
> > > no problem
> > > but it is quite vivid in this case
> > >
> > > & so i would add that any unilateral attempt at multiplication
by
> > > texas would most probably be no less contentious than the
> > > multiplication of any other state
> > > whether unilateral or otherwise
> > >
> > > & this certainty of contention or objection whenever one tries
to
> > > leverage ones value at the expense of others is a third reason
why
> > > texas doesnt appear to me to have acquired any advantage
> > >
> > > i mean beside the fact that she has already split into 6 states
or
> > > parts thereof
> > > & the fact that every state can legally split into as many
parts as
> > > it likes anyway
> > > per the constitution
> > > provided the totality will agree
> > >
> > >
> > > so its like
> > > oh & you certainly have been preapproved for that additional 10
> > grand
> > > on top of your regular line sir but we just noticed you already
> > have
> > > 12 other grand outstanding
> > > so we would like you to apply for this additional application &
> > > security check too please if you wouldnt mind
> > > etc etc
> > >
> > >
> > > & so if that really is an advantage well i still dont see it
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
<flynnk@r...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: m06079 [mailto:barbaria_longa@h...]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:34 AM
> > > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into
New
> > > > Mexico(?)
> > > >
> > > > (Snip)
> > > >
> > > > > & so texas does not appear to me either to have acquired any
> > > > > advantages over other states from this act
> > > >
> > > > I would disagree with your conclusion that Texas didn't
acquire
> > any
> > > > advantages over other states, even though I agree it would be
> > > contentious.
> > > > It has the specific right and expectation for eventual
division
> > > built into
> > > > its admission into the union, and no other state had that TMK.
> > > That's not to
> > > > say there wouldn't be an argument if and when it occurred. But
> > > Texas has
> > > > sort of a pre-approved status, like those credit card offers I
> > get
> > > every day
> > > > in the mail: "You are already approved for a $10,000 Visa!"
> > > >
> > > > If Texas were to move on this privilege, the foundation for
the
> > > arrangement
> > > > is already out of the way. Other states do not have this leg
up.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >