Dont you mean a 400% increase in Senators, and going
from a 2% share to a 9.3% share? (By going from 1
Texas of 50 states to 5 Texases of 54 states.) Of
course the electoral totals would depend on the exact
nature of the gerrymandering (with every state having
at least 1 rep, no matter how small).
--- m06079 <
barbaria_longa@...> wrote:
> yes thanx i agree no matter
>
> but there is all the difference in the world between
> what i said &
> meant on the one hand & what you said i said on the
> other
>
> as well as all the difference in the world between
> taking a hard
> stance & taking a soft stance
>
> van zandt & i are clearly sitting on the fence
> & offering noncommittal opinions
> admittedly with our butts facing texas
> & ready but not overeager to come down on the other
> side
> & so it could hardly be said we are taking any
> stance at all
>
> the texophiles however are apparently taking a very
> hard stance indeed
> while perhaps also mistaking our tentative
> assessments for a hard
> stance & our farts for actual commitment
>
> for we must be tentative until & unless we actually
> see this thing
> play out
> dont you agree
>
> & your problem is we wont stand up & fight with you
> the way everyone would if texas actually tried to
> pull this off
>
> like should i tell you yes you may be on square 2
> now but your
> checkerboard has to be increased from 64 to 81
> squares in order to
> accomodate your promotion
>
> or the already usurious interest rate on your
> liberal new credit card
> will now have to be doubled owing to your negative
> net worth
> just joking of course
>
> but lets not drag this one out in detail the way
> they would in
> congress & the courts
> at their best
>
> cmon we are talking about 8 extra electoral votes in
> both parties
> plus a 500 percent increase in senators
> from a 4 percent share to over a 17 percent share of
> the senate
>
> but please do read the 1845 act itself again
>
> up to 4 new states may by consent of texas be formed
> out of its
> territory etc etc
> which shall be entitled to admission under the
> provisions of the
> constitution
>
> thats the nutshell
>
> & thats the only freakin entitlement i can see
>
> the same entitlement any other such new entities
> would have btw
>
> & under the constitution
> unless i am mistaken
> for i admit i slept thru most of high school civics
> the erection & admission of new states is if not
> initiated by
> congress certainly the business of congress to
> ultimately approve
> or it aint gonna happen
> yes
> do you agree
> i could be wrong
> but the blurring nitpicking & excess verbiage are
> entirely in the
> eyes of their beholder
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
> <flynnk@r...>
> wrote:
> > ... 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/
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus