Subject: Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
Date: Jan 13, 2004 @ 17:51
Author: m06079 ("m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> 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@h...> 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