A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

We Are All Spaniards



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 16th 04, 04:10 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Newps" wrote in message
news:4cF5c.21773$Cb.469313@attbi_s51...

The republicans had both houses long before 9-11.


The Republicans have held the House of Representatives since 1995.

The Senate was even in January 2001, the Republicans had a nominal majority
due to Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote. Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left
the Republican party two months later, giving the Democrats the majority.
The Republicans regained the majority with the 2002 election.


  #2  
Old March 16th 04, 11:11 PM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The Senate was even in January 2001, the Republicans had a nominal majority
due to Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote.


Not nominal! Actual. Constitutional. Real. Working and workable.

Are you suggesting that the committee chairmanships were divided
equally between Dem & Rep?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #3  
Old March 17th 04, 03:16 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Not nominal! Actual. Constitutional. Real. Working and workable.


Constitutional? Better check again.



Are you suggesting that the committee chairmanships were divided
equally between Dem & Rep?


I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying a number equal to the opposition
does not constitute a true majority.


  #4  
Old March 17th 04, 11:16 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:16:00 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

I'm saying a number equal to the opposition
does not constitute a true majority.


Then that's what you should have said. But you still would have been
wrong.

If you have one more vote than the opposition, then you have a
majority. The time-honored practice of the president pro tem voting to
break a tie ensures that the presidential party will have a majority.

Beware people who say things like "true majority". The adjective is
trying to write a new definition.

Do you also peddle "real facts"?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #5  
Old March 17th 04, 12:04 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Then that's what you should have said. But you still would have been
wrong.


That is essentially what I did say and I was right.



If you have one more vote than the opposition, then you have a
majority.


And when you have the same number as the opposition you do not have a
majority.



The time-honored practice of the president pro tem voting to
break a tie ensures that the presidential party will have a majority.


No, it assures the presidential party will have control. To have a majority
requires holding at least one more seat than half of the total.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.