I always believed, we are programmed to accept certain norms set by the whiteman. Adding of numbers in a certain way as a standard is acceptable. It is now challenged by the PNC and may prove me correct.  Hughes has an African way of counting-education mek this smart or he stifling his conscience. 

I wouldn't be surprised if this hapless government did this and argue that the scale is balance. 

"Dem boys hear de govt write 33 pon one sheet of paper and 32 pon anodda sheet and put de two pon a scale."

Nigel Hughes is making himself an ass. If Charrandas had voted NO, the Coalition's 33 would have defeated the no-confidence motion. Because PPP secured the 33, it's motion lost? What kinda logic dat?

Gilbakka posted:

Nigel Hughes is making himself an ass. If Charrandas had voted NO, the Coalition's 33 would have defeated the no-confidence motion. Because PPP secured the 33, it's motion lost? What kinda logic dat?

Nigil worried that all his plans for a Huston office is now on hold. The idea of us having 65 members was always to have a majority of members possible and no tie after an election. The same argument should be necessary for a no confidence vote.

Gilbakka posted:

Nigel Hughes is making himself an ass. If Charrandas had voted NO, the Coalition's 33 would have defeated the no-confidence motion. Because PPP secured the 33, it's motion lost? What kinda logic dat?

They ruled the zoo for over three years with a 33/32 advantage.  Now the number flipped, they changed their mouth.   

They are just being obstructionists. 

Gilbakka posted:

Nigel Hughes is making himself an ass. If Charrandas had voted NO, the Coalition's 33 would have defeated the no-confidence motion. Because PPP secured the 33, it's motion lost? What kinda logic dat?

Bullyism.

D2 posted:

Gilbakka posted:

Nigel Hughes is making himself an ass. If Charrandas had voted NO, the Coalition's 33 would have defeated the no-confidence motion. Because PPP secured the 33, it's motion lost? What kinda logic dat?

Nigil worried that all his plans for a Huston office is now on hold. The idea of us having 65 members was always to have a majority of members possible and no tie after an election. The same argument should be necessary for a no confidence vote.

i have no problem with scoring Nigel Hughes on the business considerations and all that

however, if you drill down, the legal challenge is not frivolous

"intent" will be the key, and this likely will not go to court 

but why on earth is the scampish maneuvering of the other law firm principal whose family business stands to gain even more by leveraging a 1 or 2 seat for a corrupt PPP-led majority being studiously ignored?

Baseman posted:

Gilbakka posted:

Nigel Hughes is making himself an ass. If Charrandas had voted NO, the Coalition's 33 would have defeated the no-confidence motion. Because PPP secured the 33, it's motion lost? What kinda logic dat?

They ruled the zoo for over three years with a 33/32 advantage.  Now the number flipped, they changed their mouth.   

They are just being obstructionists. 

this is an illiterate position of you and yours . . . apple and oranges

do some reading

ronan posted:

Baseman posted:

Gilbakka posted:

Nigel Hughes is making himself an ass. If Charrandas had voted NO, the Coalition's 33 would have defeated the no-confidence motion. Because PPP secured the 33, it's motion lost? What kinda logic dat?

They ruled the zoo for over three years with a 33/32 advantage.  Now the number flipped, they changed their mouth.   

They are just being obstructionists. 

this is an illiterate position of you and yours . . . apple and oranges

do some reading

Nah, you trying come over complicate simple Arithmatic.

33 > 32!

Question, what was the MARGIN which allowed the Coalition to form the Govt for 3.5 years?

Baseman posted:

ronan posted:

Baseman posted:

Gilbakka posted:

Nigel Hughes is making himself an ass. If Charrandas had voted NO, the Coalition's 33 would have defeated the no-confidence motion. Because PPP secured the 33, it's motion lost? What kinda logic dat?

They ruled the zoo for over three years with a 33/32 advantage.  Now the number flipped, they changed their mouth.   

They are just being obstructionists. 

this is an illiterate position of you and yours . . . apple and oranges

do some reading

Nah, you trying come over complicate simple Arithmatic.

33 > 32!

Question, what was the MARGIN which allowed the Coalition to form the Govt for 3.5 years?

there was no motion of no-confidence allowed by Ramoutar . . . parliament was prorogued

winning an election by 1 seat is governed by a set of set rules arguably different from that of a no-confidence vote

ask Ralph

like i said simple one . . . go do some reading

Baseman posted:

Nah, you trying come over complicate simple Arithmatic.

33 > 32!

Question, what was the MARGIN which allowed the Coalition to form the Govt for 3.5 years?

Why you indulging mad people? 

ronan posted:

Baseman posted:

ronan posted:

Baseman posted:

Gilbakka posted:

Nigel Hughes is making himself an ass. If Charrandas had voted NO, the Coalition's 33 would have defeated the no-confidence motion. Because PPP secured the 33, it's motion lost? What kinda logic dat?

They ruled the zoo for over three years with a 33/32 advantage.  Now the number flipped, they changed their mouth.   

They are just being obstructionists. 

this is an illiterate position of you and yours . . . apple and oranges

do some reading

Nah, you trying come over complicate simple Arithmatic.

33 > 32!

Question, what was the MARGIN which allowed the Coalition to form the Govt for 3.5 years?

there was no motion of no-confidence allowed by Ramoutar . . . parliament was prorogued

winning an election by 1 seat is governed by a set of set rules arguably different from that of a no-confidence vote

ask Ralph

like i said simple one . . . go do some reading

Ok, that was then.  The Coalition allowed the debate and the process played out!

If that 1 was an issue, our constitution would have made the number 66!  There is a reason it was 65

You go start campaigning!

ksazma posted:

Baseman posted:

Nah, you trying come over complicate simple Arithmatic.

33 > 32!

Question, what was the MARGIN which allowed the Coalition to form the Govt for 3.5 years?

Why you indulging mad people? 

i see you scampering all over the threads engaging in anti-Ronan guerrilla warfare

is good for the healing of your hide that you smart enuf not to call my name

lol

Baseman posted:

ronan posted:

Baseman posted:

ronan posted:

Baseman posted:

Gilbakka posted:

Nigel Hughes is making himself an ass. If Charrandas had voted NO, the Coalition's 33 would have defeated the no-confidence motion. Because PPP secured the 33, it's motion lost? What kinda logic dat?

They ruled the zoo for over three years with a 33/32 advantage.  Now the number flipped, they changed their mouth.   

They are just being obstructionists. 

this is an illiterate position of you and yours . . . apple and oranges

do some reading

Nah, you trying come over complicate simple Arithmatic.

33 > 32!

Question, what was the MARGIN which allowed the Coalition to form the Govt for 3.5 years?

there was no motion of no-confidence allowed by Ramoutar . . . parliament was prorogued

winning an election by 1 seat is governed by a set of set rules arguably different from that of a no-confidence vote

ask Ralph

like i said simple one . . . go do some reading

Ok, that was then.  The Coalition allowed the debate and the process played out!

If that 1 was an issue, our constitution would have made the number 66!  There is a reason it was 65

ow banna, this is obviously above your pay grade

call Ralph

now, give it a rest . . . watch lil and learn