Everybody has a line item veto. One issue voters have them and there are lots of different ones. How many times have we read "If we don't get XXX, I'm voting no"? That is a defacto line item veto.

I get what you're saying though. Sorry, but I believe it when the dALPA guys say that pay pay pay was at the top of the list in the survey. (Standing by for incoming) and that many of the other things were not as strongly advocated. They had to make choices. This is not a pro TA missive either. What concerns me that going forward is that NOTHING is negotiable in the minds of many. Contrary to what His Royal Highness Carl says, compromise and concession are one in the same on these boards.

I know I am arguing semantics.

These guys complaining about "lost monies" (is that different then "lost money", or just more pompous-sounding?) are being disingenuous when they fail to acknowledge "gained QOL" (and possibly "gained leverage") as a part of the equation.

There were "opportunity costs" of foregoing NA15. But these were more than offset by "opportunity benefits." That's why it failed.

Actually that's the exact opposite of a line-item veto.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I don't read Wikipedia nor use it as a credible source of information.

Man, you got "Get off my lawn" written all over you.......

Not really. I just don't like Wikipedia because it has been a source of bad gouge.

Doesn't matter what Wikipedia says, it's the opposite of a line item Veto....

Wikipedia-free version:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...ne-item%20veto

https://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/line-item_veto


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sorry, auburn doesn't know xxxx, it's gotta be Clemson.edu.












Get off of me daddy you crushing my marlboros

Yeah OK, but the point is that there are a lot of "non starters" on here that are in effect a line item veto. We can disagree on this if you want, I really don't care. If you want to argue the point, that's OK too.