Congress vs the President
Check this article out. Congress is trying to get a bill through that has support from both sides of the aisle (ie. Republicans and Democrats like it). The White House isn't warm to the idea of Sen. McCain's amendment to the bill.
Click on the following headline to access the article. A Dangerous Veto Threat
Lots to talk about with this article and our study of Congress. Could be some good ammunition for the symposium on the horizon.
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 1:37 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I don't see the possible veto as much of a threat to the bill if that many people in congress voted in favor of it. All it takes to override a veto is a 2/3 vote. Even if some of the people who voted in favor of the bill the first time were borderline and would possibly vote against it the second time around, it would still likely get passed because Sen. McCain is a very influential politician, both left and right. Having him support will keep many republicans in support also.
I read this article before I realized it was on here and I remember it making my jaw drop. I realize Mr. Bush is saying that it is hard to get information out of people who would rather die then give you information. But torture? America, the land of the free and the brave, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, all men are created equal, etc, etc that America practicing and the President actually supporting torture? The President can justify it all he wants but all outsiders will see is that the American president supports torture. And that type of reputation is exactly what America needs right now...(just kidding...in case the patriot act people are reading)
wondering and wallowing
arpita
Ms. Arpita, I wouldn't want you to look stupid in the future so here's a little reminder. When addressing anyone the respectful and right way to address them is to include their title. So it would be President Bush, not Mr. I know you care a great deal about respecting people and doing the right thing. We all will treat you with the same courtesy. If some day you become an ambassador or a doctor I will address you with the proper title, even if I dont agree with you. There is no reason to act childish, not including a title to state an argument isnt a very diplomatic way to get things done now is it? Thank you.
I completely agree with you, anonymous. I didn't even realize I had worded it that way until you pointed it out, so you accomplished exactly what you wanted. I sometimes get a bit excited about things and type a little too fast. Sorry if I offended or disrespected anyone, it wasn't my intent. Thank you also for you faith that I will someday become something worthwhile.
I am getting pretty good at these controversial blog entries and you Mr. Thompson seem to be getting a kick out of them. So if anyone ever wants anything a little over the edge, just let me know.
-arpita
Too late Arpita...
YOU GOT W-ED!!!!!!!!!!
(Ask Mr. Kephart, or myself, Sir Eric James Bernau I, Lord of W-ing what it means. Who's anonymous and why isn't he/she in our class.
Okay, so I read all this stuff after I heard that we had some anonymous commenter, and I've got to say I completely agree with him or her. It is essential to include the title of President whenever we are talking about President Bush, especially for this issue. President Bush, the leader of our nation, the President of the United States of America, the President of the country that claims to be one of the most freedom-providing, civilized nations in the entire world is saying he would not support legislation to disallow torture. President Bush thinks that torture might be okay, because you just never know, there could be a ticking bomb scenario, sometime, and the whole world might explode, and we might have captured a terrorist, and he might have the information, and we might have to torture him. President Bush could be basing his decision to use a presidential veto which, if used, would make the world quesion how much Americans value human decency and civilization, on one fabricated scenario. So it's important to remember that it is not Mr. Bush, some random man who is speaking out for torture, but President Bush, the leader of what is arguably the most powerful nation on earth. I guess my point to Anonymous is: you're missing the point. Yes, we must always speak with only the highest respect for our leaders. But when are they going to start respecting basic human rights?
-Caty Schmitter
Torture is a very delicate topic. I believe torture should not be outlawed, it should just be strictly monitored. It sounds weird to say that, and I know the question comes up, Who would make sure the torture is ESSENTIAL, I don't have that answer, but I'm sure there is a more intelligent mind out there that could propose a good solution. If someone with known ties to a terrorist scheme, or a terrorist group is tortured so that my family is murdered in a suicide bombing because we're the "infidel", I don't mind. The people who don't support torture would have a hard time denying they would like someone who knew where the future murderer of their family is hiding. PRESIDENT Bush is right, there are some cases that call for torture. It sounds horrible, but it's a necessary evil. Abu Ghraib and any other meaningless torture is appauling and disgusting, but if the US Government captured someone who knew where Osama was, I would gladly support torturing that person to catch Osama. The means justifies the ends.
Means justify the ends? The common expression is "end justifies the means." So we're clear, the common expression is saying it doesn't matter HOW you arrive at your destination, just that you arrive. This philosophy has little standing, particularly in a nation of laws.
Post a Comment
<< Home