Good for the US senate..

[Reflex]

For Reflex's benefit:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7137750.stm

CIA calls waterboarding torture, but also says the information gathered disrupted attacks and saved lives.  And this is the kind of thing which makes it so very hard for me to make up my mind on waterboarding and renditions.

The problem is that every time they have attributed a bit of information to their new tactics it has later come out that those tactics had nothing to do with acquiring that information.  There has yet to be a single instance where it was demonstrated to gain us information that was useful in either getting a prosecution of a terrorist, or stopping a terror attack.  And I dare you to find a specific instance, the fact is that none exist which calls the entire program into question.

And I agree with Vorlon.  If it is so effective, then we should be using it in our police interrogation procedures, no?  After all, when you let that murder suspect out on bail, who's to say that he won't kill again if he really is guilty...

[Reflex]

He's accusing you of drinking the cool aid in a very immature fashion.  That said, I am suprised at your post, hence my response.

Again, humor seems to escape you and instead you use it as a means to insult directly.  But I am sure I have seen you post about "drinking the koolaid" before, but I'll ignore it since you agree with me on scuts post.  The reality is Scut wasnt going to pay anymore attention to anything I posted about why his post was wrong anyways.  Last time I did, he told me to fuck off.  So Ill let you and babar tell him why he's wrong

I get humor.  I even 'get' your humor.  I get the fact that you don't know how to make a point without being personally insulting, even to long time and respected forum members.  I 'get' that you don't know how to respectfully disagree with someone.

Yes, I get your 'humor'.

[Babar]

Guys, come on. We have a forum for this kind of conversation, please take it there.

[VorLonUK]

So if I've got this right.

Basically the President can veto a decision made by congress. If he does, then for congress to turn it over a high percentage of congress votes is required. So if you have a small majority of Dems who wish to challenge the veto, yet all the repubs side with the president (i guess they aren't forced have to), then the Presidents veto will be successful?

[Rocky]

So if I've got this right.

Basically the President can veto a decision made by congress. If he does, then for congress to turn it over a high percentage of congress votes is required. So if you have a small majority of Dems who wish to challenge the veto, yet all the repubs side with the president (i guess they aren't forced have to), then the Presidents veto will be successful?

Correct.  It sort of assures cooperation.  Even though we are a democracy, or so we say, most important pieces of legislation take more than a simple majority, veto or not.

[VorLonUK]

So if I've got this right.

Basically the President can veto a decision made by congress. If he does, then for congress to turn it over a high percentage of congress votes is required. So if you have a small majority of Dems who wish to challenge the veto, yet all the repubs side with the president (i guess they aren't forced have to), then the Presidents veto will be successful?

Correct.  It sort of assures cooperation.  Even though we are a democracy, or so we say, most important pieces of legislation take more than a simple majority, veto or not.

Do you have (like in the UK) Repubs that will "revolt" against their own governments, or in this case against a President's Veto - essentially siding with the opposition?

[Rocky]

So if I've got this right.

Basically the President can veto a decision made by congress. If he does, then for congress to turn it over a high percentage of congress votes is required. So if you have a small majority of Dems who wish to challenge the veto, yet all the repubs side with the president (i guess they aren't forced have to), then the Presidents veto will be successful?

Correct.  It sort of assures cooperation.  Even though we are a democracy, or so we say, most important pieces of legislation take more than a simple majority, veto or not.

Do you have (like in the UK) Repubs that will "revolt" against their own governments, or in this case against a President's Veto - essentially siding with the opposition?

Yes, very much so I think.  On both sides of the aisle this is true.  We have 50 different states with different ideas and economies, so often times a bill will affect one state much different than another.  There are roughly 8 Senators on each side that will often vote with the other side.  On some issues it is very much a party thing, but on many of them there is a lot of cross over. (or what I've come to think is a lot)

[ScutMonkey]

So if I've got this right.

Basically the President can veto a decision made by congress. If he does, then for congress to turn it over a high percentage of congress votes is required. So if you have a small majority of Dems who wish to challenge the veto, yet all the repubs side with the president (i guess they aren't forced have to), then the Presidents veto will be successful?

Correct.  It sort of assures cooperation.  Even though we are a democracy, or so we say, most important pieces of legislation take more than a simple majority, veto or not.

Do you have (like in the UK) Repubs that will "revolt" against their own governments, or in this case against a President's Veto - essentially siding with the opposition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

Yes, which is actually one of the reasons why Republicans/Conservatives are so angry with McCain.  It actually happens very, very frequently on both sides of the isle in both the House and Senate.

[Babar]

Either you're saying Bush is akin to a dictator for using his powers or you're saying Presidential powers are something akin to a dictators.

I consider that a straw-man response. It doesn't accurately reflect my position.

[ScutMonkey]

I consider that a straw-man response. It doesn't accurately reflect my position.

Then maybe you should consider refraining from using the word dictator to describe the current situation?

[ScutMonkey]

I guess I should explain why I've got my panties in a twist over it, Babar.  

Basically it reminds me of what has happened to the word fascist.  If someone doesn't like what the government does, it gets labeled fascist.  So then the word fascist doesn't really mean anything other than "I don't like it."  This is what your use of the word dictatorship and dictator seems like to me.  You don't like what Bush is doing so you just call it an odious word like Dictatorship which strips the meaning of the word and it's usefulness in defining real dictatorships.  I'm equally annoyed when people call Chavez a dictator because he's not.  Not yet anyway.  He's put forth some policies which would have been (President for Life), but he allowed them to be voted on and they were struck down.

[Reflex]

Personally I find mandatory national health care to be fascist.

[Rocky]

I guess I should explain why I've got my panties in a twist over it, Babar.  

Basically it reminds me of what has happened to the word fascist.  If someone doesn't like what the government does, it gets labeled fascist.  So then the word fascist doesn't really mean anything other than "I don't like it."  This is what your use of the word dictatorship and dictator seems like to me.  You don't like what Bush is doing so you just call it an odious word like Dictatorship which strips the meaning of the word and it's usefulness in defining real dictatorships.  I'm equally annoyed when people call Chavez a dictator because he's not.  Not yet anyway.  He's put forth some policies which would have been (President for Life), but he allowed them to be voted on and they were struck down.

Dont you think the same thing has been done to conservative and liberal?  Just curious.