for vetoing a law which has the full support of congress and the American people?
2006-07-19 05:55:43 · 19 answers · asked by anonacoup 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm just pointing out a hyprocricy. Whenever democrats try to stop legislation they are called "obstructionists" by the republicans.
2006-07-19 06:03:00 · update #1
(I see that obstructionist has a different definition applied to Dems than it does to Repubs! I'm not surprised.)
2006-07-19 06:35:37 · update #2
Yes,he's an obstructionist.Not just for his veto,which he has the right to do,but for more that his stance against stem cell reserch is slowing scietific progress.That's a reactionary for you.
2006-07-19 06:03:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
Yeah, Bush the obstructionist. The only President who has never vetoed a law, and just maybe might veto ONE law now.
He's been called a lot of things, but I haven't heard this yet.
2006-07-19 12:58:49 · answer #2 · answered by Steve W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I assume you're talking about the funding bill for stem cell research. He is not blocking the study of stem cells. He is simply vetoing further government spending in support of it.
If private companies wish to fund this research, they are more than able to do so. The research will still be legal. And if there are truly so many benefits to this research, pharmaceutical companies would be crazy not to.
So to answer your question: no, he is not being obstructionist in this matter.
2006-07-19 13:01:15 · answer #3 · answered by Milter24 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, an obstructionist is one who stands in the way of something that is going to be. The thing he vetoed is never going to be, as long as there is any decent people in this country
2006-07-19 13:15:40 · answer #4 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You act as though Bush is the only president to use his veto power to kill a bill that has made it through congress.
That's how the system works. If there is enough congressional support they can override the veto. If it doesn't have to votes to override the veto, perhaps it doesn't have the overwhelming support you seem to believe.
2006-07-19 13:00:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's how the system works. If it has "full" support, as you say, then Congress will be able to override the veto.
You're wrong, by the way, it does not have the "full" support of the people. Some favor it, some don't.
2006-07-19 12:58:48 · answer #6 · answered by Farly the Seer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Presidential veto is not the end of the road for legislation. Bush is just doing what he was elected to do for the people who elected him.
2006-07-19 13:00:14 · answer #7 · answered by claymore 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, look what happened with this research in Korea.
It's disgusting and not right. I mean really, why the hell does
anyone want to live forever in a prison planet?
All are insane liars, theives, cowards and full of crap.
Why would anyone want to stay here, and kill a child use the embryo to do it.
It's like eating babies.
So Go Bush, and i dont like him, but I do agree on this and that Israel needs to take muslims out.
2006-07-19 12:58:57 · answer #8 · answered by eg_ansel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually it does not have the full support of Congress or the American people. Just because Congress passed it, does not mean that all of Congress agreed to it. They were just outnumbered.
2006-07-19 12:59:02 · answer #9 · answered by Michael F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is holding to a campaign promise. If you are correct, and it does have the 'full support of the American people', they will override the veto.
2006-07-19 12:58:14 · answer #10 · answered by opusthepenguin_1999 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not to worry...it still has to go to the house where they can override his Veto...IF it has the full support of the American people..which I doubt.
Politicians cant agree on what brand of peanut butter to buy much less our laws.
2006-07-19 13:00:02 · answer #11 · answered by akebhart 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋