[Peace-discuss] Torture referendum

[C. G. Estabrook]

No. Johnson was one of five Republicans who voted in favor of the 
unsuccessful attempt to override Bush's veto.

Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Well said, John. I gave up on this after a couple of tries and bless you 
> for hanging in. I think the rewrite helps enormously... and I'd even add 
> "that Bush had vetoed" or "that Bush then (or subsequently) vetoed" 
> depending on the time sequence of the two (my take on it finally is that 
> Johnson's vote preceded Bush's veto, right?) Wonderful that Johnson 
> voted on the side of decency this time!
>  --Jenifer
> 
> 
> */"John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>/* wrote:
> 
>     At 11:00 AM 3/31/2008, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>      >John, your estimate of your fellow-citizens' intelligence is as
>     always
>      >unnecessarily low.
> 
>     All I can tell you, Carl - trying to remain civil here - is that I
>     myself
>     had to read the fucking thing about 5 times to understand what it
>     said. The bill would have PROHIBITED the CIA from using torture - a
>     negative. Bush vetoed the bill - a double negative. Johnson apparently
>     voted to override Bush's veto - either a triple negative, or a
>     double-double negative, depending on how you look at it. I had to
>     read it
>     about 5 times, and break it down into its component parts just as I
>     have
>     here, to determine whether Johnson was for or against torture, and I'm
>     still not 100% positive. I think he wants to prohibit the CIA from
>     employing torture, but I'm not sure.
> 
>     The reason why I asked if Johnson supported the actual anti-torture
>     bill in
>     the first place is (a) because of my confusion in reading your draft
>     referendum, and (b) if so, why not just say THAT? Something like,
>     "Given
>     Representative Timothy Johnson's support for a bill outlawing torture,
>     which was vetoed by pResident Bush...." ?
> 
>     But you do what you like. You're a professor. You know everything about
>     everything. Why, I'll bet there are a couple of studies that prove
>     empirically in a statistically significant manner that my fellow
>     citizens
>     are more intelligent, more informed, more patient in reading obscure,
>     pedantic referenda than I think they are!
> 
> 
> 
>      >Two corrections: the draft sentence should of course end with a
>     question
>      >mark, and the meeting is not this Tuesday but next. --CGE
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >John W. wrote:
>      >
>      >>At 06:16 PM 3/30/2008, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>      >>
>      >>>Here's a draft of a referendum to be proposed at the Champaign
>     Township
>      >>>annual meeting Tuesday night:
>      >>>
>      >>>"Noting that Representative Timothy Johnson voted to override
>     President
>      >>>Bush's veto of a bill that would have prohibited the CIA from using
>      >>>torture, shall the citizens of Champaign Township urge our
>     congressional
>      >>>representatives to renew their efforts to pass such a bill."
>      >>
>      >>How many Peace-discuss readers think that this sentence is way too
>      >>complex and convoluted for the average reader?
>      >>Did (and does) Tim Johnson support the actual anti-torture bill?
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Peace-discuss mailing list
>     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of 
> Blockbuster Total Access 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47521/*http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text3.com 
>  > now