JesusLopezViejo
Veteran
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 581
Location: Tri-State
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: House overturns Bush order on papers secrecy |
 |
|
|
It only took them 5 or 6 years to stop sucking the president's d*ck. They are in the wrong just as much as he is.
| Quote: | | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Brushing aside a veto threat, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to overturn a 2001 order by President George W. Bush that lets former presidents keep their papers secret indefinitely. |
http://www.reuters.com/article.....geNumber=1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Sweet, can't wait till Obama blasts his ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| i totally forgot about bush doing that. this was one of the first outrageous things i remember him doing but there has been so much other shit, most of it worse, that i forgot about this. i am sure he will veto this if it passes the senate... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anym
Forum Elder
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 2562
Location: Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
George W. Bush death by 1,000 scandals.
Remember When we only had 1 major scandal per presidency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Anym wrote: | George W. Bush death by 1,000 scandals.
Remember When we only had 1 major scandal per presidency. |
hahaha that was before the rubber stamp congress was invented |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Anym wrote: | George W. Bush death by 1,000 scandals.
Remember When we only had 1 major scandal per presidency. |
Well, i think reagan had more than one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | | Anym wrote: | George W. Bush death by 1,000 scandals.
Remember When we only had 1 major scandal per presidency. |
Well, i think reagan had more than one. |
quit being a negative nancy
i think we all know what he meant by that |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrespassersW
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject: The Law of Unintended Consequences |
|
|
|
On the whole, I prefer more transparency to less, but I wonder whether the certainty that history will have access to the working papers of the executive might diminish the effectiveness of the office. I believe we should know about every decision the White House reaches, but I'm not sure we need to know all the details of how they reached that decision. What if the one person who disagreed with a proposed policy decided to keep his mouth shut because he knew anything he said would be public one day? ...
In the end I guess we're better served by disclosure than by secrecy, but it isn't quite as cut-and-dried an issue as some would make it seem. There are valid reasons for wanting to keep some things out of the public eye. (The devil, of course, is in the not-so-valid reasons...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences |
|
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: | | What if the one person who disagreed with a proposed policy decided to keep his mouth shut because he knew anything he said would be public one day? ... |
Then i'd question the competance or moral soundness of his proposed policy.
Privacy is a reasonable expectation - it's not like we let the press plant microphones on all the administration's aids, or anything.
However, total privacy isn't only an unreasonable expectation, it's also mostly impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Freedom of information, if the defense secretary said that the american government has a plan to send nukes to america, the people deserve to know about it yes? Not just your people either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences |
|
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: | | In the end I guess we're better served by disclosure than by secrecy, but it isn't quite as cut-and-dried an issue as some would make it seem. There are valid reasons for wanting to keep some things out of the public eye. (The devil, of course, is in the not-so-valid reasons...) |
Amen to that, brother! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3337
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: Re: House overturns Bush order on papers secrecy |
|
|
|
| JesusLopezViejo wrote: | It only took them 5 or 6 years to stop sucking the president's d*ck. They are in the wrong just as much as he is.
| Quote: | | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Brushing aside a veto threat, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to overturn a 2001 order by President George W. Bush that lets former presidents keep their papers secret indefinitely. |
http://www.reuters.com/article.....geNumber=1 |
Yes they are wrong and they need to be removed from their public office along with the president |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cookie Parker
Newbie
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 22
Location: Anderson, IN
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The blind support this man still gets tells me one thing and one thing only...the RNC is paying people to post...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrespassersW
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Cookie - I like your quote. It reminds me of one of my favorites (and I'd love it if someone can tell me who said this, because I've never been able to find its source):
"The Democrats are running towards socialism, while the Republicans are content to walk there." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
