Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: weazel on January 18, 2002, 01:36:10 PM
-
The President's Papers Are the People's Business
by Steven L. Hensen
How can a democratic people have confidence in elected officials who hide the records of their actions from public view?
On Nov. 1, with no announcement, President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, overriding the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which provides that a president's papers will be made available to the public 12 years after he leaves office. Bush's new order gives the White House, as well as former presidents, the right to veto this release of documents, thereby taking the responsibility for administering presidential papers away from the archivist of the United States. By forcing citizens to go to court to obtain the right to view an administration's records,the order effectively blocks access to information that enables Americans to hold our presidents accountable for their actions.
Almost immediately after Bush signed the order, a remarkably bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, expressed everything from dismay to outrage. In addition, a group including historians, journalists and civic activists filed suit to block implementation of this order.
In the middle of the fray are professional archivists. Those of us who labor in the nation's archives are entrusted with ensuring that citizens and scholars have access to the records of human society and culture,as well as to the important records of our government. The guarantee of such access is a cornerstone of the Constitution and of democracy in general. As the current president of North America's largest archival professional society, I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that the White House is on the wrong side of this battle.
Bush's executive order is titled "Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act." But rather than "implementing" that law, the order abrogates the core principles of the act and violates both its spirit and letter.
The Presidential Records Act was created out of the legal morass surrounding the Watergate scandals and legitimate congressional fears that former president Nixon would never allow public access to the records of his administration. The legislation established once and for all -- or so we thought -- the principle that presidential papers represent the official records of activity by the highest office in our government of, by, and for the people -- and that they therefore belong to the U.S. government and, by extension, its citizens. The act further mandates that management of, custody of and access to such records should be governed on behalf of the nation by the archivist of the United States.
Some of the bases for this law can be found in earlier discussions by scholars and archivists. Julian Boyd, editor of "The Papers of Thomas Jefferson," had made the point as early as 1960 that "the records of the office of the President belong to the people who created that office. They cannot be given away by one who happens to be its incumbent." He also rejected the notion that "the privilege of the President follows a man into retirement as a personal right to be exercised by himself for the duration of his natural life and then to be descendable to his executors and heirs."
In his authoritative 1969 book, "Records of a Nation," the distinguished archivist H.G. Jones noted that, among modern presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt had clearly established the peoples' claim to ownership of their chief executives' files and had stated that "the prerogative assumed by his predecessors in asserting private title was in fact only a lingering vestige of the attributes of monarchy, not an appropriate or compatible concept of archival policy for the head of a democratic state to adopt."
Executive Order 13233 directly subverts the intent of the Presidential Records Act by placing ultimate responsibility for decisions regarding access to presidential papers not only with President Bush, but with any sitting president in the future, as well as every ex-president, and, even further, the family members and heirs of former presidents, apparently without limit Administration officials have acknowledged that the new order is intended to prevent the release of records from the Reagan administration, which the White House has been delaying by various means since January. This has led to speculation that the administration is trying to shield members of Bush's own administration, as well as his father, from a variety of uncomfortable revelations, including possible connections to the Iran-contra scandal. But it should be noted that this executive order also fits a pattern suggesting that the Bush administration may be hostile to the basic ideals that the public has a right to know what its elected officials are doing, and that the records of government are in fact owned by the people.
Last January,Bush, as outgoing governor of Texas, shipped his official records to his father's presidential library at Texas A&M University. By doing so, he succeeded in removing his gubernatorial papers not only from the custody of the Texas State Library and Archives, but also, possibly, from the ownership, oversight and right of access of the people of Texas. The Texas archives law does permit the designation of "an institution of higher learning or alternate archival institution" as the repository for gubernatorial records (the records of former governor John Connally, for instance, are at the Lyndon B. Johnson presidential library, and those of William P. Clements, Jr., are at Texas A&M). But the bill requires that any governor seeking to place his records elsewhere consult fully with the Texas State Library and Archives Commission to develop clear policies regarding processing of and access to the records. While there was some preliminary consultation over Bush's papers, no final agreement was reached. The records were simply packed up and shipped off -- to the great surprise of many, including officials at the Bush presidential library.
Under no circumstance does the Texas bill permit the transfer of the records' "ownership" from the people of Texas to any other entity. The Connally and Clements records, though not technically in the archives, are still administered according to Texas records law. But the confusion likely to reign over the question of who "owns" the Bush gubernatorial records may be sufficient to keep them out of public sight until well after the conclusion of George W.'s presidency. In the meantime, requests from journalists, historians or others to view the documents could be delayed indefinitely, denying the public potentially valuable insight into how Bush's policies as Texas governor on matters from energy to the death penalty may be informing current decisions.
And there's more. On Oct. 16, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum telling federal agencies that when they decide to withhold records in response to Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests, they can "be assured" that the Department of Justice will defend their decisions. The memorandum supersedes a 1993 directive by then-Attorney General Janet Reno, directing federal agencies to resolve ambiguous situations in favor of openness. Though Ashcroft's memo suggested that the present reversal on FOIA requests was necessary for protecting "national security, enhancing the effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies, protecting sensitive business information and, not least, preserving personal privacy," the fact is that these categories of information are already exempted from release under our freedom of information laws. Like Bush's executive order, Ashcroft's FOIA memorandum has the effect of limiting our ability as citizens to know what our government is doing, and why.
There is lingering uncertainty over the extent to which an executive order can trump or override statutory law. This is a matter Congress will have to decide. So far, Congress has held only one inconclusive hearing on Executive Order 13233. It needs to do far more. Access to the vital historical records of this nation should not be governed by executive will; this is exactly the situation that the existing law was created to prevent. Furthermore, for such access to be curtailed or nullified by an executive process not subject to public or legislative review or scrutiny violates the principles upon which our nation was founded.
Engaged as we currently are in a struggle against terrorism and totalitarianism, it does us no credit to adopt policies that reflect the principles of our enemies more than they do our own democratic traditions. Bush should demonstrate the values and openness of our government and of his administration by canceling this order and directing the attorney general to revoke his memorandum. It shouldn't have to take legal proceedings, congressional action or public pressure for Bush to come to the understanding that the president's papers are not in fact the president's papers, but rather the records of the people's presidency.
Steven Hensen, director of planning and project development at Duke University's Rare Book, Manuscripts and Special Collections Library, is president of the Society of American Archivists.
_____________________________ _____
Kind of Orwellian isn't it?
-
Ya just gotta love skeptical editorials. :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ya just gotta love skeptical editorials. :)
Thats all you have to say, why am I not surprised?
Take the blinders off and focus on what Executive Order 13233 really means.
Are you comfortable with the fact it gives them carte blanche to hide the truth from Americans?
The Constitution doesn't mean dick to the current regime in Washington.
They speak of the "rule of law" while subverting it on a daily basis.
-
The rare opportunity to agree and disagree simultaneously.
I agree, it is a bad thing.
I disagree it is only the current administration that thumbs its nose at the Constitution.
-
Before 9/11, I might agree with you, after 9/11..more power to them, literally.
"There is lingering uncertainty over the extent to which an executive order can trump or override statutory law. This is a matter Congress will have to decide."
Don't worry, it's not the Clinton Regrime yet..or even close to the screwing that America got with the Clinton administration, most of which we've yet to learn about. Keep digging weazel, keep digging, gonna be tough to beat a blow job in the oval office though.
-
Did you even read the whole editorial?
What does 9/11 have to do with the shrub keeping RayGunz documents out of the public domain?
That argument doesn't wash.
-
Read the whole thing and even quoted from it.
-
"gonna be tough to beat a blow job in the oval office though."
It was in an alcove near the office.....sheeesh!;)
-
Thats what was reported, how many times he got one, and how many different places probably won't be known for some time, if at all (See Executive Order 13233.) :)
-
Don't worry, it's not the Clinton Regrime yet..or even close to the screwing that America got with the Clinton administration, most of which we've yet to learn about. Keep digging weazel, keep digging, gonna be tough to beat a blow job in the oval office though.
Since you bring up the Clinton regime are you comfortable with the fact EO 13233 won't ever let you know the truth?
As Kieren pointed out that's a two way street, I'll bet theres skeletons in RayGunz administration that make a blow job in the oval office as insignificant as it really was in the big picture of Washington politics.
-
Could be Weazel, but mark my words, when your 70 yrs old rocking back and forth in your rocker, Reagan will still be known in history as one of the greatest presidents we ever had.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Could be Weazel, but mark my words, when your 70 yrs old rocking back and forth in your rocker, Reagan will still be known in history as one of the greatest presidents we ever had.
LOL...yeah...right :rolleyes:
-
most amusing maybe :p
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Could be Weazel, but mark my words, when your 70 yrs old rocking back and forth in your rocker, Reagan will still be known in history as one of the greatest presidents we ever had.
Only if shrub and Nazicroft get their way and block public access to his administrations documents.
What was so great about the drug dealing scum?
Was it his under the table deals with a known terrorist state?
Maybe his propping up that pineapple faced buffons regime?
How about sending the Marines into Beirut on a mission with no real objective and when they got blown to hell turning tail and running like the rat that he is?
Allowing Iranian sponsored terrorists to kidnap and assasinate the CIA station chief in Beirut w/o any response?
Or something to be REAL proud of, bombing children in Libya to "send a message"?
As far as criminals go Raygun and Shrub Sr make Nixon or Clinton look like boy scouts.
Yep, the republican party has a lot to answer for, to bad they're too cowardly to allow their mistakes/crimes to come into the public domain.
How you can call that rat diddly scum "great" is beyond me.
:rolleyes:
-
Just more left wing Democrat sponsored liberal drivel designed to do nothing more than bring discredit on the (Republican) Office of the President of the United States. These people will dig for any tidbit of information they can slew thier direction and make the whole thing look terribly bad. Sorry guys but you'll have to dig allot deeper. Post this executive order for people to read rather than rely on some liberal doofus and his/her idea of what it means.
Btw, Reagan is already one of the greatest presidents the U.S. has ever had. So sorry...go sit in the corner and moan about it lol.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Only if shrub and Nazicroft get their way and block public access to his administrations documents.
What was so great about the drug dealing scum?
Was it his under the table deals with a known terrorist state?
Maybe his propping up that pineapple faced buffons regime?
How about sending the Marines into Beirut on a mission with no real objective and when they got blown to hell turning tail and running like the rat that he is?
Allowing Iranian sponsored terrorists to kidnap and assasinate the CIA station chief in Beirut w/o any response?
Or something to be REAL proud of, bombing children in Libya to "send a message"?
As far as criminals go Raygun and Shrub Sr make Nixon or Clinton look like boy scouts.
Yep, the republican party has a lot to answer for, to bad they're too cowardly to allow their mistakes/crimes to come into the public domain.
How you can call that rat diddly scum "great" is beyond me.
:rolleyes:
haha...you have absolutely no idea what your talking about and are relying totally on what someone else TOLD you to believe. Very entertaining weaz...more, please :)
-
Originally posted by Tumor
haha...you have absolutely no idea what your talking about and are relying totally on what someone else TOLD you to believe. Very entertaining weaz...more, please :)
Just more left wing Democrat sponsored liberal drivel designed to do nothing more than bring discredit on the (Republican) Office of the President of the United States. These people will dig for any tidbit of information they can slew thier direction and make the whole thing look terribly bad. Sorry guys but you'll have to dig allot deeper. Post this executive order for people to read rather than rely on some liberal doofus and his/her idea of what it means.
Btw, Reagan is already one of the greatest presidents the U.S. has ever had. So sorry...go sit in the corner and moan about it lol.
I feel sorry for you.
Are you too lazy to look for the info yourself?
You might try watching the news or even READING the newspaper.
I recall the Reagan years very well, I served in the Army during his criminal regime, where were you during those years? Still toejamting green I'll wager.
How about the rampant unemployment and budget deficit during his tenure?
Tell me what that scum did that makes him great.
Since you can't answer I'll just lump you in with the rest of the "conservative" lemmings of this country, anything that goes against the drivel the party spouts you just ignore or use the phrase "liberal leftist" to hide behind.
So go ahead, sit back and watch 226 years of American law and traditions be dismantled by a temporary occupant of the White House and the scum he appointed as AG.
Any true patriot should be appalled at what is happening to our government, a pox on both their houses..Demo and Ratpubs alike.
Poor pathetic little lemmings, one day you will wake up...hopefully it won't be too late.
-
Originally posted by weazel
anything that goes against the drivel the party spouts you just ignore or use the phrase "liberal leftist" to hide behind.
Is that anything like ignoring them and using the phrase "conservative lemmings"?
-
What am I ignoring thrawn?
I'm still waiting on one of the lemmings to answer what made that criminal great.
You DO know what lemmings are dont you?
I'll give you a clue, they blindly follow the leader over a precipice to their doom.
So far I haven't seen a reasonable response from any of them in regards to EO 13233, just shreiks about liberal leftists....typical.
A fitting analogy IMO.
-
If I was a conservative coming into this post, I'd already have my back up. Why? Based on your vindictiveness in past posts. I wouldn't think that you wanted an honest, fair debate. Just another flame war.
It seems to me, that all you want to do is scream, and yell in their faces. That's not going to do toejam, except maybe help to vent your feelings about conservatives. Then you get surprised when they don't put up with it?
-
Gee thrawn, how many times have you been pig piled by the so called "conservatives" on this board, or been called names just because you don't adhere to they're twisted political view points?
I'm not the type to take roadkill from anyone and will dish back as much as I recieve. Or are you saying I should be "PC" to suit them? Not bloody likely to happen.
Here ya go Tumor, obviously I don't know what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13233
The Raping of the US Constitution (http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html)
and:
More butt slamming by the shrub (http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/09/presrecs.html)
Reagan and Beirut:
Who cares? They're JUST Marines. (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1023.html)
And:
Great President or lying scum? (http://www.quickchange.com/reagan/1984.html)
I especially enjoyed this line, it has been dusted off for reuse by the current regime....... :rolleyes:
9/26/84
President Reagan claims the latest Beirut bombing is the fault of Jimmy Carter, who he said
"presided over the destruction of our intelligence capability."
Carter responds that Reagan tends "to blame his every mistake and failure on me and others
who served before him."
A lie from the "hero", we had to buy our own uniforms when the BDU was phased into service.
"a good bit of the defense budget goes for food and wardrobe", becoming the first US President
to so refer to military uniforms"
Oops, one that got away in 1984, I guess we can partially blame the "great" Ronald Reagan for 9/11.
Reagan fumbles, America takes the hit. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/640879.asp?cp1=1)
Reagan and Panama:
I don't need to post links to know that Reagan supported Noriegas regime, I had the dubious honor of
guarding pineapple faces personal C-130 during his visits to Ft Benning,Ga in 1981/82.
Reagan and Libya:
Awwww...those kids were just towel heads (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Reagan_CIA.html)
Libya: Along with Nicaragua, Ronald Reagan's manic obsession, culminating in the April 1986 bombing which took the lives of about 37 people, all civilians but one, and wounded some 93 others. The dead included Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's young adopted daughter; his other seven children and his wife were hospitalized. "Our evidence is direct, it is precise, it is irrefutable," announced the President of the United States in explaining that the bombing was in retaliation for the Libyan bombing nine days earlier of a West Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen which killed one soldier and injured many other soldiers and civilians. The evidence of Libyan culpability in the Berlin bombing, how ever, was never directly or precisely presented to the world.
Yeah....a REAL hero and all around great president, now all I need to do is wait for the inevitable post saying
these links prove nothing and I'm a leftist liberal digging for dirt. :p
Gee...I wonder why the shrub wants to squash access to RayGunz presidential records? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by weazel
I feel sorry for you.
Are you too lazy to look for the info yourself?
Why? I trust President Bush far more than any other toejambag president we've had in the last 8 years. I'm very happy with his performance so far.
You might try watching the news or even READING the newspaper.
Uhhhm...I watch and read more news in a single 8hr day than you do in a full week. I'll even go so far as to wager a paycheck on that.
I recall the Reagan years very well, I served in the Army during his criminal regime, where were you during those years? Still toejamting green I'll wager.
Ahem....during the last two years of his presidency, I was toejamting blue in the USAF thankyouverymuch.
How about the rampant unemployment and budget deficit during his tenure?
Same old tune. Democrats across the board set up a bad economy and handed it off to a Republican "regime" as you so eloquently put it. Hmmm....it's happening right now. Do you honestly think a president who's been in office less than a year can possibly have this much a negative effect on our economy? Economies run in cycles my friend. Clintons so called wonderful economy was set up by ..guess who, Reagan and Bush #1. We are seeing only the beginning of whats going to be a very long slump in our economy set up by guess who? Hey try this one since you are so adept at who dicks up an economy. Look up how many dollars that complete waste of oxygen CLINTON had printed in the United States. Then compare that to any other time in history. THEN lecture me on what happens when massive amounts of money are printed with nothing solid to back it up. .....I'm waiting.
Tell me what that scum did that makes him great.
Being the biggest player in ending the cold war is enough for me....oh gosh hold on, maybe Carter did that (LOL). Or I suppose your going to tell me it was all Gorby? Now THAT wouldn't suprise me in the least. How about the INF treaty? Oh by the way, was Reagan impeached for your accusations? Do I blame ANYONE for the "I don't recall answers?...hell no. Why, Democrats thats why. I know far more about the Iran-Contra affair than you will ever dream of knowing, please don't lecture me, you can't possibly have anything near the facts.
Since you can't answer I'll just lump you in with the rest of the "conservative" lemmings of this country, anything that goes against the drivel the party spouts you just ignore or use the phrase "liberal leftist" to hide behind.
Well, I did answer. Conservative? Proud of it. Lemming...sticks and stones lol. I make my own choices thankyou.
So go ahead, sit back and watch 226 years of American law and traditions be dismantled by a temporary occupant of the White House and the scum he appointed as AG.
We shall see, don't you think? :D
Any true patriot should be appalled at what is happening to our government, a pox on both their houses..Demo and Ratpubs alike.
As a true patriot, who is still serving this great nation (are you?) I must say I spent 8 years being appalled. 8 years going to work knowing some amazinhunk in the WhiteHouse who I HAD to call boss was going to bed every night and giggleing at how good a job he was doing a F***ING UP the Military. I'm very happy NOW, and I like it.
Poor pathetic little lemmings, one day you will wake up...hopefully it won't be too late.
...It might be too late but it WILL be a frozen day in hell.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
If I was a conservative coming into this post, I'd already have my back up. Why? Based on your vindictiveness in past posts. I wouldn't think that you wanted an honest, fair debate. Just another flame war.
It seems to me, that all you want to do is scream, and yell in their faces. That's not going to do toejam, except maybe help to vent your feelings about conservatives. Then you get surprised when they don't put up with it?
Methinks you are correct thrawn. ;)
-
Originally posted by weazel
Gee thrawn, how many times have you been pig piled by the so called "conservatives" on this board, or been called names just because you don't adhere to they're twisted political view points?
I'm not the type to take roadkill from anyone and will dish back as much as I recieve. Or are you saying I should be "PC" to suit them? Not bloody likely to happen.
Here ya go Tumor, obviously I don't know what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13233
The Raping of the US Constitution (http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html)
and:
More butt slamming by the shrub (http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/09/presrecs.html)
Reagan and Beirut:
Who cares? They're JUST Marines. (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1023.html)
And:
Great President or lying scum? (http://www.quickchange.com/reagan/1984.html)
I especially enjoyed this line, it has been dusted off for reuse by the current regime....... :rolleyes:
9/26/84
President Reagan claims the latest Beirut bombing is the fault of Jimmy Carter, who he said
"presided over the destruction of our intelligence capability."
Carter responds that Reagan tends "to blame his every mistake and failure on me and others
who served before him."
A lie from the "hero", we had to buy our own uniforms when the BDU was phased into service.
"a good bit of the defense budget goes for food and wardrobe", becoming the first US President
to so refer to military uniforms"
Oops, one that got away in 1984, I guess we can partially blame the "great" Ronald Reagan for 9/11.
Reagan fumbles, America takes the hit. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/640879.asp?cp1=1)
Reagan and Panama:
I don't need to post links to know that Reagan supported Noriegas regime, I had the dubious honor of
guarding pineapple faces personal C-130 during his visits to Ft Benning,Ga in 1981/82.
Reagan and Libya:
Awwww...those kids were just towel heads (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Reagan_CIA.html)
Libya: Along with Nicaragua, Ronald Reagan's manic obsession, culminating in the April 1986 bombing which took the lives of about 37 people, all civilians but one, and wounded some 93 others. The dead included Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's young adopted daughter; his other seven children and his wife were hospitalized. "Our evidence is direct, it is precise, it is irrefutable," announced the President of the United States in explaining that the bombing was in retaliation for the Libyan bombing nine days earlier of a West Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen which killed one soldier and injured many other soldiers and civilians. The evidence of Libyan culpability in the Berlin bombing, how ever, was never directly or precisely presented to the world.
Yeah....a REAL hero and all around great president, now all I need to do is wait for the inevitable post saying
these links prove nothing and I'm a leftist liberal digging for dirt. :p
Gee...I wonder why the shrub wants to squash access to RayGunz presidential records? :rolleyes:
LOL, I don't see a problem :rolleyes: Besides, think ahead. Limiting access to presidential records NOW will damn sure keep Clintons butt out of the sling in the future lol. You know, in the interest of national security, some things don't need to be released. What the hell difference does it make NOW what happened in the 80's (which is what your getting at). I really think your just pissed at missing an opportunity to even LOOK for dirt on Republicans.
The New York Times?? And you call ME a Lemming? You have GOT to be kidding. Not one link you posted past the actual documents involved are anything more than left wing agenda oriented...to the negative (Hey you said it, not me). Show me some facts.
...oh and by the way, I do have a lot of respect for Carter, not for his presidency but for who and what he is. And as for Billy boy destroying our intelligence capabilities?....All I can say is that the facts speak for themselves.
-
What an absolutely irrelevant flame war. Clinton's abuse of power doesn't make Bush a good president.
Boys, can you answer the question?
How can a democratic people have confidence in elected officials who hide the records of their actions from public view?
Sounds like a bipartisan question to me.
-
Thrawn is right. Going on the offensive with the original post might have been construed as another attack by Weazel, who is known to dislike this Republican administration. Maybe. I think his worst crime is giving us an opinion at the end of the article, but hey, it's an opinion.
Rip responds with a short, "yeah, whatever" which though incocuous sent Weazel on to new heights.
Both sides are right. It isn't a good thing necessarily to close the door to public record because it is the only way for us to verify or dispel our suspicions. OTOH, Tumor is right that sometimes in the interests of national security things must be kept from us. To deny this is naive.
So, there is really not a great deal of anything to discuss. Carter was kind of a dick. Reagan was in some ways a dick. Bush Sr. was in some ways a dick. Clinton was definitely a dick. Bush Jr. is probably just a little dick so far, but who knows, he may become the biggest dick of all. Does that cover it all?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Thrawn is right. Going on the offensive with the original post might have been construed as another attack by Weazel, who is known to dislike this Republican administration. Maybe. I think his worst crime is giving us an opinion at the end of the article, but hey, it's an opinion.
Rip responds with a short, "yeah, whatever" which though incocuous sent Weazel on to new heights.
Both sides are right. It isn't a good thing necessarily to close the door to public record because it is the only way for us to verify or dispel our suspicions. OTOH, Tumor is right that sometimes in the interests of national security things must be kept from us. To deny this is naive.
So, there is really not a great deal of anything to discuss. Carter was kind of a dick. Reagan was in some ways a dick. Bush Sr. was in some ways a dick. Clinton was definitely a dick. Bush Jr. is probably just a little dick so far, but who knows, he may become the biggest dick of all. Does that cover it all?
Oh for cod's sake. All politicians are dicks! lol But I must take this opportunity to disagree with you. Jimmy Carter is not and was not a dick. Jimmy Carter just happens to be the nicest U.S. President in recent History. I think his tendency to be nice is actually what kept him from possibly being the greatest president n the history of the United States.....that and being a Democrat lol. Seriously though. Carter unfortunately became a Democrat when Democrats were without doubt the party with the best interests of the United States in mind. Carter grew up with that, just like most of our grandparents. Unfortunately, sometime between JFK and Jimmy Carter's respective terms in office, the Democrats became limp wristed selfish socialist oriented jackballs who figure they know whats best for you and I, want to take more and more of our money and push every crappy-assed idea that comes along into law. No...I don't have much respect for the Democrats agenda or what they stand for. I do NOT want to become a ward of the state. Further, I do not want to SUPPORT "wards of the state" OR politicians with my hard earned tax dollars. I do NOT think we need more, let alone BIGGER government (Big Brother). I truly feel sorry for some of the older folks living today who are still living in the past.
Now, let me make a perfect example. My grandfather is a STAUNCH Democrat (80). He has very high morals (wierd considering he's never been in a church and isn't even sure there is a god), the most dedicated work ethic you could ever imagine and thinks welfare should be a crime. He's against abortion wholeheartedly. He gets mad as a wet hen every time his taxes get raised. He becomes exceptionally agitated when he hear's of people burning the flag. Gets even more upset when medicare etc goes up. He's got more firearms than most people I know and turns red when someone mentions gun control. ....I could go on all day. The worst part is when I point out to him the inconsistencies with his beliefs and the tards he votes for...he gets pissed!
Democrats used to be a good thing. The party has changed much for the worse. Today? They just push too much socialism on us and THAT is why I don't understand why anyone would want to associate with them. Republicans have thier own "bad side" too, but to be honest, I just go with the lesser of two evils.
-
Well written Tumor.
Les:cool:
-
Good grief weazel. If your that mad or surprised you found something like that someone wrote bad about a President...
All that energy, and none of it could be focused on a Rental Truck and a map out of Tulsa?
I ain't Miss Cleo, but I see the source of your angst.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Just more left wing Democrat sponsored liberal drivel designed to do nothing more than bring discredit on the (Republican) Office of the President of the United States. These people will dig for any tidbit of information they can slew thier direction and make the whole thing look terribly bad. Sorry guys but you'll have to dig allot deeper.
I cant believe I read that. When someone finds out that a president has done something dumb, inresponsible, stupid, dangerous, or whatever, you silly Americans always do the same.
The people who voted for the president say that the info comes from the other side, and that it is just meant to make the president look bad.
The people who didnt vote for the guy jump up and down on tables screaming what went wrong.
You Amewicans awe so cute ;)
Now my point of view as a journalist...
The media is often referred to as the guardian of democracy (among other things which I wont mention here ;) ). Reporters, beeing the leeches that we are, always watch every step of every official, hoping that he falls so we have a new item for prime time tv.
This keeps the government in line, the public always knows what the government is doing and if the public doesnt like it, they protest. THIS IS WHAT SEPPERATES US FROM STATES LIKE AFGHANISTAN where people have no say, and any comment on the people leading the country is punished by death or severe butt spanking.
Now what Bush does with that act is limiting the field of view for the media and other researchers, so they can do what they want. Presidents can now not be held accountable for their acts. That is a dangerous thing, as it takes us one step closer to the people you Americans were at war with. Or are at war with, I dont know.
Any person that actually literally says "I think it's a good thing Bush is doing".... well I dont know what to say, I just cant imagine it.
-
Sorry I make two posts after eachother, just had to chip in here.... :D
Originally posted by Tumor
Now, let me make a perfect example. My grandfather is a STAUNCH Democrat (80). He has very high morals (wierd considering he's never been in a church and isn't even sure there is a god),
(...)
Ok what is weird about that?
I dont believe in a god. I was raised religious, but I have seen too much crap in my not-so-long life to believe in a god because
A - If there would be a god, the trouble I have seen, mine and others, would not have happened.
B - If god does excist he either doesnt care about it, or he is unable to do something about it. I dont need either of those gods.
Yet I have high morals too. Please explain to me why you need to be a christian to have morals? Altough I am sure you didn't mean it that way, it sounded disrepecting.
-
I like Jimmy Carter, and he is the last Democratic President I have respect for. But he was somewhat of a dick because he weakened our military at a time when it didn't really need to be weakened. His inability to deal with Iran when our hostages were taken is illustrative of how America allowed itself to be pushed around by terrorists (and I might add is the first time in my knowledge of history Americans allowed hostages to be held for so long). He did this in the interests of peace, but he only showed terrorists America could be pushed around. It did us more harm than good.
-
Man alive, this is one amusing thread.
Saying that someone knows what is going on because they were in the Army? LOL, yes, that recognizes the fact that every single Private is kept in the loop of all political, back channel and domestic agendas is pretty funny.
Stating that because someone reads the paper or watches TV news so they know what is going on is even funnier. God knows they always get it exactly right, they have all the correct info, never put a slant on anything. RIGHT.
I do recognize is this, that if someone becomes president, they are probably not a completly upstanding person of the highest moral value. I also recognize that the media is very often slanted, not always in possesion of all the true facts, and in fact often just plain wrong.
I do not believe that we necessarily always have a great need to know that everything happening in our government when it might possibly effect national security.
I do believe Carter meant well, but also did terrific damage to our country. I strongly believe the Clinton had less moral character than nearly any president in our countries history. His actions probably deserved jail time, certainly more that adulation. AND he did do tremendous damage out our intelligence community and military.
I think Reagan had what he believed was the countries best interests at heart, and he made some mistakes in his drive to serve our country.
Thats my opinion, and it is with gratitude that I recognize my ability to have my own opinion and state it, and know that it is because so many great men served our country from the beginning of our nation through today that gives me the rights I enjoy.
Dago
-
Amazing. More of the ridiculous drivel from right and left about how the other side is evil, is running some sort of conspiracy, accusations of hideous crimes against humanity. Who are the criminals here? They didn't vote themselves into office.
Let's see. From the right we have accusations that the leftist-liberal limp-wristed wimps (a ridiculous accusation and choice of epithets if I ever heard one) have consistently set up bad economies for Republican presidents, that are trying to push socialism on us (ridiculous, if you'd pay attention to where Democrats really tend to stand on political spectrum - and it's definitely center-left), and have weak morals and no spine. The last accusation is, of course, ridiculous as well. Democrats have no more or less morals overall than their Republican counterparts, and what politicians have morals usually choose to ignore them. The implication that not going to church or being Christian implies low morals is a classic roadkill conservative line. I have a friend who happens to be an atheist Republican. I wonder if he knows how Bush Sr.'s administration regarded Atheism?
From the left, we have accusations the rightist conservative lemmings (just as silly; I've heard the same comparison made to liberals) consistently are the ones who commit crimes against other peoples and nations, be it by bombing them, invading them, deprivingly them of resources, or what have you. The reality is that neither right nor left in this country has a good record here. The Republican administrations have been consistently left the slack with tense situations that arose during Democratic administrations. If they deal with that in the only way that Republicans seem to consistently like, who's really to blame? After all, what did you expect? We know about the military operations initiated by the Republican administrations: Libya, Iran, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom. But what's on the Democratic slate? Vietnam (it was Kennedy who sent in the advisors and Johnson who sent in the troops, remember), Bosnia, Desert Fox (an operation that military analysts tend to agree was mostly ineffective), and Kosovo, which is an entirely seperate discussion.
Remember that it was Nixon who pulled the troops out of Vietnam (a simplification, I know). For the record, this was not to further the cause of peace, but because of overwhelming public opinion.
The short answer is that no one, and no major political party in this country has a leg to stand on. Heck, most of the minor parties don't either. I'll freely admit that I stand pretty far to the left, but it's a complicated world. I wouldn't vote for Ralph Nader, for example. I don't trust him anymore than I do Clinton, Bush, or Gore. The only thing I can do is try and choose someone that I believe will help not only this country, but the world at large. That someone has not been Reagan. It has not been either Bush. It hasn't been Clinton. But the right person will not come about with the current national or global political and economical situation. The system needs some revising and revitalization from the ground up. Is our system doomed? No, of course not, and I hope it never is. I do not want the USA to fall, I do not want a total restructuring of the world order. I want a world where people understand the fundamental fact about being humans: we simply aren't going to agree on everything. Not even close. A world where people take responsibilty for the fact that "life isn't fair" and do something about it, and where people understand that not only is there a need for self-responsibility but for responsibility for one's fellow man and woman (yes, I hate PC as well. Don't get started).
So why the hell are we trying to lay the blame down one the shoulders of some party or group? This system is our system, in case you've forgotten, and we all have a responsibility for and to it. Forget about trying to pin the bad guy, and focus on improving what we've got. We're never going to find the guy who's ultimately responsible for what's messed up in the world. Why waste our breath? We're going to disagree and fight about things; might as well make sure we're fighting about the important things.
So, to step back from the political slugmatch, I'll look at the important issue at hand. From the standpoint of any American, this is a bad thing. I know that it means there's no dirt to dig up on Clinton - so what? God knows he's got a cemetary's worth of dirt on him. Being liberal doesn't mean I don't want to know how Clinton screwed the country over. But don't take that to mean I want to hear the Republican whines and hints about how we've "not yet to find out all the horrible things he did to this nation." No toejam. I'm waiting with baited breath to find out what Reagan did as well. Because he was no more a great president than Bush or Clinton were.
So, that's that. The irony is that I know I'm going to be flamed big time for this post :rolleyes:. Oh well, nothing new there.
Far leftist-liberal, completely unassociated with or enamored in any way of any party in this country, checking out,
-ispar
-
Ispar that was beautiful. I have a tear in my eye. I wish I could say it like that. Way to go, now let em come back with a reply :)
-
Originally posted by Keez
Sorry I make two posts after eachother, just had to chip in here.... :D
Ok what is weird about that?
No offense intended, just making an analogy. Generally speaking, my Grandfather lives his life the way most "christians" are taught and expected to live. (My pop was a minister so I have an "idea", not that I agree with it, I just had it crammed down my throat till I was 15). Where he learned this is beyond me. Having never been to church, and he only completed the 8th grade (even wierder considering how loaded he his, goes to show the real value of opportunity in this country) which was no joke a one room school house in the boondocks of Arkansas. (this guy really did walk over 3 miles to school, barefoot in the summer and had to cross a river otw lol, no joke he took me on that walk once..unbelievable). His moral values are very much in-tune with "christian" beliefs. But of course this is not limited to christian, the similarities between philosophies and doctrines of various religions may suprise you. I'll try and clarify better next time.
-
Originally posted by Keez
I cant believe I read that. When someone finds out that a president has done something dumb, inresponsible, stupid, dangerous, or whatever, you silly Americans always do the same.
The people who voted for the president say that the info comes from the other side, and that it is just meant to make the president look bad.
The people who didnt vote for the guy jump up and down on tables screaming what went wrong.
You Amewicans awe so cute ;)
Now my point of view as a journalist...
The media is often referred to as the guardian of democracy (among other things which I wont mention here ;) ). Reporters, beeing the leeches that we are, always watch every step of every official, hoping that he falls so we have a new item for prime time tv.
This keeps the government in line, the public always knows what the government is doing and if the public doesnt like it, they protest. THIS IS WHAT SEPPERATES US FROM STATES LIKE AFGHANISTAN where people have no say, and any comment on the people leading the country is punished by death or severe butt spanking.
Now what Bush does with that act is limiting the field of view for the media and other researchers, so they can do what they want. Presidents can now not be held accountable for their acts. That is a dangerous thing, as it takes us one step closer to the people you Americans were at war with. Or are at war with, I dont know.
Any person that actually literally says "I think it's a good thing Bush is doing".... well I dont know what to say, I just cant imagine it.
Oh give me a break. Journalists in the U.S. are far and away slewed to the left and are anything but unbiased. IF "Journalists" spent half as much energy watchdogging Democrats this country would be turned upside down. As for limiting access to information? Can't say we know or if we need to but guess what....lol He's NOT LYING TO A COURT about anything.
-
Originally posted by ispar
Far leftist-liberal, completely unassociated with or enamored in any way of any party in this country, checking out,
-ispar
Good thing I saw this first. Point being...your point is moot, therefore why would I bother? :D
-
Eh? What point are you trying to make Tumor? The entire point of my post was not to take a position based on party lines. I feel that the politics in this country have degenerated into left/right Democrat/Republican bashing, which is completely counter-productive to solving the problems we are presented with today. The point was that the system we have is on the right track, but it needs work; as it stands the primary motivator for politicians is power and money. Those that don't stoop to the level of constantly trying to discredit or undermine the position of other people or parties tend not to do very well.
Competition and dispute are very important tools, but as it is politics is a restrictive and cutthroat occupation. And we, the public, buy into it! The political situation in this country has become a bloody soap opera, with parties vying only to be on top through "facts" or "accomplishments" that are of very little real value. For example, the Republicans gloat about how "actually, the combined wealth of Democratic congress members is greater than that of the Republicans." Yeah, so? The Democrats wave Social Security and welfare around like some sort of rallying banner, despite the fact that most people really don't know what is actually being done with it, and by whom. I don't believe there are many presidents that have really had any resounding effects on either Social Security or welfare.
We the public have let this get out of hand because most of us are poorly informed and don't really care. We'd rather pay attention to the latest government scandal, and join everyone in despising the Gary Condit of the week. This is where the accusations of conservative and liberal lemmings come in. The fact is, most people do fit this stereotype. They see the party line, and follow it. They make a knee jerk decision based on party alignment, conservatism or liberalism, and leave it at that.
Because of that, we have liberals, who are liberal and tolerant of you as long as you agree with them. But if you don't, you are immediately stigmatized and labeled as intolerant. They don't seem to see the irony in this.
Because of this, we have conservatives who jump on everything as "PC" and wishy-washy. They don't seem to realize that PC comes from the part of the Democratic party that makes up the opposite end of the spectrum from the conservative-christian fundamentalist types. You know, the ones who jump on everything as immoral and ungodly, who get their panties in a twist over "taking God out of schools and government."
From both sides we have people who want to tell everyone else how to live their lives. The vast majority of politics these days is trying to force everyone to live by your rules. News flash people! That's not how we're going to get everyone to get along, because as you can see, people will resist! People do not like to be told that they are living incorrectly. But we are constantly wasting our breath trying to get people to live the way we do, instead of realizing that people are different, instead of trying to find ways to work with the fact that people are going to live in different ways.
So, for example, you don't like homosexuality? Fine. I'm not going to tell you that you have to think it's acceptable. But in return for that, could you show respect to your fellow human beings? Hate the sin, if you must, but please don't interfere in their lives, and I won't interfere in yours. If they're going to hell, it's their business, after all. And if you're going to heaven, that's your business. Please don't prosyletize to me or them. You don't want to hear it from them, and we don't want to hear it from you. Fair's fair.
You see, it's about mutual respect. There's room for that in both conservatism and liberalism. The time has come for a paradigm shift in modern politics. What are we waiting for?
-Ispar
-
Well, on almost all points I agree with you wholeheartedly. I do believe however that seperating yourself from either "side" or party is really worse than whichever you believe are "the bad guys" (for lack of better description..you get my drift). What congressman are you going to write to in order to have your voice heard? I do hope you vote because rest assured, if you have no vote (registered) you have no voice.
I guess the point to which I disagree is your focus on politics (parties) as those who are corrupting our system. Ok maybe not "corrupting, perhaps "hindering" is a better word. This is IMHO not the case. I really do believe the overall majority of our politicians are good natured people who really want whats best for our country. The worst part of our political system is the MEDIA. I may slam a Democrat now and then, I may badger your average liberal, however I do look at the issues from both sides and make my own decisions. Were I to listen to the Clinton News Network or FOX (or cod forbid Mark Bureau or Rush Limbaugh radio) like most folks do it's no wonder I'd want to crusade against the "bad guys". Ya I'm a conservative, I'm even willing to admit that I'm more liberal than....I'd like to admit lol. Most people are the same way I'd be willing to bet. Whats bad is slanted reporting. Journalists are the ones stirring the part into a nasty brew.
-
Re vote, etc. Well, there's the rub. I find myself in a difficult position there. You're right actually, the system as a whole isn't the problem. Even the parties aren't the problem, in a sense. The problem seems to be with, as you said, the media (be it slanted left or right), with "follow the leader" constituents, and with the emphasis on "king of the hill" style campaigning and rhetoric.
Many people sign themselves up as liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, and then just don't think about it. They don't consider that they don't have to fit into a specific political mold. That's why I refuse to identify myself as Democratic anymore; though I'm most likely to support a Democrat, they still represent plenty of things that I find distasteful. And Republicans do occasionally get something right ;).
The final thing that bugs me? As I mentioned, the "my way or the highway," "live my way not yours" holier-than-thou debates, discussions, and monologues. It's very rare that you see anything like what you've mentioned in another thread about how you relate to people whose lifestyle is repulsive to you. I'll grant that this is less common in national level decision-making and politics than it is in ideological forums. Liberal or conservative, no one likes to be lectured. I'm guessing this is one of the points on which you concur?
So it's not all doom and gloom, but many things are in need of work.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Only if shrub and Nazicroft get their way and block public access to his administrations documents.
What was so great about the drug dealing scum?
Was it his under the table deals with a known terrorist state?
Maybe his propping up that pineapple faced buffons regime?
How about sending the Marines into Beirut on a mission with no real objective and when they got blown to hell turning tail and running like the rat that he is?
Allowing Iranian sponsored terrorists to kidnap and assasinate the CIA station chief in Beirut w/o any response?
Or something to be REAL proud of, bombing children in Libya to "send a message"?
As far as criminals go Raygun and Shrub Sr make Nixon or Clinton look like boy scouts.
Yep, the republican party has a lot to answer for, to bad they're too cowardly to allow their mistakes/crimes to come into the public domain.
How you can call that rat **** scum "great" is beyond me.
:rolleyes:
Because he was a Republican! Don't you get it yet? Republican good, Democrat bad. Don't confuse the issues with actual facts.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Just more left wing Democrat sponsored liberal drivel designed to do nothing more than bring discredit on the (Republican) Office of the President of the United States. These people will dig for any tidbit of information they can slew thier direction and make the whole thing look terribly bad. Sorry guys but you'll have to dig allot deeper. Post this executive order for people to read rather than rely on some liberal doofus and his/her idea of what it means.
Btw, Reagan is already one of the greatest presidents the U.S. has ever had. So sorry...go sit in the corner and moan about it lol.
It is the administration Republican or Democrat that brings credit or discredit upon its self, not the press that reports it.
-
Weazel, are you unemployed?
-
Why?
Going to use it for another personal attack? :p
It seems to be your standard M.O. when it comes to my posts.
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Weazel, are you unemployed?
-
:eek: :eek: :mad: :mad: :mad: