I don't think this is a change from the prior (Bush's) order. By the prior terms, the president would simply never release the information, as there was no time limit.
I am sort of in shock...first interview not with USA?
- Thread starter Mr Bogus
- Start date
I don't think this is a change from the prior (Bush's) order. By the prior terms, the president would simply never release the information, as there was no time limit.
Actually I just had a discussion with someone I work with who explained it to me.
It is pretty much like Silver Surfer says.
If you read the current executive order by itself without any previous knowledge of how presidential records "were" handled then you could come away thinking what I thought, being it was a bad thing.
But someone I work with explained to me that before Bush there was a 30 day limit where a president was required to make an exemption to a record, if no exemption was made then after 30 days the archivisit could release the record. I had no previous knoweldge of the history of how presidential records were handled in regards to FIA
Bush inacted an executive order that basically made it so a president could hold on to any record as long as they wanted while they "reviewed it", essentially giveing a president an unlimited amount of time to "review" a record making it so it couldnt be released.
What Obama has done is re-enacted the 30 day rule.
So now that it was explained to me with the history of how it used to be it does seem that President Obama has made it so records can be more accesible.
I just wanted to throw this out there so everyone knows that I do try and be as fair as possible and that I do try and keep an open mind to everything
It is pretty much like Silver Surfer says.
If you read the current executive order by itself without any previous knowledge of how presidential records "were" handled then you could come away thinking what I thought, being it was a bad thing.
But someone I work with explained to me that before Bush there was a 30 day limit where a president was required to make an exemption to a record, if no exemption was made then after 30 days the archivisit could release the record. I had no previous knoweldge of the history of how presidential records were handled in regards to FIA
Bush inacted an executive order that basically made it so a president could hold on to any record as long as they wanted while they "reviewed it", essentially giveing a president an unlimited amount of time to "review" a record making it so it couldnt be released.
What Obama has done is re-enacted the 30 day rule.
So now that it was explained to me with the history of how it used to be it does seem that President Obama has made it so records can be more accesible.
I just wanted to throw this out there so everyone knows that I do try and be as fair as possible and that I do try and keep an open mind to everything
Last edited:
Yes, it will be interesting if something happens to Rush that removes his ability to speak his mind. We will see.
If nothing happens to him, then I wont be too concerned, but if he disapears or something.. then I will get worried
Thanks Much, I was not trying to be confrontational. I am not pleased with everything I am hearing, some of the anti-gun stuff really bothers me but I also don't think we should propogate things that are just plain wrong. If it is President Obama's desire to squash that type of reporting then I say more power to him. Way to many people on both sides putting out information that is out of context or just plain wrong and it clouds the truth.
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING.... Now Obama is going to be the "Truth Meter" in the presses...
you know what, this country is going to deserve what ever happens if this is the general consensus...
I am aghast that anyone would say something like this at all... Where were you when people were calling GW "Hitler" among other things?
Gee, that did come off wrong.
Please let me clarify because in retrospect it does not portray exactly what I meant.
The extremes on both the left and right use half truths in their reporting to generate emotional reactions. A good example is right in this thread. Reporting of that nature is irresponsible and provides no constructive value to our country. That said I in no way want to imply that it should be banned, censored or limited in any way. However I also see no problem for exposing it for what it is and marginalizing the talking heads that earn a living spewing it all over talk radio.
Now a woman....that's a whole different story....
Ain't it the truth.... ???
I would have to agree with Bogus on this SS, to think that our government, including the president has the ability to control the media to that level is disturbing.
I mean I do think there are some controls that need to be in place, primarily I think there should not be embeded reporters in combat zones.
I believe ever since there has been embeded media in combat zones it has cauused us problems. The media is biased and all embeded reporters do I provide them with the information they need to twist the facts which in the end hurts our country.
But I think government control of the media within our countries borders would be a huge mistake.
Gee, that did come off wrong.
Please let me clarify because in retrospect it does not portray exactly what I meant.
The extremes on both the left and right use half truths in their reporting to generate emotional reactions. A good example is right in this thread. Reporting of that nature is irresponsible and provides no constructive value to our country. That said I in no way want to imply that it should be banned, censored or limited in any way. However I also see no problem for exposing it for what it is and marginalizing the talking heads that earn a living spewing it all over talk radio.
Thanks for the clarification, you had me greatly worried
Gee, that did come off wrong.
Please let me clarify because in retrospect it does not portray exactly what I meant.
The extremes on both the left and right use half truths in their reporting to generate emotional reactions. A good example is right in this thread. Reporting of that nature is irresponsible and provides no constructive value to our country. That said I in no way want to imply that it should be banned, censored or limited in any way. However I also see no problem for exposing it for what it is and marginalizing the talking heads that earn a living spewing it all over talk radio.
Ya the way that came off I would have agreed with him too...I tried to clarify see above.
crawling back in off window ledge.....
) and Obama the second, will somebody please tell me chrome or charcoal powdercoat on the wheels? Here's the bike:Similar threads
