bascule Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Any speculations as to what Bush is going to do in his remaining months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Beer pong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Sign the new stimulus package being put forth by Pelosi and Reid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 He'll likely be pushing through a significant amount of deregulations as well: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004749.html The White House is working to enact an array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January. The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift existing constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms. A related regulation would ease limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants near national parks. A third rule would allow increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations. These rules "will force Americans to choke on dirtier air for years to come, unless Congress or the new administration reverses these eleventh-hour abuses," said lawyer John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Interesting. I would assume a slew of pardons on January 19th as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 I'll be curious to see if Bush tries to pardon himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I believe that's one of those classic unanswered constitutional questions, isn't it? That would be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 I believe that's one of those classic unanswered constitutional questions, isn't it? Yes, it's never happened before, and were it to happen I'm sure it would result in quite the drawn out legal battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 If I was him I'd hang out in the oval office naked and pee on all the furniture. Seriously, you've got be crazy not to "hit it" in the office ya know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 If he really wants to give Obama a hard time, he could invade Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 If he really wants to give Obama a hard time, he could invade Iran. Yeah, that certainly worries me, but I'd hope they wouldn't actually consider doing that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Pure fear mongering. There's no logical reason to suspect such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riogho Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 He's been a lame duck for the past 4 years. So he'll keep on doing what he's been doing. Recordificating our conversations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Pure fear mongering. There's no logical reason to suspect such a thing. There was no logical reason to suspect he would invade Iraq either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share Posted November 6, 2008 There was no logical reason to suspect he would invade Iraq either. Bush did a lot of chest thumping about how he was going to invade Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Yeah, that's one of things I used to bring up alot. Bush campaigned on Iraq and dealing with Saddam. In this, there was a logical reason to suspect he would antagonize which would further imply a potential invasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 There was no logical reason to suspect he would invade Iraq either. I disagree. But even then there was at least some indication of his intentions ahead of time, which is not the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share Posted November 6, 2008 I disagree. But even then there was at least some indication of his intentions ahead of time, which is not the case here. Yeah as much as I hate Bush, I can't really foresee him starting a war in his remaining three months in office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Of course the deregulation measures he's going to pass will be all for the wrong reasons. Consumer protection is at the way bottom of my list of "bad regulation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 I don't think the generals will let him start another war, look how thin resources are being stretched now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15530.html I've seen quite a bit of bluster lately about potential "midnight regulations" Bush might pass not being easily reversible. However, it appears Clinton-era regulations prevent that from being the case. The Bush Administration planned on finalizing all regulations by November 1st, however they did not take into account the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which states that any regulation finalized within 60 days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on Jan. 15, 2009. This affects all legislation finalized by October 3rd. The review is filibuster-proof, so a simple party line vote is all that's needed to overturn them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/11/20/bush.environment/index.html STORY HIGHLIGHTS - Animals and plants in danger of extinction could lose protection under new rules - Rules must be published by Friday to take effect before Obama is sworn in - Bush administration admit intent to complete endangered species changes quickly WASHINGTON (AP) -- Animals and plants in danger of becoming extinct could lose the protection of government experts who make sure that dams, highways and other projects don't pose a threat, under regulations the Bush administration is set to put in place before President-elect Obama can reverse them. If successful, the Bush administration will accomplish through rules what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 This kind of thing is yet more evidence that we are repeatedly electing immature children to be our president, despite the 35 year age requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 I didn't think I was voting for an immature child at the time. The reason I didn't think so is because any evidence to that effect was obscured by the rampant partisanship that forced open-minded people like myself to view such evidence with a massive grain of salt. The fact that, oh I don't know how about Michael Moore, turned out to be correct is just pot luck and I wasn't about to believe what he said at face value at the time. That's one of the reasons we have to clean up this partisanship and put it behind us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 I didn't think I was voting for an immature child at the time. The reason I didn't think so is because any evidence to that effect was obscured by the rampant partisanship that forced open-minded people like myself to view such evidence with a massive grain of salt. The fact that, oh I don't know how about Michael Moore, turned out to be correct is just pot luck and I wasn't about to believe what he said at face value at the time. That's one of the reasons we have to clean up this partisanship and put it behind us. That's a tremendously interesting point, Pangloss. "It's not my fault I chose wrongly on this issue, it was those evil partisan spinsters distracting me." I think there's valid reason to suggest that the spinsters drive that partisan wedge between us for explicitly that reason. I just am not ready to attribute my own mistakes to the "noise" in the system, but I find the central point you're making to be incredibly thought provoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now