Bush administration planning burst of regulations.

[herm0016]

any of you actually think that the government does not already do all this and more? I am going to guess that these regulations will put rules to things that are already going on without rules.

 

[Modelworks]

I think Bush may be the first president to get a below zero approval rating. At which point people begin egging the white house.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: palehorse

The proposed regulation "would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to collect intelligence on individuals and organizations even if the information is unrelated to any criminal matter,"

That's some scary shit.

Honestly, not sure why they're doing this, it's just going to make me like Obama more (and I don't like him much at all, voted for McCain) if he repeals this stuff.

You don't think his "Civilian National Security" force won't be doing the same thing?

Not a chance in hell would they be doing the same thing.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, the change.org site had some information regarding intelligence gathering. I was able to grab a snippet and post it here in another thread. Here:

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Don't just read that part of this site. Check this out, this is scary!

http://www.change.gov/agenda/homelandsecurity/

Improve Intelligence Capacity and Protect Civil Liberties
#

Improve Information Sharing and Analysis: Barack Obama will improve our intelligence system by creating a senior position to coordinate domestic intelligence gathering; establishing a grant program to support thousands more state and local level intelligence analysts and increasing our capacity to share intelligence across all levels of government.

Gestapo anyone? All the BS about how the telco immunities were wrong, then flipping the script, and now IMPLEMENTING MORE DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE shows you he isn't removing government power/intrusion but EXPANDING IT. Thank you and have a good day.

Obama is not the savior people think he is.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I think Bush may be the first president to get a below zero approval rating. At which point people begin egging the white house.

You must be including illegals in the vote

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: sactoking
Silly question: WHY would it be so hard for Obama to nullify these?

If it's an Executive Order or Executive Regulation, why can't the current/new Executive Officer just issue a new order that says "Hey, you know how you were told to do this 61 days ago? We're not doing it that way any more."?

Exactly. I don't see what the panic is about.

UNLESS of course this is not overturned by the next president / congress.

Let's face it though. GWB sucks at life. If repubs couldn't admit it before, they should be able to now. How is it "conservative" to spy on your own citizens?

To change environmental regulations, the administration has to comply with NEPA, conducting some level of environmental analysis. This takes time during which the existing regs stand. So if the Bushies can get valid environmental impact statements (EIS) completed for their regs and the regs published before they leave office, the new regs stick until new regs are developed and NEPA analysis is completed. With proper application of lawsuits, it can take years to complete a valid EIS. What the incoming Omaba admin can look at is the validity of the EISs used to support the Bush regs. If the EISs are faulty then the Obama admin can overturn them, get sued, request the regs be stayed pending the outcome of the case, and hope for the best in court. If the stay is granted, the regs return to what they were prior to the Bush changes. As a point of reference, the Clinton admin's Northwest Forest Plan and Roadless Rule regulations are still tied up in litigation with those rules and Bush's changes coming into and out of force as various courts rule on the validity of the Bush EISs.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan
Not going to happen. This isn't Red China, whose own people don't care nearly as much about civil liberties as we do.

Really? Warrantless wiretapping has happened millions of times. I don't see the lemmings taking to the streets over that, as they should. This will pass, too, to save everyone from the boogeyman.

Millions of times on Americans? Since when? Link?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan
Not going to happen. This isn't Red China, whose own people don't care nearly as much about civil liberties as we do.

Really? Warrantless wiretapping has happened millions of times. I don't see the lemmings taking to the streets over that, as they should. This will pass, too, to save everyone from the boogeyman.

Millions of times on Americans? Since when? Link?

You like to argue semantics don't you? There is no possible way to prove that millions were but it can be assumed by way of rooms like this.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan
Not going to happen. This isn't Red China, whose own people don't care nearly as much about civil liberties as we do.

Really? Warrantless wiretapping has happened millions of times. I don't see the lemmings taking to the streets over that, as they should. This will pass, too, to save everyone from the boogeyman.

Millions of times on Americans? Since when? Link?

You like to argue semantics don't you? There is no possible way to prove that millions were but it can be assumed by way of rooms like this.

I like how you think needing proof for an accusation is "semantics". :laugh:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
According to Politico.com:

It could take Obama years to undo climate rules finalized more than 60 days before he takes office ? the advantage the White House sought by getting them done by Nov. 1. But that strategy doesn?t account for the Congressional Review Act of 1996.

The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on the 15th legislative day of the new Congress, likely sometime in February. Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can?t be filibustered in the Senate.

In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress.

Wow, wouldn't that be hilarious? All of these midnight regulations wiped out by one Congressional vote? All because the Bush Administration didn't do the math correctly?

:laugh:

I don't know if I can contain my derisive laughter.

Yeah, Maddow had this on last night:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15530.html

So this whole thing sounds pretty moo right now.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan
Not going to happen. This isn't Red China, whose own people don't care nearly as much about civil liberties as we do.

Really? Warrantless wiretapping has happened millions of times. I don't see the lemmings taking to the streets over that, as they should. This will pass, too, to save everyone from the boogeyman.

Millions of times on Americans? Since when? Link?

You like to argue semantics don't you? There is no possible way to prove that millions were but it can be assumed by way of rooms like this.

I like how you think needing proof for an accusation is "semantics". :laugh:

Link me to exact numbers of people being wiretapped. How about those "facts" you clearly have not provided? I can play your bullshit game too.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan
Not going to happen. This isn't Red China, whose own people don't care nearly as much about civil liberties as we do.

Really? Warrantless wiretapping has happened millions of times. I don't see the lemmings taking to the streets over that, as they should. This will pass, too, to save everyone from the boogeyman.

Millions of times on Americans? Since when? Link?

You like to argue semantics don't you? There is no possible way to prove that millions were but it can be assumed by way of rooms like this.

I like how you think needing proof for an accusation is "semantics". :laugh:

No, reading the word "millions" and taking it literally, instead of understanding that by saying ("millions) he really means ("a shitload" / "lots" / "many"), That's arguing semantics. Dipshit.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Silly question: WHY would it be so hard for Obama to nullify these?

If it's an Executive Order or Executive Regulation, why can't the current/new Executive Officer just issue a new order that says "Hey, you know how you were told to do this 61 days ago? We're not doing it that way any more."?

It isn't, but my guess is he won't.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: sactoking
Silly question: WHY would it be so hard for Obama to nullify these?

If it's an Executive Order or Executive Regulation, why can't the current/new Executive Officer just issue a new order that says "Hey, you know how you were told to do this 61 days ago? We're not doing it that way any more."?

It isn't, but my guess is he won't.

It actually WAS difficult in the past.

Previously (BC (Before Clinton)), if a president put forth new regulations prior to his exodus from office, Congress had to create new laws that would alter the ability to enforce or carry out the regulations.

Now, it's not quite so easy.

You see, the Repubs wanted power so badly and they feared Clinton so much, that when they took over in 1996, they passed the Congressional Review Act of 1996 which Clinton signed into law on March 29, 1996.

They didn't want him to have the ability to do what Dumbya is trying to do so they passed that wonderful piece of legislation which allowed for Congressional approval or reversal of such shenanigans.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blcra.htm

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Obama is not the savior you think people think he is.

Fixed.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: palehorse

The proposed regulation "would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to collect intelligence on individuals and organizations even if the information is unrelated to any criminal matter,"

That's some scary shit.

Honestly, not sure why they're doing this, it's just going to make me like Obama more (and I don't like him much at all, voted for McCain) if he repeals this stuff.

You don't think his "Civilian National Security" force won't be doing the same thing?

Not at all!!

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan
Not going to happen. This isn't Red China, whose own people don't care nearly as much about civil liberties as we do.

Really? Warrantless wiretapping has happened millions of times. I don't see the lemmings taking to the streets over that, as they should. This will pass, too, to save everyone from the boogeyman.

Millions of times on Americans? Since when? Link?

You like to argue semantics don't you? There is no possible way to prove that millions were but it can be assumed by way of rooms like this.

I like how you think needing proof for an accusation is "semantics". :laugh:

Link me to exact numbers of people being wiretapped. How about those "facts" you clearly have not provided? I can play your bullshit game too.

Huh? The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine, since I never once claimed I knew the exact or even general number.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

No, reading the word "millions" and taking it literally, instead of understanding that by saying ("millions) he really means ("a shitload" / "lots" / "many"), That's arguing semantics. Dipshit.

The point flew way, way over your head. Kiddie.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Evan
Huh? The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine, since I never once claimed I knew the exact or even general number.

Given what we know about the program, it would be trivial to argue that the NSA listens to ALL American's conversations and reads all of our e-mail, as they sift through looking for keywords.