NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right folks!

Bush has "temporarily relaxed" environmental rules on the oil and gasoline industries (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1887632&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

I can't help but wonder how "temporary" this will actually be, and, to quote another website...

"And is anyone else detecting a pattern here?

In the wake of Katrina, Bush suspends prevailing wage laws.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush basically suspends the Fourth Amendment and, at Gitmo, the right to a fair trial.

There is no tragedy, crisis or concern in this country that will go unmet by this administration ... with a boon to cronies or a bolstering of executive power."

That's right folks!

Bush has "temporarily relaxed" environmental rules on the oil and gasoline industries (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1887632&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

I can't help but wonder how "temporary" this will actually be, and, to quote another website...

"And is anyone else detecting a pattern here?

In the wake of Katrina, Bush suspends prevailing wage laws.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush basically suspends the Fourth Amendment and, at Gitmo, the right to a fair trial.

There is no tragedy, crisis or concern in this country that will go unmet by this administration ... with a boon to cronies or a bolstering of executive power."

I'm not totally clued up with US politics, but surely envrionmental laws are regulated by Congress, and not the President? (ditto wages)

In any case, whatever laws Bush has repealed or relaxed aren't working anyway, so why the fuss, anyway?

I'm not totally clued up with US politics, but surely envrionmental laws are regulated by Congress, and not the President? (ditto wages)

In any case, whatever laws Bush has repealed or relaxed aren't working anyway, so why the fuss, anyway?

It's the president who enforces the federal laws. While it may technically be illegal to do something, if the president promises not to press charges if you go ahead and do it, well, there's not really anything that Congress can do about it except impeach him for failing in his oath of office. Technically refusing to enforce a law violates his oath to "faithfully exectue the office."

But if Congress isn't willing to go that far then the president can "suspend" any law he pleases.

I'm not totally clued up with US politics, but surely envrionmental laws are regulated by Congress, and not the President? (ditto wages)

In any case, whatever laws Bush has repealed or relaxed aren't working anyway, so why the fuss, anyway?
Executive Orders for how he can do that.

As for the second bit...I guess to some people it's the principle of the matter. Of course, it's far too little far too late, so far as some people, such as PD and TG are concerned, when it comes to energy, but meh. Me? I say: whatever.

It is most definitly not the President that enforces federal laws, that is for the Supreme Court. Even in an impeachment of the President, the Chief Justice ranks above the President.

It is most definitly not the President that enforces federal laws, that is for the Supreme Court. Even in an impeachment of the President, the Chief Justice ranks above the President.

Actually the beaurocracy enforces the federal laws, which is right under the executive branch. However, if the pressie throws a tantrum and decided not to enforce a law, congress can stop funding that agency of the beaurocracy. The supreme court can't do much outside of the trial.

It is most definitly not the President that enforces federal laws, that is for the Supreme Court. Even in an impeachment of the President, the Chief Justice ranks above the President.
WRONG, the Supreme Court INTERPRETS the laws to the Constitution. Congress makes the laws the President is supposed to enforce.

I can't help but wonder how "temporary" this will actually be, and, to quote another website...

Probably as temporary as Franklin D. Roosevelt's socialist programs from the Great Depression.

In all seriousness, what do you want him to do? What is the alternative? Should we follow the lead of his opponents, sit on our hands and do nothing while we remain dependent upon the very nations who want to destroy us for oil? Maybe we can tax people more, that's always worked for Democrats.

The fact of the matter is that not only are we dependent upon oil, we are dependent upon the wrong people for oil. If the situation is going to ever be rectified, we need to a) ween ourselves off of oil dependency (which Bush has proposed) and b) in the interim, obtain oil from our own resources (which Bush has proposed).

If you have a better idea, by all means share it.

But I guess when you hate a person enough, there's nothing they can do right...

Ah well, maybe a bit of extra smog coming your way. But yeah, meh.

Probably as temporary as Franklin D. Roosevelt's socialist programs from the Great Depression.

Because socialism is eeeeeviillll!

But I guess when you hate a person enough, there's nothing they can do right...
Actually, even as an oil man he is pretty ignorant and incompetent. He doesn't actually understand the energy industry - his sole experience of it is that a long time ago he had a big office, a big desk and no actual responsibility. Sure, he can give it tax breaks, but he has no strategic vision for it, and lacks even the general background education necessary to sketch one. There are oil company interns out there who have a better grasp of the situation. He can't do it right because he is the wrong man for the job.

It is most definitly not the President that enforces federal laws, that is for the Supreme Court. Even in an impeachment of the President, the Chief Justice ranks above the President.

No. The Judicial branch, of which the Supreme Court is a part, interprets the laws.

e.g.
Congress writes a law banning abortion.
President enforces the law and has FBI arrest a doctor who performs an abortion.
Supreme Court looks at the law and decides that the imposition into people's private lives is too big a cost for any possible benifit to national security or trade regularity that the Federal Government has not right to write such a law.

Then the law no longer exists, so the President has nothing to enforce.

Actually, even as an oil man he is pretty ignorant and incompetent. He doesn't actually understand the energy industry - his sole experience of it is that a long time ago he had a big office, a big desk and no actual responsibility. Sure, he can give it tax breaks, but he has no strategic vision for it, and lacks even the general background education necessary to sketch one. There are oil company interns out there who have a better grasp of the situation. He can't do it right because he is the wrong man for the job.
A shame at that. You think the oil companies might be taking it in their own hands, though? Or just raking in what little profits they can still take?

No. The Judicial branch, of which the Supreme Court is a part, interprets the laws.


...and has FBI arrest a doctor who performs an abortion.


Then the law no longer exists, so the President has nothing to enforce.

Actually the FBI has to get the local authorities to arrest a suspect. :D

Bush can do anything he wants because the people think that his party are the most patriotic, most religious and best for the economy.

Bush can do anything he wants because the people think that his party are the most patriotic, most religious and best for the economy.

Less a third actually approve of what he's doing and much less than that would actually stand up for him.

Bush can do anything he wants because the people think that his party are the most patriotic, most religious and best for the economy.
Thanks for that uneducated comment. Would you like me to comment on how good olde Blair is performing?

As Luporum said, only a third support him now, overall. Most of that third is in the Bible belt/redneck south, no doubt.

Thanks for that uneducated comment. Would you like me to comment on how good olde Blair is performing?

As Luporum said, only a third support him now, overall. Most of that third is in the Bible belt/redneck south, no doubt.


Actually, I think the only state that has him above a 50% approval (slightly) is Utah.

It begs the question: "How the HELL did this moron get re-elected?"

Actually, I think the only state that has him above a 50% approval (slightly) is Utah.

It begs the question: "How the HELL did this moron get re-elected?"
At the time of the elections, the country was polarized. I believe I even posted on NS about it, under my old PIcaRDMPCia account. Basically, the Dems ran on an "ANYBODY BUT BUSH" platform and chose a candidate that was just...not...good...and as such, coupled with said candidate's inability to fend off sleasy attacks on his record and the whole gay rights issue, Bush managed a slight majority. Something ~52-48% I think.

Basically, the Dems ran on an "ANYBODY BUT BUSH" platform

The thing is, that should have been enough.

Thanks for that uneducated comment
Any time.

Would you like me to comment on how good olde Blair is performing?
Feel free. It would be a nice change. Better to create a new thread than hijack this one though. Not sure I'd call Blair old though, and he's certainly not very good either.

As Luporum said, only a third support him now, overall. Most of that third is in the Bible belt/redneck south, no doubt.
Well, he can do anything he wants until the next election then.

The thing is, that should have been enough.
Not for the independents and other swing voters that are the real focus of any election. They needed a strong candidate as well, and Kerry just wasn't it.

Kzord: Anything he wants within the limits set down by the Constitution, of course. Not that he's been too good about staying in those boundries...but impeachment would just rally support around him again...so, we really are stuck.

The thing is, that should have been enough.

Kerry saying things like: "I supported the war in Iraq, but I didn't support the war in Iraq." which if you knew enough made complete sense as he voted against the war but later voted to fund the war.

Bush was a much better speaker; Kerry seemed to alienated from the people.

and he still almost lost...*shakes head*

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush basically suspends the Fourth Amendment and, at Gitmo, the right to a fair trial.
Technically that's the result of the aftermath in of the fall of Japan, particularly in the Philippines in WWII. The war crimes trials in Manilla were described as a race to the gallows. Many of the Japanese prisoners, due to their people's poor treatment of the American POWs and their brutal oppression of the locals were hung because of their nationality. While many were likely guilty and deserving of such a fate, we'll never know. The Supreme court decided that on foriegn soil the US Military keeps it's own council. Even if it deeply offends and shocks their own lawyers.

For all the pretense of "The Greatest Generation" and the "Moral Victory" of WWII. That's how they rolled. You fucked with them, they smoked you. Remember, this is a country as late as the late 60's if you were a black NFL player and you wanted to checkout Burbon Street in New Orleans, some white bouncer would pull a gun on you, in public. At the end of WWII, in Manilla, with everyone having friends, brothers, who died, hahaha. Yeah, bad time to be Japanese.

But the people from foriegn countries in Gitmo, they are alone in the jungle in the cold dark night. They can be killed and thrown into the sea and it's all perfectly legal, so long as the military decides it is. They either through circumstance or intent generally don't even have the shelter of treaties the US signed. Next time, join a club with a uniform.

That's right folks!

Bush has "temporarily relaxed" environmental rules on the oil and gasoline industries (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1887632&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

I can't help but wonder how "temporary" this will actually be, and, to quote another website...

"And is anyone else detecting a pattern here?

In the wake of Katrina, Bush suspends prevailing wage laws.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush basically suspends the Fourth Amendment and, at Gitmo, the right to a fair trial.

There is no tragedy, crisis or concern in this country that will go unmet by this administration ... with a boon to cronies or a bolstering of executive power."


All these things are the result of people pressuring the President to "do something, anything" about issues over which he has little to no control.

We need to increase supply. Suspending the laws that prevent new refinery construction and expansion will help. So will increased exploration in US territory for new oil.

This president is very disappointing. I voted for him-I was fooled into believing that he is a conservative. I hope that I have a better choice next time.

:(

If people didn't complain so much about gas prices and blame him for it, he wouldn't have done it. Bush's primary concern is the 2006 election, and if his party's performance is being hurt by high gas prices that are, in reality, perfectly justified by market conditions he has to take action to lower them and prevent political fallout.

Face it, the price of crude makes up 51% of the price of gasoline. So, if the price of crude is up by 25% since the beginning of the year the crude component of gasoline will rise by a similar amount; after adding in taxes and marketing/refining costs it comes out to $2.65 a gallon.

Add on the speculative elements surrounding ethanol and the clean diesel mandate and the drawdowns in reformulated gasoline (and that's where all of the gasoline drawdowns are coming from now) and the price is fully justified, if not on the low side. Once refineries come back on and the ethanol switchover is complete, prices will moderate but any significant movement will not occur without a fall in the price of crude.

At least high prices are driving a boom in public transportation and flex fuel cars. Maybe we'll finally see a return to carpooling...if we boost the average number of passengers per car to two or three we might cut down on gasoline consumption by as much as 50% if those drivers replace their individual commute with carpooling.

You think the oil companies might be taking it in their own hands, though? Or just raking in what little profits they can still take?
The companies are raking in big sexy cash, and would still be doing so no matter who was in power. The question is, will those companies be in a position to transfer their expertise to other areas (eg pile-driving at sea is broadly similar whether you're building an oil platform or a wind farm), or will they end up as commodity trading houses, creaming off what the rest of the world is still prepared to export (perhaps under coercion), while playing no significant role in the technological and economic adaptation of the rest of society?

It doesn't really matter to energy companies. They will make money whatever happens. Remember that Shell survived two world wars, military occupation of one of its home countries, the siege of the other and then the fall of the European empires. Social impacts neither concern, nor affect them. Thus true leadership is nudging people in the right direction, considering the path they will be treading when you are dead.

Can Bush do it? :rolleyes:

You see ladies and gentlemen, the answer is quite simple.

By temporary, our dear president simply means just long enough for our entire ecosystem to implode on itself and kill us all. Because then, the evil corporate scum will take over the world. Because they aren't human and require only oil and gold to survive.

Screw "God Bless America."

Make it "God Save America."

I'm not gonna even get into the numerous things wrong with this country, nevermind Bush.

It's a myriad of problems that seem to collide onto eachother and cause each problem to worsen, and nobody does anything to try to solve them.


This "suspension" isn't the solution. Bush is a horrible president, and by proxy, a horrible human being.

Actually, even as an oil man he is pretty ignorant and incompetent. He doesn't actually understand the energy industry - his sole experience of it is that a long time ago he had a big office, a big desk and no actual responsibility. Sure, he can give it tax breaks, but he has no strategic vision for it, and lacks even the general background education necessary to sketch one. There are oil company interns out there who have a better grasp of the situation. He can't do it right because he is the wrong man for the job.

AND YET...no one has come forth with a better idea.

All everyone ever does is whine and gripe how awful this man is and yet not a single of them - and John Kerry was a prime example of this - can come up with betters ideas on how to solve problems in this country. Is Bush brilliant in solving problems? Absolutely not, but he's the only one even trying in this cesspool of lazy liberals who would rather sit in a lounge chair and criticize the quarterback instead of getting out there on the football field and calling the shots.

Yes, Bush is imperfect, but when all the opposition does is whine about him, it doesn't help their case very much.

All everyone ever does is whine and gripe how awful this man is and yet not a single of them - and John Kerry was a prime example of this - can come up with betters ideas on how to solve problems in this country.
Because they're dumbasses. Duh. :rolleyes:

You want ideas, you don't listen to people who think an old piece of paper entitles them to have their voice heard. Ask industry experts. You know, the ones whose names are not generally known, whose opinions the press does not solicit, who have confidentiality clauses in their contracts, etc. The technical-managerial elite actually running the country's infrastructure. That's where the ideas are. Go elect a man who will ask them, and your problem is solved.

Bush can do anything he wants because the people think that his party are the most patriotic, most religious and best for the economy.
WTF? :eek: :confused:
The ONLY people that think that now are the people in his party, the ones who haven't already jumped ship due to his admin's colossal incompetence, woeful ignorance, blatant duplicity, vapid rationale, excremental value judgments, and arrogant disdain for consequence.
Really, those people probably split to salvage what little self-respect they have ... before this smegma of an administration finishes the gang-rape of the U.S. citizen, taxpayer, and fellow passengers of this embattled earth.

The thing is, that should have been enough.
:(





Apparently, it isn't just the conservatives that are agonizingly slow learners.