dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:To summarize the evil regulations:

Bush's midnight regulations will:

• Make it easier for coal companies to dump waste from strip-mining into valleys and streams.

• Ease the building of coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks.

• Allow people to carry loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.

• Open up millions of acres to mining for oil shale.

• Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights.

• Hurt road safety by allowing truck drivers to stay at the wheel for 11 consecutive hours.

None of which is as consequential as Clinton's people being big meanies to Bush's people.

dajafi wrote:What I've read (here, for one) is that while, yes, all administrations push hard on "midnight regulations," the Bushies are taking it to an unprecedented extent. Just like with signing statements and pretty much any other notional prerogative of presidential power. (Pardons are a different story, though they all do that too--see Bush I with his blanket forgiveness of all the Iran-Contra lawbreakers.)

Oh, and there's this:

The Washington Post reports that "at the last minute, the Bush administration insisted on a one-sentence change" to a provision in the bank bailout bill which has now "effectively repealed the only enforcement mechanism in the law dealing with lavish pay for top executives."

Given that Bush's whole miserable life has been an exercise in tasting the fruits of success despite egregious failure, I guess he gets a point for consistency here. Or maybe he just wants other rich guys barely smart enough to feed and dress themselves to visit him in retirement.

This is maybe good in a way: every time I see stories like Blagojevich and Rangel and start thinking the Democrats are every bit as bad as the Republicans, the Rs one-up them with acts of such brazen greed and irresponsibility, and I go back to seeing the Ds as clearly the lesser evil.

pacino wrote:Clintons did it!

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Clintons did it!

So it's not unprecedented.

Edit: And Cartertoo!

Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights.

Bakestar wrote:I'm definitely not a contractor or anything, but wouldn't $15,000 in repairs be within the reasonable bounds for a rather large office renovation/changeover?

pacino wrote:

Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights.

No, weaken the rights of all patients period, for any treatment. Poor people in rural areas are screwed if someone just decides they can't do something for whatever moral reason.

YOU ARE A DOCTOR/PHARMACIST. YOU CHOSE THIS JOB. NOW DO IT.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights.

No, weaken the rights of all patients period, for any treatment. Poor people in rural areas are screwed if someone just decides they can't do something for whatever moral reason.

YOU ARE A DOCTOR/PHARMACIST. YOU CHOSE THIS JOB. NOW DO IT.

You think Doctors should be compelled to do what the patient wants? That's scary, and turns the patient-doctor on its head.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:To summarize the evil regulations:

Bush's midnight regulations will:

• Make it easier for coal companies to dump waste from strip-mining into valleys and streams.

• Ease the building of coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks.

• Allow people to carry loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.

• Open up millions of acres to mining for oil shale.

• Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights.

• Hurt road safety by allowing truck drivers to stay at the wheel for 11 consecutive hours.

None of which is as consequential as Clinton's people being big meanies to Bush's people.

The analogy breaks down. Clinton didn't give Bush and his people security people because "the election was still in doubt." Then they caused about 15K in damage on the way out. This is in contrast to the quick clearance of Obama people, and including his team in policy discussions. We'll see what happens to the White House when they leave.

The regulations that Clinton passed were not absent, just because I didn't feel like mentioning them. Here's some from my first google search. The first one's the best, since it's sort of a big deal:

Signing the statutein support of the ICC on the last day possible.
http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom/pr ... ress_id=39
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/Englis ... tter.shtml

dajafi wrote:But if what Bush is doing doesn't trouble you, and/or you're hung up on the usual Bush apologist tactic of CLINTON DIDDIT, so be it. I see no need to continue this any further.

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights.

No, weaken the rights of all patients period, for any treatment. Poor people in rural areas are screwed if someone just decides they can't do something for whatever moral reason.

YOU ARE A DOCTOR/PHARMACIST. YOU CHOSE THIS JOB. NOW DO IT.

You think Doctors should be compelled to do what the patient wants? That's scary, and turns the patient-doctor on its head.

You know exactly what I mean.

jerseyhoya wrote:It has to do with moral objections over dispensing legal treatments like the morning after pill. Not like a moral objection over a course of treatment being too risky or some such thing.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It has to do with moral objections over dispensing legal treatments like the morning after pill. Not like a moral objection over a course of treatment being too risky or some such thing.

or any other legal treatment. it can't just be about abortion and be a legal policy. if the patient is supposed to receive it for some condition or treatment, and you don't prescribe it or won't give it, you're a jerk who puts yourself above others

i don't understand how i even have to talk about this and defend it.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It has to do with moral objections over dispensing legal treatments like the morning after pill. Not like a moral objection over a course of treatment being too risky or some such thing.

or any other legal treatment. it can't just be about abortion and be a legal policy. if the patient is supposed to receive it for some condition or treatment, and you don't prescribe it or won't give it, you're a jerk who puts yourself above others

i don't understand how i even have to talk about this and defend it.

What rule would you pass?

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It has to do with moral objections over dispensing legal treatments like the morning after pill. Not like a moral objection over a course of treatment being too risky or some such thing.

or any other legal treatment. it can't just be about abortion and be a legal policy. if the patient is supposed to receive it for some condition or treatment, and you don't prescribe it or won't give it, you're a jerk who puts yourself above others

i don't understand how i even have to talk about this and defend it.

What rule would you pass?

What are you even talking about anymore? Did the past 40 years not work well enough?

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It has to do with moral objections over dispensing legal treatments like the morning after pill. Not like a moral objection over a course of treatment being too risky or some such thing.

or any other legal treatment. it can't just be about abortion and be a legal policy. if the patient is supposed to receive it for some condition or treatment, and you don't prescribe it or won't give it, you're a jerk who puts yourself above others

i don't understand how i even have to talk about this and defend it.

What rule would you pass?

What are you even talking about anymore? Did the past 40 years not work well enough?

You're so right that you don't care to explain what the rule would do? I'm confused. In your first post, you're talking about compelling doctors and pharmacists to do what the patient wants, and give them certain drugs. Now how do you justify this law? I agree with you on the morals of what you're trying to accomplish, but I think the law is not effective (because it could have a ton of unintended consequences, which you seem unwilling to entertain).

Poor people in rural areas are screwed if someone just decides they can't do something for whatever moral reason.