If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Media Matters)   Use of the phrase "Job Killing Regulations" in newspapers increased 17,550% from 2007 to 2011. Doubleplusgood   (mediamatters.org) divider line 303
    More: Stupid, malpractice, phrases  
•       •       •

1403 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Apr 2012 at 9:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



303 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-26 12:29:18 PM

MugzyBrown: Did the study factor out quotes? Probably not.


"Results were calculated by a LexisNexis search of U.S. newspapers and wires. Th e search term "job-killing w/1 (regulation!
or rule!)" was entered for each year, with a duplication fi lter eliminating highly-similar results. In 2007, the phrase appeared
4 times. In 2008, the count was at 17. By 2009, it had more than doubled, to 38. Th e frequency of use increased dramatically
in 2010, to 206 times, and then again in 2011, to 706 times. As of March 8, 2012, the phrase has appeared 78 times already
this year. See also Steven Pearlstein, 'Job-killing' regulation? 'Job-killing' spending? Let's kill this GOP canard, Wash. Post, Jan. 6,
2011 (calculating that the more generic phrase "job-killing" appeared over 11,000 times in news articles from 2009-2010)."

doesn't seem like it. 706 uses of the phrase in 4,000 news sources over the course of the year in 2011. Truly a pandemic.
 
2012-04-26 12:30:55 PM

Lionel Mandrake: BillCo: That is because we have a job killing president.

You mean the President with 25 straight months of job growth?

But never let facts get in the way of ideology, right?


One of these days I want someone like BillCo to cop to intentionally trolling, mostly because I don't want to think the USA has gotten the GOP it largely wants.

Though as the Teabaggers keep reminding us, the real world differs from how we would want it to work.
 
2012-04-26 12:31:23 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: and what was the percentage increase in the use of "Hope and Change" during that same period?


That all you got?
 
2012-04-26 12:31:36 PM
Did anyone count up "pay their fair share?"
 
2012-04-26 12:34:36 PM

Cletus C.: Did anyone count up "pay their fair share?"


Or "skin in the game"
 
2012-04-26 12:37:15 PM

born_yesterday: Huh. I expected that Billco's Boobies was just the first salvo in a well-prepared, well thought out argument.

I can't believe he just posted once and fled. That's just not like him.


Yeah, more than passing strange. Totally out of character. Hope he's alright.
 
2012-04-26 12:48:47 PM

numbone: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 620x429]

Not that he has done anything to curb it but over-regulation didn't start with Obama.


Damn that 9Bama and his time machine!
 
2012-04-26 12:54:54 PM

HeadLever: The fact of the matter is that the high cost of mining here in the states has created a boom in other parts of the world where environmental safeguards are pretty much non-existent.


To be honest, I don't give a fark if it's more costly to mine here. But you're right, it does cost more to mine here than in places like China because we don't treat our workers like slaves, which is the reason it's so much cheaper to mine in China. That and the fact there's virtually no regulations on how to mine there.

We've heard stories of miners trapped in mines in PA, WV and Utah who probably wouldn't have been stuck in the first place if the mining company didn't try to cut corners to save a few bucks. So I don't have any sympathy for a mining company in the states being upset that a safety or environmental regulation will cut into their profits.

So as long as the higher cost means a safer environment for our miners to mine in, then I'm all for it.
 
2012-04-26 01:00:36 PM
why don't these jokers just be honest and say "Maximized Profit Killing Regulations".
 
2012-04-26 01:02:37 PM

valar_morghulis: tenpoundsofcheese: and what was the percentage increase in the use of "Hope and Change" during that same period?

That all you got?


No. I got plenty more.
It was just a question that no one here could answer.
 
2012-04-26 01:04:20 PM

skullkrusher: MugzyBrown: Did the study factor out quotes? Probably not.

"Results were calculated by a LexisNexis search of U.S. newspapers and wires. Th e search term "job-killing w/1 (regulation!
or rule!)" was entered for each year, with a duplication fi lter eliminating highly-similar results. In 2007, the phrase appeared
4 times. In 2008, the count was at 17. By 2009, it had more than doubled, to 38. Th e frequency of use increased dramatically
in 2010, to 206 times, and then again in 2011, to 706 times. As of March 8, 2012, the phrase has appeared 78 times already
this year. See also Steven Pearlstein, 'Job-killing' regulation? 'Job-killing' spending? Let's kill this GOP canard, Wash. Post, Jan. 6,
2011 (calculating that the more generic phrase "job-killing" appeared over 11,000 times in news articles from 2009-2010)."

doesn't seem like it. 706 uses of the phrase in 4,000 news sources over the course of the year in 2011. Truly a pandemic.


what I find so amusing about this is how butthurt mediamatters and huffpo and the liberals are over a phrase that was, gasp, used 706 times in 2011. OMG, they are a tender bunch, aren't they?
 
2012-04-26 01:05:52 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: skullkrusher: MugzyBrown: Did the study factor out quotes? Probably not.

"Results were calculated by a LexisNexis search of U.S. newspapers and wires. Th e search term "job-killing w/1 (regulation!
or rule!)" was entered for each year, with a duplication fi lter eliminating highly-similar results. In 2007, the phrase appeared
4 times. In 2008, the count was at 17. By 2009, it had more than doubled, to 38. Th e frequency of use increased dramatically
in 2010, to 206 times, and then again in 2011, to 706 times. As of March 8, 2012, the phrase has appeared 78 times already
this year. See also Steven Pearlstein, 'Job-killing' regulation? 'Job-killing' spending? Let's kill this GOP canard, Wash. Post, Jan. 6,
2011 (calculating that the more generic phrase "job-killing" appeared over 11,000 times in news articles from 2009-2010)."

doesn't seem like it. 706 uses of the phrase in 4,000 news sources over the course of the year in 2011. Truly a pandemic.

what I find so amusing about this is how butthurt mediamatters and huffpo and the liberals are over a phrase that was, gasp, used 706 times in 2011. OMG, they are a tender bunch, aren't they?


Yeah, they are overreacting. But you do have to admit that it is a pretty stupid and tired catchphrase the GOP likes to use a lot.

Especially when they can't cite any "job-killing" regulations.
 
2012-04-26 01:06:29 PM

HeadLever: While I am on the conservative side, I am not supportive of abolishing the EPA. They do serve an important balace and we do need to take steps to minimize our impacts. However, there needs to be a balance. I wish that there was more groups that would work 'together' instead of 'against'. This goes for all parties; corporations, government regulators, environmental groups and other public entities.

The fact of the matter is that the high cost of mining here in the states has created a boom in other parts of the world where environmental safeguards are pretty much non-existent. If you want to know just how much we import as opposed to mining ourselves, go look see page 6 of this report. Sadly, for many environmentallist, they really don't care. So long as they don't have to deal with the impacts, they don't care that a mine in China is putting out ten times the pollutants that a simliar mine here would. Ironically, these folks usually have more metal rings, studs, spikes and barbells sticking out of various piercings than I have in my car.


Take heart. there are people that seek to balance the demands of industry with the demands of the community that supports and relies on said industry.

My wife is part of a group that aims to work with companies to reduce the amount of toxic air emissions. She really doesn't want to see the industries pack up and move away. Those are people's jobs, their livelihoods. If they just pack up and leave, our city dies.

They can do what they do with less impact to the local environment, but it can cost a bit of money to upgrade their systems and processes. I look at it this way, pollution control measures and equipment create jobs too, something it seems many hard right Randian acolytes seem to forget. Also, excess pollution, in my opinion, can often mean you have an inefficiency somewhere in your process, either through laziness or unintentional ignorance.

Most of the target companies want to work with the community and with the regulators. Some of them have a touch of cynicism to the approach, along the lines of "It's gonna be regulated soon anyways, may as well get it done now. Plus the PR will be great" Others realize that if they fark up badly enough, they will be closing up shop. A few even see cost savings as a result. I would love to know if the ones that have instituted more emissions controls have seen a drop in sick leave among their workers.

There are of course a few that have had bad experiences working against environmentalists. It has hardened them against change, especially when they would have to spend a couple of million to upgrade facilities when their biggest competitor (China's manufacturers) doesn't have to.

I dislike painting all environmentalists with the same broad brush, but I know a few I would classify as reactionaries and/or radicals* that believe industry can't be allowed to pollute ever, now let's hop in our SUV after our mock chemical spill guerrilla theater and get some coffee and pat ourselves on the back for standing up to the man trust funders stereotype. They live miles away from the industry, might have desk jobs or service sector work, and think they are doing good by demanding instant change and demonizing industry, not realizing working with them might be more productive at getting changes done incrementally (although it can be just banging your head against the wall).

*I say reactionary, because I consider someone that wants to return to pre-industrial society a reactionary, and I include radical because I realize most consider them politically radical leftists.
 
2012-04-26 01:08:11 PM

quatchi: Lord_Baull: tenpoundsofcheese: What are you talking about?

This thread is about job killing regulations.

Says the guy whose Boobies was a deflection about Obama.

And actually this thread is about how easily the Republicans get their talking points re-iterated for them in the national media.

oh yeah, 700 times across 4000 news sources, over a period of a year.

But if the trolls want to get their ass handed to them on the "Regulation = Job Killers" issue there's no point in trying to stop them.

No, you are missing the point. There are regulations and there are job killing regulations. Can you not understand that they are two different things?

Why are you for job killing regulations.

 
2012-04-26 01:10:45 PM

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: hank God the noble Job Creators who own coal mines will now have the freedom to dump toxic waste into our streams like the Founders so clearly intended.

They still don't have that right. This was a case of the mine having all the required permits and the EPA overstepping their bounds to arbitrarily veto the project.

From a Democratic Senator, "The issue with the Spruce Mine permit has always been basic fairness," he said. "The company received a permit five years ago from the Corps. The EPA participated in that process on the front end but then tried to step in again after the permit was issued and veto it retroactively."


I personally believe whatever a Democrat Senator says whenever he supports the coal industry. The rest of the time he's a marriage-destroying, job-killing, God-hating enemy of 'murica.

We need a Republican president, somebody who doesn't ever trample on the law and pull signing orders out of his pocket and say, "Because I said so. Don't talk to me about the constitution, it's just a piece of paper."
 
2012-04-26 01:13:41 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: No, you are missing the point. There are regulations and there are job killing regulations. Can you not understand that they are two different things?

Why are you for job killing regulations.


Still waiting for you to cite a "job-killing regulation".
 
2012-04-26 01:15:54 PM

Cubicle Jockey: I think Lando Lincoln's position is that the permit issued was "illegal", in that the scenario provided for the permit should have prevented it from being granted in the first place under current law.


Not necessarily. It sounds like the EPA may have had some heartburn about the discharges initially, but there is no indication that the dicharges were illegal under current law. The issueance of dicharges permits under NPDES can be quite lengthy and filled with quite a bit of scientific studies, assumptions, Plan of Operations, and politics. The heartburn from the EPA could have been with any of these items, not necessarily that something was against the law.
 
2012-04-26 01:20:20 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: skullkrusher: MugzyBrown: Did the study factor out quotes? Probably not.

"Results were calculated by a LexisNexis search of U.S. newspapers and wires. Th e search term "job-killing w/1 (regulation!
or rule!)" was entered for each year, with a duplication fi lter eliminating highly-similar results. In 2007, the phrase appeared
4 times. In 2008, the count was at 17. By 2009, it had more than doubled, to 38. Th e frequency of use increased dramatically
in 2010, to 206 times, and then again in 2011, to 706 times. As of March 8, 2012, the phrase has appeared 78 times already
this year. See also Steven Pearlstein, 'Job-killing' regulation? 'Job-killing' spending? Let's kill this GOP canard, Wash. Post, Jan. 6,
2011 (calculating that the more generic phrase "job-killing" appeared over 11,000 times in news articles from 2009-2010)."

doesn't seem like it. 706 uses of the phrase in 4,000 news sources over the course of the year in 2011. Truly a pandemic.

what I find so amusing about this is how butthurt mediamatters and huffpo and the liberals are over a phrase that was, gasp, used 706 times in 2011. OMG, they are a tender bunch, aren't they?

Yeah, they are overreacting. But you do have to admit that it is a pretty stupid and tired catchphrase the GOP likes to use a lot.

Especially when they can't cite any "job-killing" regulations.


it IS farking stupid. So is reporting on how many times it is mentioned. Both sides are stupid. Vote skullkrusher
 
2012-04-26 01:25:53 PM

skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: skullkrusher: MugzyBrown: Did the study factor out quotes? Probably not.

"Results were calculated by a LexisNexis search of U.S. newspapers and wires. Th e search term "job-killing w/1 (regulation!
or rule!)" was entered for each year, with a duplication fi lter eliminating highly-similar results. In 2007, the phrase appeared
4 times. In 2008, the count was at 17. By 2009, it had more than doubled, to 38. Th e frequency of use increased dramatically
in 2010, to 206 times, and then again in 2011, to 706 times. As of March 8, 2012, the phrase has appeared 78 times already
this year. See also Steven Pearlstein, 'Job-killing' regulation? 'Job-killing' spending? Let's kill this GOP canard, Wash. Post, Jan. 6,
2011 (calculating that the more generic phrase "job-killing" appeared over 11,000 times in news articles from 2009-2010)."

doesn't seem like it. 706 uses of the phrase in 4,000 news sources over the course of the year in 2011. Truly a pandemic.

what I find so amusing about this is how butthurt mediamatters and huffpo and the liberals are over a phrase that was, gasp, used 706 times in 2011. OMG, they are a tender bunch, aren't they?

Yeah, they are overreacting. But you do have to admit that it is a pretty stupid and tired catchphrase the GOP likes to use a lot.

Especially when they can't cite any "job-killing" regulations.

it IS farking stupid. So is reporting on how many times it is mentioned. Both sides are stupid. Vote skullkrusher


That depends. What is your platform?
 
2012-04-26 01:29:04 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, you are missing the point. There are regulations and there are job killing regulations. Can you not understand that they are two different things?

Why are you for job killing regulations.

Still waiting for you to cite a "job-killing regulation".


Do trolls "cite"?
 
2012-04-26 01:29:54 PM

Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: skullkrusher: MugzyBrown: Did the study factor out quotes? Probably not.

"Results were calculated by a LexisNexis search of U.S. newspapers and wires. Th e search term "job-killing w/1 (regulation!
or rule!)" was entered for each year, with a duplication fi lter eliminating highly-similar results. In 2007, the phrase appeared
4 times. In 2008, the count was at 17. By 2009, it had more than doubled, to 38. Th e frequency of use increased dramatically
in 2010, to 206 times, and then again in 2011, to 706 times. As of March 8, 2012, the phrase has appeared 78 times already
this year. See also Steven Pearlstein, 'Job-killing' regulation? 'Job-killing' spending? Let's kill this GOP canard, Wash. Post, Jan. 6,
2011 (calculating that the more generic phrase "job-killing" appeared over 11,000 times in news articles from 2009-2010)."

doesn't seem like it. 706 uses of the phrase in 4,000 news sources over the course of the year in 2011. Truly a pandemic.

what I find so amusing about this is how butthurt mediamatters and huffpo and the liberals are over a phrase that was, gasp, used 706 times in 2011. OMG, they are a tender bunch, aren't they?

Yeah, they are overreacting. But you do have to admit that it is a pretty stupid and tired catchphrase the GOP likes to use a lot.

Especially when they can't cite any "job-killing" regulations.

it IS farking stupid. So is reporting on how many times it is mentioned. Both sides are stupid. Vote skullkrusher

That depends. What is your platform?


deep, rich mahogany
 
2012-04-26 01:30:13 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Why are you for job killing regulations.


Why are you for deregulation like Glass-Steagall?

Also, for the umpeenth time ITT... What job killing deregulation?
 
2012-04-26 01:31:21 PM
regulations

*head desk*

Christ on a cracker, I needs me some sweet, sweet Java bean juice. Stat.
 
2012-04-26 01:31:58 PM

HeadLever: That is what the NPDES Permitting Process (which the EPA is a part of) is supposed to address.


But it didn't. Huh. I wonder why they tried to revoke the permit.
 
2012-04-26 01:36:08 PM

quatchi: regulations

*head desk*

Christ on a cracker, I needs me some sweet, sweet Java bean juice. Stat.


Every time I come to this site, within about 60 seconds I see something sick, gross, disturbing, or blasphemous. Guess I should learn my lesson and stop coming to this site.
 
2012-04-26 01:37:09 PM

Mrtraveler01: To be honest, I don't give a fark if it's more costly to mine here.


Yeah, I'll agrue that we need to keep most of the environmental and saftey regulations in place. Yes, there is room for improvement regarding these regulations, but we are at the forefront of saftey and environmental protection when it comes to these activities.

However, let's not pretend that it is all for the environment and saftey when said policies just shift the demand of a commodity overseas where it is guranteed to produce more pollution and less worker saftey.
 
2012-04-26 01:37:41 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Lionel Mandrake: BillCo: That is because we have a job killing president.

You mean the President with 25 straight months of job growth?

But never let facts get in the way of ideology, right?

One of these days I want someone like BillCo to cop to intentionally trolling, mostly because I don't want to think the USA has gotten the GOP it largely wants.

Though as the Teabaggers keep reminding us, the real world differs from how we would want it to work.


He did once. A mod was quick to delete it.

That's the most infuriating part. Its one thing to spread misinformation since you believe it as truth and don't know better. However, people like him are proudly and knowingly spreading lies.
 
2012-04-26 01:40:16 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, you are missing the point. There are regulations and there are job killing regulations. Can you not understand that they are two different things?

Why are you for job killing regulations.

Still waiting for you to cite a "job-killing regulation".

 
2012-04-26 01:45:07 PM

skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: skullkrusher: MugzyBrown: Did the study factor out quotes? Probably not.

"Results were calculated by a LexisNexis search of U.S. newspapers and wires. Th e search term "job-killing w/1 (regulation!
or rule!)" was entered for each year, with a duplication fi lter eliminating highly-similar results. In 2007, the phrase appeared
4 times. In 2008, the count was at 17. By 2009, it had more than doubled, to 38. Th e frequency of use increased dramatically
in 2010, to 206 times, and then again in 2011, to 706 times. As of March 8, 2012, the phrase has appeared 78 times already
this year. See also Steven Pearlstein, 'Job-killing' regulation? 'Job-killing' spending? Let's kill this GOP canard, Wash. Post, Jan. 6,
2011 (calculating that the more generic phrase "job-killing" appeared over 11,000 times in news articles from 2009-2010)."

doesn't seem like it. 706 uses of the phrase in 4,000 news sources over the course of the year in 2011. Truly a pandemic.

what I find so amusing about this is how butthurt mediamatters and huffpo and the liberals are over a phrase that was, gasp, used 706 times in 2011. OMG, they are a tender bunch, aren't they?

Yeah, they are overreacting. But you do have to admit that it is a pretty stupid and tired catchphrase the GOP likes to use a lot.

Especially when they can't cite any "job-killing" regulations.

it IS farking stupid. So is reporting on how many times it is mentioned. Both sides are stupid. Vote skullkrusher

That depends. What is your platform?

deep, rich mahogany


*whistles*

Fancy. You're going all out huh?
 
2012-04-26 01:45:53 PM

FrailChild: quatchi: regulations

*head desk*

Christ on a cracker, I needs me some sweet, sweet Java bean juice. Stat.

Every time I come to this site, within about 60 seconds I see something sick, gross, disturbing, or blasphemous. Guess I should learn my lesson and stop coming to this site.


i turned off the images years ago.
 
2012-04-26 01:48:07 PM
I just consulted for a company with 80 employees that does nothing but complete the documentation required by the FAA regulations for new jets.

One of the employees whined to me every day about job-killing regulations.
 
2012-04-26 01:49:34 PM
Right Wing: Get rid of all these jerb killing regulashuns!!!1
Libs: We like efficiency and a sound economy. Which regulations are killing jobs?
Right Wing:...........................They're killing jobs!
Libs: Which ones?
Right Wing: The ones that are destroying America, driving unemployment through the roof and creating a European-esque socialist state, duh!!!
Libs: Ok............which regulations, specifically do that?
Right Wing: WE WILL NEVER TELL YOU WHICH! IF WE DID, YOU'D FIX IT AND THEN GET ALL OF THE GLORY!!! IT'S OUR SECRET PLAN THAT WE WILL TAKE CREDIT FOR AFTER WE WIN THE ELECTION !1!!
Libs: So, in other words, you're just making broad, sweeping statements about government policy, yet cannot back-up any of those statements with relevant facts, amirite?
Right Wing: WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH??!!!

A sane society would just walk away, leave the derpers to derp their derp loudly to any inanimate object that appears to listen to them.

See also: Job Creators
 
2012-04-26 01:49:38 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: I just consulted for a company with 80 employees that does nothing but complete the documentation required by the FAA regulations for new jets.

One of the employees whined to me every day about job-killing regulations.


The irony flew right over his head, didn't it?
 
2012-04-26 01:51:02 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, you are missing the point. There are regulations and there are job killing regulations. Can you not understand that they are two different things?

Why are you for job killing regulations.

Still waiting for you to cite a "job-killing regulation".


Why are you waiting for that?
This thread is about how mediamatters is so concerned that the term is used 17,000% more.

Go to a thread that is about regulations, not the media coverage, if you want to learn about job killing regulations. Otherwise it is just a threadjack.
 
2012-04-26 01:53:38 PM

quatchi: born_yesterday: Huh. I expected that Billco's Boobies was just the first salvo in a well-prepared, well thought out argument.

I can't believe he just posted once and fled. That's just not like him.

Yeah, more than passing strange. Totally out of character. Hope he's alright.


I'm fine, but thanks for caring.
 
2012-04-26 01:53:49 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, you are missing the point. There are regulations and there are job killing regulations. Can you not understand that they are two different things?

Why are you for job killing regulations.

Still waiting for you to cite a "job-killing regulation".

Why are you waiting for that?
This thread is about how mediamatters is so concerned that the term is used 17,000% more.

Go to a thread that is about regulations, not the media coverage, if you want to learn about job killing regulations. Otherwise it is just a threadjack.


Ummm.....it could be that because the claim itself is false that any coverage of it that does not debunk it for the nonsensical tripe that it is simply serves to perpetuate the lie.
 
2012-04-26 01:54:53 PM

meat0918: Lenny_da_Hog: I just consulted for a company with 80 employees that does nothing but complete the documentation required by the FAA regulations for new jets.

One of the employees whined to me every day about job-killing regulations.

The irony flew right over his head, didn't it?


Yes. He actually argued that the couple hundred thousand it costs to document an eighty-milliion-dollar jet costs Boeing sales and jobs.
 
2012-04-26 01:58:32 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, you are missing the point. There are regulations and there are job killing regulations. Can you not understand that they are two different things?

Why are you for job killing regulations.

Still waiting for you to cite a "job-killing regulation".


Protip: some Farkers aren't here for "reasoned debate" so much as they want to badmouth the "other team".
 
2012-04-26 02:01:32 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: meat0918: Lenny_da_Hog: I just consulted for a company with 80 employees that does nothing but complete the documentation required by the FAA regulations for new jets.

One of the employees whined to me every day about job-killing regulations.

The irony flew right over his head, didn't it?

Yes. He actually argued that the couple hundred thousand it costs to document an eighty-milliion-dollar jet costs Boeing sales and jobs.


Sounds like even he realized he was a useless hump?
 
2012-04-26 02:01:49 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, you are missing the point. There are regulations and there are job killing regulations. Can you not understand that they are two different things?

Why are you for job killing regulations.

Still waiting for you to cite a "job-killing regulation".

Why are you waiting for that?
This thread is about how mediamatters is so concerned that the term is used 17,000% more.

Go to a thread that is about regulations, not the media coverage, if you want to learn about job killing regulations. Otherwise it is just a threadjack.


So you got no proof of a job-killing regulation which means this whole talking point is BS and you and the GOP just got called out on it's BS essentially then?

Thanks for confirming what we already know then.
 
2012-04-26 02:02:46 PM

DeArmondVI: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, you are missing the point. There are regulations and there are job killing regulations. Can you not understand that they are two different things?

Why are you for job killing regulations.

Still waiting for you to cite a "job-killing regulation".

Why are you waiting for that?
This thread is about how mediamatters is so concerned that the term is used 17,000% more.

Go to a thread that is about regulations, not the media coverage, if you want to learn about job killing regulations. Otherwise it is just a threadjack.

Ummm.....it could be that because the claim itself is false that any coverage of it that does not debunk it for the nonsensical tripe that it is simply serves to perpetuate the lie.


Hey, quit threadjacking! ;)
 
2012-04-26 02:02:57 PM

meat0918: Take heart. there are people that seek to balance the demands of industry with the demands of the community that supports and relies on said industry.

My wife is part of a group that aims to work with companies to reduce the amount of toxic air emissions. She really doesn't want to see the industries pack up and move away. Those are people's jobs, their livelihoods. If they just pack up and leave, our city dies.


That is exactly the attitude to take. Yes, the companies need to be pushed in the direction to ensure they are doing things in a safe and pay attention to the environment around them.

I dislike painting all environmentalists with the same broad brush, but I know a few I would classify as reactionaries and/or radicals*

That is a legitimate point. There are many that really try to do the right thing and can recognize that our society depends upon some give and take. Unfortuantly, many of the radical 'squeaky wheels' are the ones getting the 'grease', even though they may be a small fraction of the overall self-proclaimed environmentallist.
 
2012-04-26 02:05:19 PM

Lando Lincoln: I wonder why they tried to revoke the permit.


The bigger question to me is why didn't they do it at the correct time during the process. As they found out, you can't do it retroactively.
 
2012-04-26 02:12:41 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: quatchi: Lord_Baull: tenpoundsofcheese: What are you talking about?

This thread is about job killing regulations.

Says the guy whose Boobies was a deflection about Obama.

And actually this thread is about how easily the Republicans get their talking points re-iterated for them in the national media.

oh yeah, 700 times across 4000 news sources, over a period of a year.

But if the trolls want to get their ass handed to them on the "Regulation = Job Killers" issue there's no point in trying to stop them.

No, you are missing the point. There are regulations and there are job killing regulations. Can you not understand that they are two different things?

Why are you for job killing regulations.


yes, you tard, I too am waiting to see what "job killing regulations" you come up with.

/really starting to think that you're just a troll
//if you are, bravo, you do a great job playing a bile spewing dumbass that has no thoughts of their own.
 
2012-04-26 02:14:49 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Jake Havechek: I know it is fark, and that is what one should expect here.

No, it's because you and your ilk have been saying "fark you, I've got mine" for the last 30 years.

I got my job killing regulations? What are you talking about?

This thread is about job killing regulations.


tenpoundsofcheese: This thread is about how mediamatters is so concerned that the term is used 17,000% more.

Go to a thread that is about regulations, not the media coverage, if you want to learn about job killing regulations. Otherwise it is just a threadjack.



So which one is it?
 
2012-04-26 02:17:58 PM

HeadLever: Lando Lincoln: I wonder why they tried to revoke the permit.

The bigger question to me is why didn't they do it at the correct time during the process. As they found out, you can't do it retroactively.


If you read the report, you'd have seen that :

1. New peer reviewed studies came out.
2. They had new data based on activities both at other nearby mines, and at the mine in question.

Both confirmed their earlier concerns that the operations did not meet the regulatory requirements.

Just out of curiosity, since you are so adamantly opposed to the EPA being able to pull previously granted permits, do you support the position that the EPA should veto any permit that they have any concerns about since they will not be able to revisit the determination in the future?
 
2012-04-26 02:24:18 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Go to a thread that is about regulations, not the media coverage, if you want to learn about job killing regulations. Otherwise it is just a threadjack.


Don't you get dizzy running in circles all the time?
 
2012-04-26 02:27:14 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Jake Havechek: and what was the percentage increase in the use of "Hope and Change" during that same period?

About the same as Sarah Palin saying "common-sense conservative solutions" yet never being asked to clarify or elaborate on what these "common-sense conservative solutions" actually are.

That is exactly my point (but I don't think that was reported nearly as much as hope and change)

CSCS, Hope and Change, Compassionate Conservative, Job Killing Regulations, pay fair share, etc are all just part of political positioning.

odd that people get so caught up now that job killing regulations is becoming commonly used and reported.

why are people defending job killing regulations?
do they actually think that it means that people want every single regulation gone? Really??


Name them.
 
2012-04-26 02:27:18 PM
Top 5 Facts of EPA's Job Killing Regulations

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the EPA's Boiler MACT emission standards would eliminate 60,000 jobs.

Cement MACT standards that would be nearly impossible to meet.

National restrictions on coal ash that cost over $100 billion to implement and force 20% of coal-fired power plants to close, killing more than 100,00 jobs.

Unrealistic reductions in greenhouse emissions that will affect all new and existing power plants, manufacturers and oil refineries.

EPA's Ozone Rule, which has been put on hold by President Obama but could resurface and cost employers $1 trillion to implement and destroy millions of jobs.
 
2012-04-26 02:27:44 PM

skullkrusher: That depends. What is your platform?

deep, rich mahogany


You get 100% of the votes 60% of the time?
 
Displayed 50 of 303 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report