GuiltyPleasure
AWTSS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2003
- Posts
- 14,131
Dem uppity niggers got too damn uppity wit dere broder in da hizzouse.
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
http://s3.amazonaws.com/images.hitfix.com/assets/2306/RiddickComic-Con2013posterPTUniversal.jpg
Barack Vin Obama-Diesel: (baritone growl) "You're not scared of the dark, are you?"
Pressed White People: (milquetoast whine) "YES WE ARRRRREEEE!!!"
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,193
But it's from that bastion of integrity and truthiness The Daily Caller!
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,346
Thought you'd get a kick out of that Zoomie.
However my brother informs me that Necromongers are a religion not a race. . .so I guess it's just time to add one more thing to Obama's list of secret religions that he picked up in scary places like Indonesia.
However my brother informs me that Necromongers are a religion not a race. . .so I guess it's just time to add one more thing to Obama's list of secret religions that he picked up in scary places like Indonesia.
Not even you believe that.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
UPDATED: Daily Caller Compounds Error With Bad Rationalization
Blog ››› September 29, 2011 8:25 AM EDT ››› JOCELYN FONG
18
Print
This week we caught Daily Caller reporter Matthew Boyle completely misreading a court brief to claim that the "EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers" to process greenhouse gas regulations "at an estimated cost of $21 billion." In reality, EPA was describing a scenario that it avoided by issuing a rule in May 2010 significantly reducing the number of facilities required to obtain permits for greenhouse gas emissions.
Boyle's report -- which was circulated by Sen. Inhofe's office and made its way to Fox News -- was just wrong. But rather than issue a correction, Daily Caller doubled down, telling Politico that "anyone who has spent more than a few months in Washington knows" EPA wouldn't try to "limit its own power." As more commentators noticed this brazen disregard for the facts, The Daily Caller came up with a more substantive response, still insisting the story "was spot-on and accurate":
Our story about the EPA was spot-on and accurate. It's true that the agency's court filing outlined a "tailoring rule" as a more gradual approach to hiring 230,000 people at a cost of $21 billion. But the EPA was clear that "the Tailoring Rule is calculated to move toward eventual full compliance with the statutory threshold" -- meaning it's not a question of if the EPA wants to triple its budget, but when.
Nope. The brief did not present the tailoring rule "as a more gradual approach to hiring 230,000 people at a cost of $21 billion." It presented the rule as a way to circumvent a scenario in which state and local agencies would need 230,000 employees to review 6.1 million permit applications. The rule phases in compliance, "thereby relieving the overwhelming regulatory burdens on both permitting authorities and literally millions of stationary sources."
You don't need 230,000 new workers if you don't have a massive flood of permit applications to process all at once. Instead of 6.1 million sources requiring operating permits, EPA expects 15,550 -- 97 percent of which can add greenhouse gases to the permits they already have for other pollutants.
The brief adds that "this phase-in process would also allow EPA time to develop streamlining measures" necessary for broader enforcement:
After considerable study and receipt of public comment, EPA determined that by phasing in the statutory thresholds, it could almost immediately achieve most of the emission benefits that would result from strict adherence to the literal 100/250 tpy [tons per year] threshold while avoiding the permit gridlock that unquestionably would result from the immediate application of that threshold. This phase-in process would also allow EPA time to develop streamlining measures that could eventually ease administration at the statutory thresholds. Thus, EPA promulgated the Tailoring Rule to 'phase[] in the applicability of these programs to GHG sources, starting with the largest GHG emitters.'
According to the Supreme Court, greenhouse gases are an "air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act. The threshold for regulation of conventional pollutants under the Act is 100-250 tons per year, but emissions of greenhouse gases are much greater than, for instance, lead and sulfur dioxide. So the tailoring rule allows EPA to regulate emission permits starting at 75,000-100,000 tons per year, which still "captures approximately 86% of the emissions of greenhouse gases that would be captured by immediate, full application of the statutory 100/250 tpy threshold." The threshold will not be lowered past 50,000 at any point before April 2016.
The brief also states that by May 2016, EPA will have conducted "a five-year study" of the greenhouse gas regulations and will issue a rule "addressing what action can be taken" regarding smaller sources of emissions. The tailoring rule, EPA says, is designed to "move toward" compliance with the 100-250 tpy threshold, unless the "impossibility of full administrative implementation persists."
As the National Journal reported, industry groups know they can't overturn the Supreme Court's 2007 decision establishing EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, "so instead industry lawyers are homing in" on the tailoring rule, which if successfully challenged "will force EPA back into the politically and practically untenable position of regulating all those millions of entities."
But there's no evidence that Boyle was aware of any of this until today, when his editors began scrambling for an explanation. In fact, the article didn't even address the tailoring rule at all.
UPDATE:
Daily Caller now has an editor's post up defending the story (read: writing what they wish the initial article had said and claiming that's "what we've been saying since Monday.") The post notes that "Sen. James Inhofe weighed in, supporting our report." Oh good.
Daily Caller remains in the wrong for the reasons explained above. And they still don't seem to understand the basics of the issue, claiming EPA is "in court to ask a court for permission" to use the tailoring rule and that "new regulations (as written) would force it to hire those 230,000 new federal employees." EPA is already implementing these permitting requirements and is in court to defend the tailoring rule. EPA didn't write new regulations that would require 230,000 employees, it wrote a regulation to avoid that scenario after the permitting requirements were automatically triggered by the vehicle emissions rule.
But you don't need to get into those details to know that Daily Caller simply published a bad report. Just read the story. Boyle wrote (twice!) that EPA is "asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats -- at a cost of $21 billion -- to attempt to implement the rules." And after the story was posted, Boyle tweeted this:
Boyle tweet
No lessons learned:
Blog ››› September 29, 2011 8:25 AM EDT ››› JOCELYN FONG
18
This week we caught Daily Caller reporter Matthew Boyle completely misreading a court brief to claim that the "EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers" to process greenhouse gas regulations "at an estimated cost of $21 billion." In reality, EPA was describing a scenario that it avoided by issuing a rule in May 2010 significantly reducing the number of facilities required to obtain permits for greenhouse gas emissions.
Boyle's report -- which was circulated by Sen. Inhofe's office and made its way to Fox News -- was just wrong. But rather than issue a correction, Daily Caller doubled down, telling Politico that "anyone who has spent more than a few months in Washington knows" EPA wouldn't try to "limit its own power." As more commentators noticed this brazen disregard for the facts, The Daily Caller came up with a more substantive response, still insisting the story "was spot-on and accurate":
Our story about the EPA was spot-on and accurate. It's true that the agency's court filing outlined a "tailoring rule" as a more gradual approach to hiring 230,000 people at a cost of $21 billion. But the EPA was clear that "the Tailoring Rule is calculated to move toward eventual full compliance with the statutory threshold" -- meaning it's not a question of if the EPA wants to triple its budget, but when.
Nope. The brief did not present the tailoring rule "as a more gradual approach to hiring 230,000 people at a cost of $21 billion." It presented the rule as a way to circumvent a scenario in which state and local agencies would need 230,000 employees to review 6.1 million permit applications. The rule phases in compliance, "thereby relieving the overwhelming regulatory burdens on both permitting authorities and literally millions of stationary sources."
You don't need 230,000 new workers if you don't have a massive flood of permit applications to process all at once. Instead of 6.1 million sources requiring operating permits, EPA expects 15,550 -- 97 percent of which can add greenhouse gases to the permits they already have for other pollutants.
The brief adds that "this phase-in process would also allow EPA time to develop streamlining measures" necessary for broader enforcement:
After considerable study and receipt of public comment, EPA determined that by phasing in the statutory thresholds, it could almost immediately achieve most of the emission benefits that would result from strict adherence to the literal 100/250 tpy [tons per year] threshold while avoiding the permit gridlock that unquestionably would result from the immediate application of that threshold. This phase-in process would also allow EPA time to develop streamlining measures that could eventually ease administration at the statutory thresholds. Thus, EPA promulgated the Tailoring Rule to 'phase[] in the applicability of these programs to GHG sources, starting with the largest GHG emitters.'
According to the Supreme Court, greenhouse gases are an "air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act. The threshold for regulation of conventional pollutants under the Act is 100-250 tons per year, but emissions of greenhouse gases are much greater than, for instance, lead and sulfur dioxide. So the tailoring rule allows EPA to regulate emission permits starting at 75,000-100,000 tons per year, which still "captures approximately 86% of the emissions of greenhouse gases that would be captured by immediate, full application of the statutory 100/250 tpy threshold." The threshold will not be lowered past 50,000 at any point before April 2016.
The brief also states that by May 2016, EPA will have conducted "a five-year study" of the greenhouse gas regulations and will issue a rule "addressing what action can be taken" regarding smaller sources of emissions. The tailoring rule, EPA says, is designed to "move toward" compliance with the 100-250 tpy threshold, unless the "impossibility of full administrative implementation persists."
As the National Journal reported, industry groups know they can't overturn the Supreme Court's 2007 decision establishing EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, "so instead industry lawyers are homing in" on the tailoring rule, which if successfully challenged "will force EPA back into the politically and practically untenable position of regulating all those millions of entities."
But there's no evidence that Boyle was aware of any of this until today, when his editors began scrambling for an explanation. In fact, the article didn't even address the tailoring rule at all.
UPDATE:
Daily Caller now has an editor's post up defending the story (read: writing what they wish the initial article had said and claiming that's "what we've been saying since Monday.") The post notes that "Sen. James Inhofe weighed in, supporting our report." Oh good.
Daily Caller remains in the wrong for the reasons explained above. And they still don't seem to understand the basics of the issue, claiming EPA is "in court to ask a court for permission" to use the tailoring rule and that "new regulations (as written) would force it to hire those 230,000 new federal employees." EPA is already implementing these permitting requirements and is in court to defend the tailoring rule. EPA didn't write new regulations that would require 230,000 employees, it wrote a regulation to avoid that scenario after the permitting requirements were automatically triggered by the vehicle emissions rule.
But you don't need to get into those details to know that Daily Caller simply published a bad report. Just read the story. Boyle wrote (twice!) that EPA is "asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats -- at a cost of $21 billion -- to attempt to implement the rules." And after the story was posted, Boyle tweeted this:
Boyle tweet
No lessons learned:
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
Thought you'd get a kick out of that Zoomie.
However my brother informs me that Necromongers are a religion not a race. . .so I guess it's just time to add one more thing to Obama's list of secret religions that he picked up in scary places like Indonesia.
Yeah, they are a more organic form of Borg, they take over races and assimilate them into the "faith." One thing I'm looking forward to in the new joint is it seems like he's totally ditched the Necros. Wanna see how they explain that.
Then again, ALL the Riddick movies have portrayed those scary Muslims.
HMMMMMMM.
U
unregistered
Guest
Zimmerman wasn't white, but a large segment of the low information types demonstrating think he is because the media invented a racial term that doesn't exist except in their minds. The whole premise of the civil rights industry represented by the likes of Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Jessie Jackson, Morris Dees, et al, is that the KKK is worshiped in the minds of every white man and that the institution of slavery is lying dormant somewhere right around the corner of the next election.
You are talking about people who would be perfectly overjoyed if racism just went away, the way doctors would be overjoyed if disease went away.
Last edited:
U
unregistered
Guest
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,346
Zimmerman wasn't white, but a large segment of the low information types demonstrating think he is because the media invented a racial term that doesn't exist except in their minds. The whole premise of the civil rights industry represented by the likes of Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Jessie Jackson, Morris Dees, et al, is that the KKK is worshiped in the minds of every white man and that the institution of slavery is lying dormant somewhere right around the corner of the next election.
While Zimmerman was initially portrayed as white (and he's passing in many circles) the reality is that he wasn't arrested because he killed a blackman and was sufficiently white for the cops. People keep trying to make this about if Zimmerman was or wasn't racist (he was, but who that breathes isn't?) the problem isn't that it's that he wasn't arrested.
As would doctors if disease disappeared, but they still would want it to.
No, sir. The race-baiting for the past five years is real, but practically all of it has come from the RW side. Al Sharpton hardly ticks the meter, and the Administration not at all.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,346
I wish they would. It might be nice to get this out in the open instead of continually pretending it doesn't exist.
When one day it's discovered that Sharpton and Jackson are Right Wing robots brought out to stoke fears it's gonna be awesome. Like when we found out that Justin Beiber is a robot so Usher could continue his career with young girls.
BoyNextDoor
I hate liars
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts
- 14,158
"Race relations have plummeted since Obama took office"
Is it at all possible that this is because President Obama is black, and the worst of the racist pigs in America have decided that ....:
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
Limbaugh: I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.
South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson (R): Yelled out "You lie!" when the President said the legislation would not mandate coverage for undocumented immigrants. (The non-partisan organization FactCheck.org has debunked the claim that health care reform would mandate coverage for illegal immigrants)
The GOP minority in the Senate: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services haven’t had a Senate-confirmed administrator since 2006. The Federal Labor Relations Authority has had only a single member since January and can’t issue decisions. And the Election Assistance Commission hasn’t had any commissioners at all since 2011.
The GOP majority in the House: Jobs bill votes - 0. Repeal ACA - 43.
Sarah Palin: Condemned President Obama's response to the attacks in Benghazi as a "shuck and jive shtick" in a note on her Facebook page Wednesday. This seemed so obviously overtly racist that The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted, "Palin's use of 'shuck and jive' isn't an example of a racist dog-whistle because it's too obviously racist to be considered code."
too tired to type more. You get the point, RWCJers.
Is it at all possible that this is because President Obama is black, and the worst of the racist pigs in America have decided that ....:
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
Limbaugh: I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.
South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson (R): Yelled out "You lie!" when the President said the legislation would not mandate coverage for undocumented immigrants. (The non-partisan organization FactCheck.org has debunked the claim that health care reform would mandate coverage for illegal immigrants)
The GOP minority in the Senate: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services haven’t had a Senate-confirmed administrator since 2006. The Federal Labor Relations Authority has had only a single member since January and can’t issue decisions. And the Election Assistance Commission hasn’t had any commissioners at all since 2011.
The GOP majority in the House: Jobs bill votes - 0. Repeal ACA - 43.
Sarah Palin: Condemned President Obama's response to the attacks in Benghazi as a "shuck and jive shtick" in a note on her Facebook page Wednesday. This seemed so obviously overtly racist that The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted, "Palin's use of 'shuck and jive' isn't an example of a racist dog-whistle because it's too obviously racist to be considered code."
too tired to type more. You get the point, RWCJers.
Joeybagadonuts
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Posts
- 9,202
good post.
Similar threads
