Think Progress

CNN: Palin’s suggested oil export ban ‘not exactly easy to understand.’

This afternoon on CNN, host Wolf Blitzer showed video from last night’s townhall with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), in which Palin — whom McCain said “knows more about energy than…anyone else in the United States” — was asked how she would keep oil from new domestic drilling in the U.S. market. In a serious understatement, Blitzer called her answer “not exactly easy to understand.” Watch it:

As the law stands now, expanded domestic drilling would have no impact on U.S. gas prices precisely because “oil is a global commodity whose price is set by global supply and demand.” Is Palin calling for a total export ban?

Transcript:

“Oil and coal? Of course, it’s a fungible commodity and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules, where it’s going and where it’s not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first,” Palin said. “So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first.”



79 Responses to “CNN: Palin’s suggested oil export ban ‘not exactly easy to understand.’”

  1. Wayne says:

    Zooey Says:

    Is she speaking English?

    Sort of. Its that obscure Republican dialect called double-speak.


  2. Zooey says:

    Wayne Says:

    How did my reply to Zooey end up at the first post?
    TP, you need to have your server checked, seriously…..
    September 18th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    You’re a time traveler, Wayne!! I’m gonna start calling you Doctor Who. ;)


  3. Wayne says:

    Jim Wolf359 Says:

    Will someone please be so kind as to explain to me why the polls show such a close election between Obama and McCain at this point? For the life of me I don’t understand why Obamam is not CRUSHING him at this point.

    Because half the people polled are low information voters IDIOTS


  4. tokin librul says:

    There is no “clean coal,” even though one of St. Barry’s more prominent beneficiaries would like you to believe there were.

    At best, it will require GOPhuqing up billions of gallons of fresh water. It is at best an energy wet dream.


  5. Zooey says:

    Oh, how bizarre. My response to Wayne is now #2.

    Spooky!


  6. Evil Spaniard says:

    Read the transcript of Palin’s response here:

    In fact, is a non-response


  7. tokin librul says:

    Jim Wolf359 Says: Will someone please be so kind as to explain to me why the polls show such a close election between Obama and McCain at this point? For the life of me I don’t understand why Obamam is not CRUSHING him at this point.

    Ummmm, mainly because Obama’s a (negro), if you know what i mean…


  8. Taguba says:

    Well she IS the GOP expert on the subject…. DUH.


  9. Bullsmith says:

    When do we get to see a Palin response that isn’t just semi-random boilerplate?

    Let me guess, December?


  10. tokin librul says:

    “Is Palin calling for a total export ban?”

    If she is, she got her last $heckel from the Oil Industry last week…


  11. WaltB says:

    Obviously the two of them have firmly demonstrated their absolute lack of even the most minuscule understanding of energy – McCain by saying she has more understanding than anyone else in the country (could be true if everyone was a Republican), and Palin for saying such nonsensical trash. McCain’s response about Spain was just about on the same level!


  12. Badmoodman says:

    Palin’s suggested oil export ban ‘not exactly easy to understand.’

    – -Experts are elitists and therefore they need not explain themselves.


  13. NoMoreBush says:

    WTF? Now we know why she is not allowed to speak. Popping popcorn for the VP debates. All Biden has to do is just answer his questions. She just freaking babbles to hear herself talk. She is INCOHERENT. She will make Admiral Stockdale, bless his heart, fade into history.

    LMAO at Leftside Annie’s post.


  14. Zooey says:

    “Oil and coal? Of course, it’s a fungible commodity and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules, where it’s going and where it’s not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first,” Palin said. “So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first.”

    Is she speaking English?


  15. stateofthedivision says:

    That makes as much sense as calling the Exxon Valdez spill 11,000 gallons of fuel, when it was 10.8 million gallons of crude covering 11,000 square miles of ocean.

    Where’s her oil energy expert crown?


  16. Jess Wonderin says:

    OMFG!!! THIS is the person McSame claims “knows more about energy” than anybody else???? This is the least of McCain-Palin things we find “difficult to explain” . . .

    Shall we focus on the stupidity of McCain’s mental process that resulted in selecting a mini-mind, incompetent, power abusing lier based on the pure political choice of ta-tas and anti-choice fundamentalist disguised as a “politician” over the need to find a person able to LEAD us into the NEXT Century rather than re-visit the Middle Ages.


  17. Crusty Old Bastard says:

    It would be nice if Govenor Palin would present evidence that ALL the crude oil produced in the State of Alaska stayed SOLELY in the American market. If this is not true and she knowlingly lets the oil companies export almost all of the oil to Japan then she should immediately resign her job as Governor and admit her hyprocracy. I’ll never live long enough to see it or get a gallon of Alaska gas for my car. Even if we do go back to Japan we will ride the train and not rent a car.


  18. Crusty Old Bastard says:

    Comment #10

    Please no comment about my spelling. I can spell Govenor as well as she can be one. With about the same qualifications.


  19. stateofthedivision says:

    Leadership is not a fungible commodity, that is units aren’t like each other, except in the case of Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin. Now where’s that fungicide?


  20. ralph the wonder llama says:

    backup Says:
    ralph. you’re right about the issue of misrepresenting the position on Palin’s part, the fact that it’s not the Obama/Biden platform, and that I’m off topic.

    But, does it make any sense for Biden to lament McCain’s economic answers as the ‘ultimate bridge to nowhere’, if he supported the bridge to nowhere?

    Does that mean he supports McCain’s economic answers? Or he was wrong about his support of the bridge to nowhere?

    Give it up, backup. When you post an NRO opinion piece as an off-topic comment and then admit that the premise of the piece is flawed, you don’t get to ask follow-up questions in a desperate attempt to extend the relevance of your initial failed post.


  21. impeachcheneythenbush says:

    Hard to understand? Psychobabble is all it is, and she doesn’t have a clue. I guess this is Palin “thinking on her feet.” I suppose what she’s trying to say is that we shouldn’t export oil and coal until our own needs are met…excuse me? We only produce 3% of the oil in the world, but use 25% of the world’s production. So it wouldn’t even matter if we refused to export a single drop! We could never meet our oil needs. As for coal, I’m not sure of the totals we use in world production, but it is the worst, dirtiest energy source on the planet. And technology for “clean coal” is not significantly developed or widespread.


  22. backup says:

    Also, ‘not exactly easy to understand’ positions from the VP candidate:

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/28596729.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUI

    Obama and Biden’s moaning about all of this would be far easier to stomach if they, too, opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Not so.

    Obama and Biden had an excellent opportunity to do the right thing. Just seven weeks after Hurricane Katrina, Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) proposed to transfer $125 million from the notorious Bridge’s budget and instead devote it to rebuilding the Interstate 10 Twin Spans Bridge between New Orleans and St. Tammany’s Parish. The storm chopped up the bridge.

    “We have the largest natural catastrophe we have ever seen in our history,” Coburn said on the Senate floor on October 20, 2005. “It is time we reassess the priorities we utilize in this body as we think about our obligations at home.”

    Coburn’s amendment failed 15-82. Obama and Biden were among the “nays.” They and 80 other senators preferred to protect the earmarking tradition than to assist Katrina’s tempest-tossed citizens.

    Obama and Biden put pork first and people second. While the residents of New Orleans and southern Louisiana endured perhaps their greatest challenge since the Civil War, Obama and Biden both turned their backs on these embattled Americans.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/opinion/main4435937.shtml


  23. Wayne says:

    How did my reply to Zooey end up at the first post?
    TP, you need to have your server checked, seriously…..


  24. backup says:

    EugeneDebs. correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Obama and Biden both supported the bridge to nowhere. not just that they opposed sending the money to katrina victims, but actually supported the funding in the first place.

    http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/


  25. Jim Wolf359 says:

    Will someone please be so kind as to explain to me why the polls show such a close election between Obama and McCain at this point? For the life of me I don’t understand why Obamam is not CRUSHING him at this point.


  26. tokin librul says:

    If a picture’s worth a thousand words, two pictures are worth a good laugh.


  27. Wayne says:

    backup Says:
    Obama and Biden’s moaning about all of this would be far easier to stomach if they, too, opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Not so.

    The problem is McCain opposed it, then Palin has lied about it and keeps lying about it.

    But you do like supporting liars, don’t you.

    Seriously you are sounding more idiotic day by day, dude.


  28. Count Istvan says:

    Sarah Palin is an expert on Bullshit. 50% of the worlds bullshit comes from her mouth.


  29. Count Istvan says:

    Will someone please be so kind as to explain to me why the polls show such a close election between Obama and McCain at this point? For the life of me I don’t understand why Obamam is not CRUSHING him at this point.

    Because idiots like the guy who posted #16 also get to vote.


  30. Rich H says:

    It’s just because we don’t know how to speak “beauty queen”. Just ask Miss South Carolina and other “US Americans.”


  31. Count Istvan says:

    Because idiots like the guy who posted #16 also get to vote. Hmm now it’s 17 :)


  32. ralph the wonder llama says:

    backup Says:
    Also, ‘not exactly easy to understand’ positions from the VP candidate:

    Obama and Biden’s moaning about all of this would be far easier to stomach if they, too, opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Not so.

    Um… two things you’re missing with this quote here, backup:

    one, it’s not about the “bridge to Nowhere”. It’s about LYING ABOUT the “Bridge to Nowhere”.

    two, the Obama Biden campaign has not made earmark reform a position of theirs. That’s the other guys.

    and three, it’s pretty far off-topic.

    okay, three things you’re missing.


  33. Count Istvan says:

    this board is wacky today. posts keep moving.


  34. Zooey says:

    TP is having a Wordpress problem. We had this happen at the Zoo last year. It made for some interesting threads!


  35. tokin librul says:

    There is NO SUCH THING as “clean coal,” though one of Obama’s most generous beneficiaries induced him to say he though there was, in Kentucky, amazingly.

    At best, it is immensely wasteful of fresh water to ‘clean up’ coal. But it keeps the extant power structure in tact, so it’s a GOPhuque wet dream…


  36. joe cantwell says:

    backup,

    the national review online?

    “If you’re not concerned about credibility – have at it.”

    *

    *


  37. Count Istvan says:

    TP is having a Wordpress problem. We had this happen at the Zoo last year. It made for some interesting threads!

    Yeah there are two people now who are wondering why I called them out.


  38. backup says:

    Wayne.

    You’re right. My apologies (sincere).

    I’ll think about it, and at the least, come back when it’s a more appropriate thread.

    see ya.


  39. tokin librul says:

    wow, this is wierd…
    i just replied to a message that hadn’t been written yet…


  40. Leftside Annie says:

    Sarah sez:

    “I personally believe the U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh…people out there in our nation don’t have oil, and, uh, I believe that our oil drilling like such as South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and…I believe that they should, our oil drilling over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., err, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our…”


  41. joe cantwell says:

    of course backup

    if you’d like to chat

    about the national review

    there is this article you

    might find interesting.

    enjoy.

    *

    good luck.

    #


  42. lurker says:

    Crusty Old Bastard
    I have never been polled amd I am registered as a “PND”
    (party not declaired).


  43. squidbilly says:

    Uh, why did the idea of exporting US oil even come up? Isn’t the idea to make the US more energy self sufficient,resulting on less dependence on imported oil? The price of oil within the US will probably not go down but go up. It won’t be cheap to drill here in the US compared to the Middle East.

    Isn’t it more important to assess just how much of oil there is within the US anyway?

    Also as an option, why not consider extracting oil from the massive oil tar fields in Canada (also in Venezuela). It is getting economically feasible given the cost of oil. Oh wait, China has dibs on some of it already!


  44. joe cantwell says:

    wait, wait backup

    here’s a fun one for

    you to sort out.

    :)

    a palin/mccain administration?

    #

    good luck.

    ^


  45. Wayne says:

    tokin librul Says:

    wow, this is wierd…
    i just replied to a message that hadn’t been written yet…

    Monday it was the stock market, today its the Time Continuum. LOL


  46. barracks9 says:

    Beeps-when-backing up Says:

    Also, ‘not exactly easy to understand’ positions from the VP candidate:

    Obama and Biden had an excellent opportunity to do the right thing. Just seven weeks after Hurricane Katrina, Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) proposed to transfer $125 million from the notorious Bridge’s budget and instead devote it to rebuilding the Interstate 10 Twin Spans Bridge between New Orleans and St. Tammany’s Parish. The storm chopped up the bridge.

    OK – do you know why they voted against the money for the Twin Span? The bids had not come back yet – and rather than just throw money around – unaccounted – they were part of the cadre that requested that the money (which eventually did come through later) not be mispent at that point.

    They weren’t defeating the Twin Span funding – they were judiciously making use of their votes to properly fund a project.

    Put things in context, backup, and remember to tell the whole story. Oops, guess you just aren’t capable of that, eh?

    Typical.


  47. ralph the wonder llama says:

    satirev Says:
    This wasn’t even boiler plate; it was gibberish punctuated with ridiculous run-on sentences, devoid of even an ounce of creative thought or critical judgment.

    Oh, I must disagree, satirev.

    I think Governor Palin’s response showed an incredible wealth of creative thought. It’s not easy to come up with a whole paragraph of crapola with enough words tied vaguely to a subject about which you know nothing.


  48. backup says:

    ralph. you’re right about the issue of misrepresenting the position on Palin’s part, the fact that it’s not the Obama/Biden platform, and that I’m off topic.

    But, does it make any sense for Biden to lament McCain’s economic answers as the ‘ultimate bridge to nowhere’, if he supported the bridge to nowhere?

    Does that mean he supports McCain’s economic answers? Or he was wrong about his support of the bridge to nowhere?


  49. spencers mom says:

    Well, clearly Palin is the nation’s, if not the world’s, expert on energy. After all, she did use the word “fungible”.

    And as such an expert, I’d like to see her in a debate with, oh, let’s just say, AL GORE.

    Granted, he is probably an energy neophyte by comparison, but it might make for an interesting exchange.

    Throw in a few professors from MIT just for grins and giggles!

    PEACE


  50. Crusty Old Bastard says:

    Jim Wolf359 Says: “Will someone please be so kind as to explain to me why the polls show such a close election between Obama and McCain at this point? For the life of me I don’t understand why Obama is not CRUSHING him at this point.”

    Jim,

    According to my irrefutable source (Granny) they only poll Republicans with land line phones–no cell phones, no Democrats or others. Ergo McInsanities and McInpantities have 45% of 40% of the registered voters or 18% of the total vote so the TRUE vote is Obama–82%, McLosers–18%. Now that IS crushing.


  51. EugeneDebs says:

    backup Says:
    Can you read? He didnt support the bridge to nowhere he opposed bill for other reasons. Try to keep up


  52. scytherius says:

    My GOD she is stupid.


  53. backup says:

    joe. Okay. she put palin in front of mccain. It’s a gaffe. But, is it any worse than the man that would be only a heartbeat away, telling a man in a wheelchair to stand up:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4

    Those miracles might be better left to the messiah.


  54. Zooey says:

    This just in from Captain Obvious:

    backup is being obtuse again.


  55. Crusty Old Bastard says:

    In Re #57:

    My comment, as usual, is more comedy than context but on a serious note I am sure that the regulars here at TP represent a true cross-section of the Liberal/independent (no initial capital (I coundn’t resist: no residual capital either after the Wall Street debacle))/Democrat population but no one has ever admitted or claimed to have been polled. I have not been nor do I know of anyone who has. Any rebuttal?


  56. Wayne says:

    backup Says:

    You just cannot get the idea that the issue with the “bridge to nowhere” is not a topic in itself, but Palin’s and McCains lies about it are.

    Its the the flip-flops, the dishonesty, the lies, the damn lies and the goddamned lies, stupid.


  57. EugeneDebs says:

    backup Says:

    joe. Okay. she put palin in front of mccain. It’s a gaffe. But, is it any worse than the man that would be only a heartbeat away, telling a man in a wheelchair to stand up:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Quick look over there, or there, or ANYWHERE at some Democrat SOMEWHERE, anywhere but at Palins abject stupidity. That is pretty much STANDARD trollwork


  58. Wayne says:

    Zooey Says:

    This just in from Captain Obvious:

    backup is being obtuse again.

    Again?

    **Lets see where the time slip sends this post, LOL


  59. backup says:

    This looks like it’s from an official Obama sight. They say they want to ’shine light on earmarks and pork barrel spending’:

    Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

    If it’s true, then it sounds as if they are making earmark reform part of their platform.

    Their support for the ‘bridge to nowhere’ then becomes relevant.


  60. spencers mom says:

    For anyone here who follows fivethirtyeight, here’s the latest!

    A must see:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

    The tide has turned, and turned in a HUGE wave!

    PEACE


  61. backup says:

    Quick look over there, or there, or ANYWHERE at some Democrat SOMEWHERE, anywhere but at Palins abject stupidity. That is pretty much STANDARD trollwork

    EugeneDebs. If Palin was at a campaign event and asked a man in a wheelchair to stand, the press (and progressives) would be having a field day. The message would be that she’s obviously not ready for prime time. The Biden comment went unnoticed.

    And, to be honest, Palin held her own with Charlie Gibson, especially when you consider the examination she got vs. the ’scrutiny’ that Charlie gave Obama. Check it out:

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=29535


  62. Wayne says:

    Backup, I may have to start flagging you.

    Sometimes you do show some signs of intelligence in your discussions, but today is not one of those days. Today you are just being an annoying troll.

    Your off subject strawmen and projections are getting a bit irritating.


  63. backup says:

    Wayne.

    You’re right. My apologies (sincere).

    I’ll think about it, and at the least, come back when it’s a more appropriate thread.

    see you.


  64. EugeneDebs says:

    backup Says:

    EugeneDebs. correct me if I’m wrong,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Their votes were for an OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL. Bills are complicated things. Would you have them deny the funding for the several billion dollars of WORTHWHILE projects just to stop the silly bridge? Its just dumb to pretend that a vote on a bill is the end all of whether they support or oppose everything IN the bill. IF the bill had been ONLY about the bridge you would have a point. It wasnt there was also a flaw in the Coburn amendment so THAT also doesnt mean they were supporters of the bridge. Think of it like this. Suppose you SUPPORTED a Medicare drug benifit but DIDNT like the fact it had a 139 BILLION dollar subsidy to the Pharmacuetical industry. So if you vote FOR the bill because you want the benifit does that mean you SUPPORTED the subsidy? If you voted against the bill because of the subsidy does that mean you OPPOSE a drug benfit? It is usually a mistake to oversimplify these things but to just CLAIM that the vote means they supported the bridge is unsupportable unless you can cough up a quote of them ACTUALLY SAYING THEY SUPPORT IT or if the bill had been ONLY about it.


  65. backup says:

    EugeneDebs. good point. thank you.


  66. EugeneDebs says:

    backup Says:

    EugeneDebs. If Palin was at a campaign event and asked a man in a wheelchair to stand, the press (and progressives) would be having a field day. The message would be that she’s obviously not ready for prime time. The Biden comment went unnoticed.

    And, to be honest, Palin held her own with Charlie Gibson, especially when you consider the examination she got vs. the ’scrutiny’ that Charlie gave Obama. Check it out:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    First no she didnt she came off as vapid and uninformed. Second please give up trying to pretend Biden and Obama are getting a pass from the press while McSilly and Paladin are under a microscope. She is getting bad press now for two reasons she is ducking the press, except for softball interviews and she keeps lying and making idiotic statements. Biden is a smart man who is PRONE to idiotic foot in mouth moments one of them pretty much ended his Presidential campain as soon as it started. None of this IS THE TOPIC. You keep doing this LOOK over there at some democrat somewhere derailing of the thread. THESE threads have topics and its plain trollwork to try the look over there at the Democrat tactic. HAD this been a POLICY issue instead of run of the mill stupidity that would be one thing. It isnt, you have no point


  67. pete says:

    Not “clumsy” but “clueless”.


  68. Nat says:

    “If it’s true, then it sounds as if they are making earmark reform part of their platform.”

    No. Government transparency is the aim but I’m sure they are open to cutting some pork barrel projects.


  69. joe cantwell says:

    backup Says:

    And, to be honest, Palin held her own with Charlie Gibson, especially when you consider the examination she got vs. the ’scrutiny’ that Charlie gave Obama.

    *

    hmmm,

    bill o’reilly’s interview with oabama

    vs.

    sean hannity’s interview with palin.

    #

    “Check it out”

    here and here.

    !

    “If you’re not concerned about credibility – have at it.”

    #


  70. pete says:

    Simple version: Earmarks are added to Bills. They are not the Bills themselves.


  71. ralph the wonder llama says:

    backup Says:
    This looks like it’s from an official Obama sight. They say they want to ’shine light on earmarks and pork barrel spending’:

    Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

    If it’s true, then it sounds as if they are making earmark reform part of their platform.

    Their support for the ‘bridge to nowhere’ then becomes relevant.

    backup, are you mendacious, or stupid?

    The quote you pulled from “an official Obama sight (sic)” proposes greater transparency of earmarks, not a widescale elimination of them, as McSame and Caribou Barbie propose.

    But the overarching poit here:

    IT’S NOT ABOUT THE BRIDGE. IT’S ABOUT THE LYING ABOUT THE BRIDGE.

    Why can you not get that?


  72. barfly says:

    And for the curious, The First Law of Internet Posting states that: Anyone who criticizes another’s typing/editing skills, will invariably make a similar mistake in their original critique.

    It’s inevitible.

    [Ok, that one was on purpose]



  73. joe cantwell says:

    backup Says:
    joe. Okay. she put palin in front of mccain. It’s a gaffe. But, is it any worse than the man that would be only a heartbeat away, telling a man in a wheelchair to stand up:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4

    Those miracles might be better left to the messiah.

    *

    you better look at your own link.

    he didn’t tell a man in a wheelchair to stand up.

    ha asked him to because he wanted to honor a

    man who had served his country.

    *

    it was an honest mistake not a freudian slip.

    however you put it in the context of a man who’s just

    a heartbeat away from the presidency and insinuate that

    that he’s deliberately being blasphemous – well backup

    that’s just sick concentration camp guard humor on your part.

    *

    i know you don’t have conscience but

    if you did i’m sure it would being bothering

    you now and you’d apologize.

    *

    thank you.

    #


  74. joe cantwell says:

    ralph the wonder llama Says:

    IT’S NOT ABOUT THE BRIDGE. IT’S ABOUT THE LYING ABOUT THE BRIDGE.

    Why can you not get that?

    *

    because he’s a troll ralph.

    underhanded, lying and completely

    rovian in his manner and character.

    ^


  75. Bad Eye says:

    So what her answer seems to imply (and what we’ve known all along) is that a good portion of the oil we pump out of the ground here in good ol’ America, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, will indeed be sold on the open market.

    What pisses me off is that no one in the MSM seems to be interested in pounding the “Drill Drill Drill” crowd over this.


  76. barfly says:

    ralph the wonder llama Says:

    The quote you pulled from “an official Obama sight (sic)” proposes greater transparency of earmarks, not a widescale elimination of them, as McSame and Caribou Barbie propose.

    But the overarching poit here:

    The First Law of Internet posting takes another scalp…


  77. rossir says:

    Now I understand why she is no longer a sportscaster. She must have spoken during a broadcast.


  78. Iolair says:

    “Palin for Dummies” Book One:

    “Oil and coal.”

    As you know, oil and coal are both fossil fuels, one of which Alaska has (oil) and one which it doesn’t (coal – at least not in significant quantities). These fossil fuels came from dinosaurs, which everyone knows were saved from destruction by the Grace of God as expressed through His Mercy in Noah’s Ark. But they all died off some 6,000 years ago so that we could have Life in Abundance through burning their remains.

    “Of course, it’s a fungible commodity…”

    Fungible is a word like fungus, and fungus grows best by keeping it in the dark and feeding it bullshit.

    “and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules…”

    I mean, that would be rediculous, putting little American Flags on all those tiny molecules.

    “…where it’s going and where it’s not. “

    Just like me and this reply. No one knows where I’m going, and where I’m not. That’s because I’m the world’s foremost expert on energy. And experts are supposed to speak in a language nobody understands. Just like when I speak in tongues at my church.

    “But in the sense of the Congress today…”

    And thank God Congress lacks any sense.

    “…they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first.”

    Exxon’s profits aren’t nearly high enough. Neither are the other oil companies. Think of all those starving CEO’s….

    “So, I believe that what Congress is going to do,”

    Because God told me what Congress is going to do.

    “… also, is not to allow the export bans…”

    We’re gonna ship that oil to the highest bidder on the Global Market.

    “…to such a degree that it’s Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here …”

    We’re shipping shopping bags overseas, too. That way Americans cannot get stuck holding the bag which is devoid of energy sources.

    “pumped here.”

    Now, if I say it, it’s ok. But if Obama says it, it’s sexist. There’s loads of virgin oil fields in Alaska, just waiting to be exploited. And the first to drill is the first to get the thrill of that big gusher.

    “It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first.”

    And then overseas – to higher profits.



Jump to Top

About Think Progress | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | RSS | Donate
© 2005-2009 Center for American Progress Action Fund
View Most Popular

Advertisement

What We're About

Featured

image
Subscribe to the Progress Report



imageTopic Cloud


Visit Our Affiliated Sites

image image
Reports


Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.

Name:
Email:
Tip:
(required)


imageArchives


imageBlog Roll