Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close., page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 09:30 AM by darkbluesky

Originally posted by bknapple32
Well, she didnt know what the Bush doctrine was... this all sounds to familiar to when bush jr was asked to name the worlds foreign leaders and he couldnt name hardly any... Scary cause that same bush was elected

[edit on 13-9-2008 by bknapple32]

Unfortunately, her interrogator did not know what the Bush Doctrine really is either.

Please read:

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe - Charles Krauthammer - Washington Post

reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 10:21 AM by pavil

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by pavil

Bad choice of words? Either way shes WAYYY off. since you had to venture a guess where the quote came from, I doubt you looked at the article to back this up.. another quote from it might help.....

Thanks for the compliment, I will be announcing my Candidacy soon.

BTW, I do read the articles and the supporting links in the articles as well. My link is found within the article you are talking about, that article is used as a source for the Factcheck article, proving that I did read it, jeez, chill out a little. I won't even ask for an apology, hint, hint. I don't think you want to jump on every word a candidate utters to prove they are wrong or unqualified, IMO. You might not like the results.

Again, I said she probably was referring to the average % of Domestically produced Oil and or Natural Gas.

Here is from the fact check article, but it just discusses last years numbers, not the average of Domestic production that I am talking about.

Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels.

As I've stated, the term energy was innappropriate, sub in Oil and the statement stands when you take an average of % of Domestic production, not just last year's numbers. The existing oil fields in Alaska are producing less oil each year, thats why there is a need to find/explore/drill for new fields.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, but go ahead if you think it will help.

reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 08:50 PM by lee anoma

Originally posted by Areal51
Why is it always revenge of the gaffe when folks point out something important?

I'm confused.

Are you saying that each slip up or gaffe is revelatory of the speakers dishonesty or true intentions?
Are you saying that there are no gaffes and that those being attributed to the candidates are outright lies?

Gaffes happen and I don't see why this one is any different than all the others. There have been a lot these past few months and I seriously believe they were slip ups. Now if those slip ups were consistently repeated and when brought to the attention of the candidate making the gaffe supported nonetheless, then yes they would be lying.

My "Revenge of the Gaffe" statement was a joke about not taking them seriously from either side. If I went rabid and into attack mode on this, I'd look as foolish as those who did the same thing to Obama.

Is it important that she could have been lying and not made a mistake?

Perhaps.

However this number was close to a similar one in a similar category, so there is no proof that she was intentionally trying to deceive and instead confused the categories. What would she serve to gain by saying Alaska supplies 20% of US energy? Bragging rights? Meh...doesn't really make a difference either way.

This only becomes and issue if we remove all possibility of error on her part.
In my opinion, and with something this close, we never should do that.

- Lee

reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 08:58 PM by lee anoma

Originally posted by Areal51
Making gaffe's on purpose is a rhetorical device and tactic.

They can be, but not always.
Even then it can be difficult to tell.

Unless you think Obama believes America consists of 57 states.
Seems you have already made your conclusion but don't expect it to be accepted as universal fact.

Oh and I've said the same thing about Obama's gaffes on numerous occasions (if you care to look) so please don't try and say that I am doing this now because her gaffe was somehow more important than any of his.

- Lee

reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 09:40 PM by thedman

I could be wrong, but I heard almost every drop of alaskan oil goes straight to Japan

Much of Alaska oil is sent to Japan. Alaskan crude tends to be what is
called "heavy, sour" crudes - contains large amount of Sulfur (sour)
and heavier hydrocarbons which make if more difficult to refine. US
refineries are set up to process lighter crudes and more of US production
is in form of gasoline. Overseas go for diesel.

reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 11:30 PM by Areal51

reply to post by lee anoma

No one knows where Sarah Palin got her information from, so similar numbers from any source not directly cited by Palin are irrelevant.

Maybe you were joking. That's beside the point, in addition to any sort of partisan bias.

My focus was on the fact that politicians mislead on purpose at times that are convenient to them. Whether Palin mislead by intention or mistake is a question that's difficult to answer. I said as much. However, she certainly does have much to gain from misleading on the figures she cited. She initiated the focus on Alaska's energy production all on her own (and used to deflect Gibson's focus on national security). Gibson did not pose a question to the issue. Palin attempted to paint herself as someone who fights hard for the United States' struggle for energy indepedence, and that Alaska's "energy supply" output should be perceived as proof that she is making significant progress in that struggle.

That's how I saw it.

At any rate, you're not the only person that's chimed in with "revenge of the gaffe" on ATS. That's why I didn't directly respond to you. I responded instead to the general issue of folks making that response when others point out matters of significance that are contradictory to what politicians have said.

reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 12:02 AM by Areal51

reply to post by lee anoma

There's no need to be defensive. I'm not curious in the slightest bit about what you have said in the past previous to this thread. Nor am I interested in whether you are biased in one direction or many others.

Again, I already said that it usually is hard to tell when politicians make gaffes. They mislead well enough that many would-be gaffes go unnoticed by most observers. The other thing is that a gaffe is only a gaffe when a politician, or his or her respective party, says that it was a gaffe. Otherwise, glaring mistakes, such as Obama stating that there were 57 states in the union, are easily recognized.

Donald Rumsfeld said that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. John McCain said that Osama Bin Laden has been captured and/or killed. Are either glaring mistakes, subtle gaffes, or both?

It's not important to answer that question because it is rhetorical. What is important is to recognize that such "mistakes" have a noticeable effect on those people who are listening for information that otherwise might not be forthcoming, and those who are easily persuaded toward confusion. Politicians know this. Which is why they use deceptive tactics of lying on purpose, making glaring mistakes, or gaffes on purpose.

reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 12:03 AM by pavil

Originally posted by Areal51
No one knows where Sarah Palin got her information from, so similar numbers from any source not directly cited by Palin are irrelevant.

Footnote: When we asked the McCain campaign where the 20 percent figure came from, we were referred to the Web site of the Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc, a group that says it promotes development of Alaska's natural resources. It states:

From the OP link. Jeez you think I am just making this up?

[edit on 14-9-2008 by pavil]

reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 01:06 AM by lee anoma

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by lee anoma

There's no need to be defensive. I'm not curious in the slightest bit about what you have said in the past previous to this thread. Nor am I interested in whether you are biased in one direction or many others.

Forgive me but this quote:

Originally posted by Areal51
Why is it always revenge of the gaffe when folks point out something important?

...lead me to believe otherwise.
What exactly was it supposed to mean?

Since you don't care about my record on such issues what are you basing your very presumptive "always" on?

- Lee

[edit on 14-9-2008 by lee anoma]

reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 01:17 AM by lee anoma

Originally posted by Areal51

Donald Rumsfeld said that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. John McCain said that Osama Bin Laden has been captured and/or killed. Are either glaring mistakes, subtle gaffes, or both?

In this case though they are a far cry from saying 20% of this instead of 20% of that.

Again this is more of a non issue to me than the two statements you referenced.
The implications of those statements are staggering...as opposed to whether or not 20% of X comes from Alaska.

I think this is a molehill and as such not really worth fighting to reveal politicians as the liars they tend to be.

Just my opinion though, but if people want to crucify her over this I won't stop them.

- Lee

reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 01:42 AM by DavidWright

The thought of Big Mac in the office is scary enough........but this Woman taking over if he died.......this country would be doomed.

It's not the fact that shes a woman......its just every time she is put on the spot.....here ignorance shows though.

I don't like Obama either before the arrows fly....

reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 09:09 AM by Areal51

reply to post by lee anoma

If I have to quote myself from an answer that I gave you in order to answer the very same question that you are now asking again, I will do so.

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by lee anoma

...you're not the only person that's chimed in with "revenge of the gaffe" on ATS. That's why I didn't directly respond to you. I responded instead to the general issue of folks making that response when others point out matters of significance that are contradictory to what politicians have said. [Emphasis added.]

Nothing is presumptive about my use of "always". I've seen "revenge of the gaffe" enough times, in enough posts as a response to people who point out important details that my perception is now at the point where I "always" see "revenge of the gaffe" being used nearly every time someone wants to excuse what a politician has said. I didn't mean "always" literally, I used it emotionally to convey that I have noticed "revenge of the gaffe" being used a lot, though not necessarily in every case.

Your posting history has nothing to do with it, other than in this thread your response triggered my response. Though, my response was not about naming names or citing a historical record.

"Why is it always revenge of the gaffe when folks point out something important?", is rhetorical. The implied meaning to the word "exasperation" is appropriate when considering that question. I don't expect someone to actually try and answer it, because it was used to convey my own observation and emotional response to that observation.

reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 09:19 AM by Areal51

reply to post by lee anoma

If it's a molehill, why would you compare Rumsfeld and McCain's statements to Palin's?

I only provided other examples where it's impossible to know for sure whether the statements were intentionally made or genuine mistakes. It doesn't make too much sense to compare the significance of possible bungled statements that were made by different politicians. It makes better sense to focus on the significance of the statements.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^