Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (85165)	9/17/2008 6:04:24 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541402

I posted the analysis of factcheck.org about Palin's energy claims a few days ago: Message 24944175 Snowshoe, you know I respect your independent views, but I have yet to see why anyone would call Palin an "expert" on energy issues. Sure, she raised taxes on oil companies operating in AK, and she canned the pipeline deal that Murkowski was trying to get through, and has a new deal in the works that won't be built for at least a few years but will cost $500m of Alaskan money now. I can't say I'm impressed yet, although she has done some very unRepublican things up yonder. I expect if a president gave $3,200 to every household (every qualified citizen?) of this country, they'd be pretty popular for awhile too. At least until the country went broke. Whoops, are we there yet?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (85165)	9/17/2008 9:40:01 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541402

>>roup: Palin's energy claims ‘not even close’ to the truth<< Snowshoe - I checked the Resource Development Council for Alaska's website, since a McCain spokesman said they were the source of the claim that Palin was "in charge of 20 percent of America’s energy supply." Here's what the site actually says: "Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production (1980 - 2000). Currrently, Alaska accounts for nearly 15% of U.S. production." So from 1980 to 2000, Alaska accounted for 20% of our domestic production, not our supply. In 2007, Alaska accounted for 14% of domestic production. Yep, the McCain figures are way off, especially because they didn't say "production" but instead referred to "supply". I also question the characterization of Palin's involvement in Alaskan energy. Can it be truthfully said she is "in charge" of it? I know she negotiates with the oil companies who produce the oil, and that she is involved in deciding how much the state will tax them. Plus, she has input into oil and gas field leases. Going from there to saying she's in charge of the production seems like a leap to me. None of this matters, though, because most of the people who hear McCain and Palin say this will probably believe it. And they'll continue to believe it no matter what Factcheck.org, or anybody else, says. And they'll be impressed by how knowledgeable Palin must be about energy, after 20 months "in charge" of 20% of our nation's energy supply. - Allen