Posted on 10/17/2008 4:23:37 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Has Mike Barnicle called Sarah Palin stupid? Seems that way. In a Huffington Post column that Mika Brzezinski read on today's Morning Joe, Barnicle, referring to Palin, wrote of the:
"preposterous pronouncements of a woman whose candidacy is an insult to intelligence."
Let's deconstruct. The normal formulation is to speak of something being an "insult to our intelligence" in the sense of asserting something that is obviously unbelievable. For example, you might say Barack Obama insulted our intelligence when he claimed against all evidence during this week's debate that his only tie to ACORN is his past representation of the group in a lawsuit. But when Barnicle writes that Sarah Palin's candidacy is an insult not to "our" intelligence, but to intelligence itself, it's hard to read that other than as suggesting Palin is something other than smart. Throw in his reference to "preposterous pronouncements" and there's little doubt that the person Barnicle intended to insult is Palin herself.
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
If you think the answer to the problem with gas prices is to drill for limited amounts of oil that will become available in 7 years, you need to think a bit more.
It is not that I do not support drilling, but rather I do not support it as either the first nor the only solution.
Drilling is a small part in a larger solution. Only people who have real problems with math and/or a complete lack of the concept of time would think that it was. Thus, the GOP has made itself the party of stupid solutions (although on this one, McCain was not so bad - except for the gas tax holiday which was just dumb).
join the Obama Campaign then you ignorant P.O.S.
They will let you trash Sarah and spew out Democratic talking points all day long.
Uh no genius. While biofuels are not the future of Gaia long term, they are the future of America for many decades to come and America has an abundance of oil and natural gas in Gaias gut. So, short term relatively speaking, drilling is the solution and the best and the brightest, like yourself I presume, would do well to understand that we will be sending trillions of dollars to folks who don't like us too much unless we get that through our advanced minds.
This has become a talking point. Of course, no no would ever be permitted to talk about a Democrat woman that way.
And besides, habitiual plagiarists like Barnicle make very weak accusers.
Hmm let’s see. Drilling estimates that at some point 5-7 years in the future a maximum of 21 billion barrels are available.
Let’s assume that there is really 60 billion out there.
At the US’s current consumption rate of 20 MPD that would last about 12 years.
Of course a genius like you would probably calculate in increased rates of consumption considering the price would go down and demand would go up. But dummies like me don’t understand that supply and demand stuff. Or are you in favour of that whole girly-man efficiency thinger?
You know they hate that. Like a Mafia family, it sends them into fits of rage when they don't get their cut.
No solutions, no real thinking but lots of venom. That isn't consverative talk, that is reactionary populism.
Gosh, with you as the poster child, the GOP really needs a split, a total makeover or to just finally die.
The American Petroleum Institute estimates recoverable U.S. oil resources at about 86 billion barrels offshore and 32 billion barrels onshore.
Natural gas?
Shale?
Tar sands?
Coal?
In 1920 estimates were worldwide oil reserves were 60 billion barrels. I’m quite sure had you been alive then you would have believed it.
Bakken has reserves estimated at 5 billion barrels. ANWR 9-16.
That about covers your 21 billion right there and we haven’t even got offshore yet. Not to mention that there is a helluva lot more America than Bakken and ANWR.
As for supply and demand I got a good chuckle. Americans are demanding we drill in America and off our shores. You? Not so much. Do you think we can power America on windmills and solar panels for the next 50 years?
When did the Russians cease testing our Alaskan borders with aircraft?
It was not revealed until much later about the depth of Reagan’s thought. At the time the criticism of Reagan indicated that the bulk of our “intellectuals” thought he was a very shallow thinker, a cowboy movie star who could hardly match wits with their like. One rock idiot called him “Ronald Raygun” and many of that idiotic ilk picked up on it and there were many other epithets. When he made Norman Mailer look like what he was they were completely caught by surprise.
We really don’t know much about Sarah Palin but it is easy to tell that she is neither stupid nor unlearned as one would expect from a descendent of Baltic Jews, who were among the most intelligent and accomplished peoples in history.
As for Alaska: strategically it has been since World War Ii extremely important and its vast resources have made it a major player with our allies in the Far East as well as with the Russians who have never ceased their attempts to encroach upon it and us. Nor is it an easy state to govern because of its size and the diversity of its population and ecology. I don’t recall that there was any long term foe continually seeking to encroach upon California much less take over some of its land.
More illegal Mexicans Invade California on a daily basis than have Russians ever entered Alaska.
The Russian encroachments upon Alaska are directly ordered by the Russian government. Although now the Mexican government is collusive in politically and economically (by its economic incompetence) in driving the Mexican invasion of Mexico in Reagan’s time it had not yet engaged in such direct government driving of the “reconquista.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.