Anyone on the fence should just be shown this quote and simply say "This woman would be a john mccain heartbeat from president"
"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."
I'm not even sure what she's trying to say there. Other than "someone taught me the word 'fungible' today."
When I first heard the South Carolina pageant girl comparison I thought it was overly mean and sexist, but after reading that quote it's strikingly accurate.
I think she is saying that:
1. Oil is fungible, meaning it doesn't matter where you sell it.
2. We're agonna make sure offshore oil it is sold right here in the good old USA by golly I tell ya what!
Anyone on the fence should just be shown this quote and simply say "This woman would be a john mccain heartbeat from president"
"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."
What the hell does this mean?
Even though oil is a commodity—which means that any oil we dig up from Alaska is going to be indistinguishable, market-wise, from oil we import from Saudi Arabia—Sarah Palin believes that Congress is going to do something to make that not the case.
Anyone on the fence should just be shown this quote and simply say "This woman would be a john mccain heartbeat from president"
"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."
What the hell does this mean?
Even though oil is a commodity—which means that any oil we dig up from Alaska is going to be indistinguishable, market-wise, from oil we import from Saudi Arabia—Sarah Palin believes that Congress is going to do something to make that not the case.
Basically I have no idea how we're going to come up with the cash up front,
Massive inflation.
Yeah, sadly enough I wouldn't be surprised if the short term answer ends with ".... world of pain." I can't wrap my mind around what possible options we have for generating anything remotely like $1 trillion in cash that is even kind of feasible.
Basically I have no idea how we're going to come up with the cash up front,
Massive inflation.
Yes. Deficit spending -> inflation. In other words, deficit spending acts like a tax (and a regressive one at that). This is why the Republicans' anti-tax rhetoric is laughable, since they are the deficit spending champions of the woooooorld.
Girlfriend points out that a trillion dollars to save our market is about equal to what we spend per year in Iraq, so this isn't necessarily a sudden game changer re: inflation.
My big issue is I don't want to reward investors for making bad decisions. They have to come out of this with a significant loss for taking on such risk in the first place.
As far as I know, the stockholders got screwed in all these deals.
I'd like to believe that, but I haven't seen anything confirming it yet (I've been a bit too busy today to really google on it), and I'm a cynic by nature, so I'm inclined to believe that those most responsible, at the top end of this fiasco, will walk away with fat wallets to make the same mistakes again.
*edit* Preacher nailed my concerns, even if I failed to voice them properly. ;-)
If they walk away with fat wallets from this, then is it really a mistake for them? Not if you are a kleptocrat.
Again show that quote to anyone and mention energy is her "strong" suit. This is Sarah Palin's national security cred. She believes oil dug here will remain here because america.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
That quote is hilarious, because I bet nobody had any idea wtf she was saying, but she probably got really loud when she said "our domestic markets first" and everybody got up and cheered.
Again show that quote to anyone and mention energy is her "strong" suit. This is Sarah Palin's national security cred. She believes oil dug here will remain here because america.
I could see that maybe there was point to be made with that quote, what with our massive trade imbalance in regards to oil, but she failed pretty spectacularly in making it.
Anyone on the fence should just be shown this quote and simply say "This woman would be a john mccain heartbeat from president"
"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."
What the hell does this mean?
Even though oil is a commodity—which means that any oil we dig up from Alaska is going to be indistinguishable, market-wise, from oil we import from Saudi Arabia—Sarah Palin believes that Congress is going to do something to make that not the case.
Are the economists fleeing from McCain/Palin yet?
Seeing as both the Economist and the Wall Street Journal are beating the shit out of them, I'd say yes, inshwillow.
My girlfriend works at an options exchange and I'm waiting for her to proudly proclaim that all her bosses and traders have jumped ship to Lord Obama..
Anyone on the fence should just be shown this quote and simply say "This woman would be a john mccain heartbeat from president"
"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."
I'm not even sure what she's trying to say there. Other than "someone taught me the word 'fungible' today."
"You know, the molecules," is the part that got me. I'd guess she got it in a "word of the day" calendars, but shouldn't it at least be up to the "s" words by now? I guess we can't all have those "Bushism" calendars, like last year's christmas gift.
My reading is that she is talking about tracking where offshore oil is sold. So "no, they don't have additives that show where the oil is drilled, but the congress is going to make sure the offshore oil goes to American markets instead of getting sold on the world market."
But again, if it is fungible that DOES NOT MATTER.
So I don't think she knows what "fungible" means. You might as well claim that your taxes are earmarked only for education.
I'm really starting to think that as we get further from the initial calibration period for my gallup break-out, the less accurate it gets because it's been swinging pretty wildly lately. If they would just release results out to the goddamn decimal it would be so much more accurate.
Anyway, my model says that since Obama scored a 51 wednesday and a 51 tuesday, to hit 49 today he would have actually have to have dropped to 45 last night, while mccain would have hit 47 just to maintain at 44 because of a 41% result dragging his numbers down
So according to my model last night was actually a McCain +2 night, but I jut have a really hard time believing that there was a nine point shift from wednesday night to last night, especially in light of the banking crisis dominating the airwaves and the generally rising numbers that barack's been seeing.
I'm gonna keep doing the break-out for my own amusement but I'm not going to start posting it again until we have another very steady period of the same results for four or five days so I can re-calibrate.
Well it's official guys -- my model has lost whatever ability it had to accurately divine nightly results from the trackers, as it appears Gallup themselves confirm my gut feeling:
Obama enjoyed one of his widest advantages over McCain of recent weeks in Thursday night's interviewing. It will be important to see whether the stock market's reaction today to aggressive government intervention in the crisis has an impact of the direction of the presidential race over the next few days.
I just recalibrated over the recent 4-day spans each candidate had, and got dailies of 51-47 Obama. Highest single day for Obama, but far from the widest gap (I got 48-41 for Tuesday).
But I'm not very good at this, so it's entirely possible that I fucked it up.
ah you're right there's a calibration period that just happened
if I re-calibrate I get a 48 O 47 M for last night, so it's still not quite correct.
That quote is hilarious, because I bet nobody had any idea wtf she was saying, but she probably really loud when she said "our domestic markets first" and everybody got up and cheered.
Well of course, she could shout "I want to kill every 5th child *pause* FOR AMERICA!" and people would still cheer just like Barack could say "And when your wife is my wife you'll know thats CHANGE!" and people would cheer.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Basically I have no idea how we're going to come up with the cash up front,
Massive inflation.
Yes. Deficit spending -> inflation. In other words, deficit spending acts like a tax (and a regressive one at that). This is why the Republicans' anti-tax rhetoric is laughable, since they are the deficit spending champions of the woooooorld.
Girlfriend points out that a trillion dollars to save our market is about equal to what we spend per year in Iraq, so this isn't necessarily a sudden game changer re: inflation.
I thought we spent 10 billion a month, not 100?
jungleroomx on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Anyone on the fence should just be shown this quote and simply say "This woman would be a john mccain heartbeat from president"
"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."
I'm not even sure what she's trying to say there. Other than "someone taught me the word 'fungible' today."
When I first heard the South Carolina pageant girl comparison I thought it was overly mean and sexist, but after reading that quote it's strikingly accurate.
I think she is saying that:
1. Oil is fungible, meaning it doesn't matter where you sell it.
2. We're agonna make sure offshore oil it is sold right here in the good old USA by golly I tell ya what!
Head asplode.
After reading it about three times - I found it easier to parse if I skipped the bit about fungible molecules, because that invariably made my brain freeze up - that's what I interpreted, too. "Oil is a fungible commodity. Therefore, congress must limit the sale of domestic oil to foreign markets."
One heartbeat away.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Anyone on the fence should just be shown this quote and simply say "This woman would be a john mccain heartbeat from president"
"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."
What the hell does this mean?
Even though oil is a commodity—which means that any oil we dig up from Alaska is going to be indistinguishable, market-wise, from oil we import from Saudi Arabia—Sarah Palin believes that Congress is going to do something to make that not the case.
Again show that quote to anyone and mention energy is her "strong" suit. This is Sarah Palin's national security cred. She believes oil dug here will remain here because america.
I could see that maybe there was point to be made with that quote, what with our massive trade imbalance in regards to oil, but she failed pretty spectacularly in making it.
And her parties solution to that imbalance is to allow offshore drilling which won't create much new oil at all and that will solve the imbalance. It's not just that her quote fails, their fucking policy fails. So in a way its hard to sound competent when what you are shoveling is grade z bullshit.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think she's actually saying "We won't do anything to make oil companies keep the oil here if they could get higher profits on the world market, but I'm phrasing this in such a content-free way that it sounds like I'm saying we would do something about that. My last sentence will cement this confusion. It's got to flow into our domestic markets first."
Senjutsu on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Basically I have no idea how we're going to come up with the cash up front,
Massive inflation.
Yes. Deficit spending -> inflation. In other words, deficit spending acts like a tax (and a regressive one at that). This is why the Republicans' anti-tax rhetoric is laughable, since they are the deficit spending champions of the woooooorld.
Girlfriend points out that a trillion dollars to save our market is about equal to what we spend per year in Iraq, so this isn't necessarily a sudden game changer re: inflation.
I thought we spent 10 billion a month, not 100?
Yeah 10-12.
No-Quarter on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
I just read the fungible molecules comment.
Did she really just reverse her position/contradict herself in the same statement? I mean, I can SEE she did, so she either has no idea what "fungible" means, or she has no idea what anything means.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Basically I have no idea how we're going to come up with the cash up front,
Massive inflation.
Yes. Deficit spending -> inflation. In other words, deficit spending acts like a tax (and a regressive one at that). This is why the Republicans' anti-tax rhetoric is laughable, since they are the deficit spending champions of the woooooorld.
Girlfriend points out that a trillion dollars to save our market is about equal to what we spend per year in Iraq, so this isn't necessarily a sudden game changer re: inflation.
I thought we spent 10 billion a month, not 100?
Yeah 10-12.
So dude's girlfriend meant what we'd spend in the Iraq war in 10 years.
Just checking.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I'm really starting to think that as we get further from the initial calibration period for my gallup break-out, the less accurate it gets because it's been swinging pretty wildly lately. If they would just release results out to the goddamn decimal it would be so much more accurate.
Anyway, my model says that since Obama scored a 51 wednesday and a 51 tuesday, to hit 49 today he would have actually have to have dropped to 45 last night, while mccain would have hit 47 just to maintain at 44 because of a 41% result dragging his numbers down
So according to my model last night was actually a McCain +2 night, but I jut have a really hard time believing that there was a nine point shift from wednesday night to last night, especially in light of the banking crisis dominating the airwaves and the generally rising numbers that barack's been seeing.
I'm gonna keep doing the break-out for my own amusement but I'm not going to start posting it again until we have another very steady period of the same results for four or five days so I can re-calibrate.
Well it's official guys -- my model has lost whatever ability it had to accurately divine nightly results from the trackers, as it appears Gallup themselves confirm my gut feeling:
Obama enjoyed one of his widest advantages over McCain of recent weeks in Thursday night's interviewing. It will be important to see whether the stock market's reaction today to aggressive government intervention in the crisis has an impact of the direction of the presidential race over the next few days.
I just recalibrated over the recent 4-day spans each candidate had, and got dailies of 51-47 Obama. Highest single day for Obama, but far from the widest gap (I got 48-41 for Tuesday).
But I'm not very good at this, so it's entirely possible that I fucked it up.
ah you're right there's a calibration period that just happened
if I re-calibrate I get a 48 O 47 M for last night, so it's still not quite correct.
Eh, maybe I'll put more time into it later
Someone earlier suggested that Gallup may weight the daily tracking numbers with prior three-day averages, not with the prior daily tracking numbers. This makes no sense whatsoever, but does result in numbers that make yesterday's single-day lead substantial.
Another possibility is that the method we're using for calibration is flatly wrong in trying to assume a period of unchanging daily stats. Not knowing anything about the prior days, for example, a long string of 44-44-44-44-44... could mean daily results of 44, or a repeating series of 41-44-47, or all manner of other possibilities.
So... it may be impossible to really know what the daily tracking numbers look like unless we know for certain a specific set of numbers.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think she's actually saying "We won't do anything to make oil companies keep the oil here if they could get higher profits on the world market, but I'm phrasing this in such a content-free way that it sounds like I'm saying we would do something about that. My last sentence will cement this confusion. It's got to flow into our domestic markets first."
So you know, they'd try to enact legislation and regulations on markets where they're trying to get rid of legislation and regulations?
Anyone on the fence should just be shown this quote and simply say "This woman would be a john mccain heartbeat from president"
"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."
What the hell does this mean?
Even though oil is a commodity—which means that any oil we dig up from Alaska is going to be indistinguishable, market-wise, from oil we import from Saudi Arabia—Sarah Palin believes that Congress is going to do something to make that not the case.
I think she's talking more about the transportation of the oil in Alaska. I'm in a unique position to discuss this, as I work for a Canadian pipeline company that owns pipes which stretch from Alaska down into the greater U.S.
Currently if oil is produced in Alaska there are tarrifs for transporting it via Canadian pipelines. Makes sense, the pipes are ours, in our land, you want to ship your oil through it; it will cost ya. Sometimes American companies doing business in Alaska will defer that cost by having the oil processed in Canada and then the refined product is transported down into the U.S., with Canada keeping a cut.
Palin has talked about this before, about how there should be a ban on Canadian refineries working with American oil reserves... except the problem is this; many of the large Alaskan reserves are Canadian reserves as well. These are massive swaths of oil, underground, and they don't respect borders.
Long story short; she's talking out of her ass, basically trying to sound like she knows something about the oil markets when she really doesn't. If an American company, doing business in Alaska, wants to transport the raw product through Canada into the U.S. so it can be refined and used WITHIN the U.S. first... that can happen very easily. The only time Canadian refineries get involved is if the American oil companys OPT to use them.
Again show that quote to anyone and mention energy is her "strong" suit. This is Sarah Palin's national security cred. She believes oil dug here will remain here because america.
I could see that maybe there was point to be made with that quote, what with our massive trade imbalance in regards to oil, but she failed pretty spectacularly in making it.
And her parties solution to that imbalance is to allow offshore drilling which won't create much new oil at all and that will solve the imbalance. It's not just that her quote fails, their fucking policy fails. So in a way its hard to sound competent when what you are shoveling is grade z bullshit.
Well, one point that could be made is that with the trade imbalance it is more or less moot whether or not there are any roadblocks to exporting the oil gotten from the new drilling, as it would have pretty much the same effect on our trade balance either way. However, the other side of that argument is of course that we import so much relative to how much oil would be producing from the new offshore facilities that it would have an almost trivial affect on prices.
The problem for them is that the reason why prohibiting exporting of this oil is essentially meaningless is tied to the fact that the whole thing is a token measure.
Will the legislature unleash the fury on Palin for jerking them around so much on Troopergate, just to prove that they have that power? Or not?
No she's still an alaskan politician who sucks federal money like a pro, no way they get rid of her. Hell losing would let them sweep this under the rug like they intended.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Will the legislature unleash the fury on Palin for jerking them around so much on Troopergate, just to prove that they have that power? Or not?
I suspect that whatever she did there isn't so much grossly illegal as in direct contradiction to McCain's campaign message and basic human decency. If the position was at-will, then she could fire the guy for whatever stupid reason she wanted, up to and including going against her pro-rape policies. So if she loses, she'll go back to Alaska, shrug off the charges, and continue to buy her popularity with massive checks cut to each citizen.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
When you have a margin of error of, say, 3 points, does that apply to both candidates figures for the purposes of determining whether they're polling "within the margin of error", or does it apply to the gap between them? That is, would there need to be a 6 point split before they're out of the margin of error (because Obama's could be three points high while McCain's is three points low, for example) or does there just need to be a 3 point split?
The margin of error applies to the gap.
dammit people stop giving conflicting answers
That's it, I'm calling in the big guns.
edit: Oh sure, be away kakos
Okay. The margin of error is a radius around the reported value for a given confidence interval. Gallup and most other polling places use a 95% confidence interval, so a 3% margin of error means that there is a 95% probability that the "true" value is somewhere in the that 6% range centred around the reported value. Margin of error is a good statistic when you want to talk about the quality of data, but it sadly isn't precisely what you're looking for.
Sadly, the statistic you likely want is nowhere mentioned in most polls and that is the probability that Obama is truly ahead of McCain. So, let's calculate that.
First off, we calculate the difference of means: .48-.44=.04=µ
Next, we calculate the standard error: sqrt((.48(1-.48)+.44(1-.44)+2*.44*.48)/N)=.0303=σ
Well, now we have a standard deviation and a mean, so let's make a normal distribution out of it. Now, we want 1-CDF(0), CDF(0) being the probability that the difference is less than zero, so we take 1 minus that to get the probability that it is greater than zero.
CDF(0) for our little normal distribution is .5*(1+erf(-µ/(σ*√2)))=.5*(1-0.812985)=.0935
So, the probability that Obama's true lead is greater than zero is 1-.0935=.9065=90.65%
My big issue is I don't want to reward investors for making bad decisions. They have to come out of this with a significant loss for taking on such risk in the first place.
As far as I know, the stockholders got screwed in all these deals.
stockholders in companies the government takes over get screwed. But the entire market is up, especially financials, because of the plan they're working on. So in that sense, stockholders are getting rewarded pretty handsomely in the short term (last few days). I think prices are generally still below where they were when Freddy and Fannie got taken over.
As for homeowners, they're still losing their homes. This doesn't help them at all, except in the sense that it will hopefully stabilize financial markets which will stabilize credit markets, which will make getting a mortgage slightly easier (not as easy as before, but easier than yesterday), which might help home prices, slightly (though they're still dropping and this won't help falling home prices).
I think she's actually saying "We won't do anything to make oil companies keep the oil here if they could get higher profits on the world market, but I'm phrasing this in such a content-free way that it sounds like I'm saying we would do something about that. My last sentence will cement this confusion. It's got to flow into our domestic markets first."
So you know, they'd try to enact legislation and regulations on markets where they're trying to get rid of legislation and regulations?
Really?
You're making the mistake of assuming that McCain-Palin's policies exist along a single spectrum that precludes them from doing both X and -X. In reality, their policies exist along an indeterminate number of axes in N-space. It's sort of like string theory, but with more caribou.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think she's actually saying "We won't do anything to make oil companies keep the oil here if they could get higher profits on the world market, but I'm phrasing this in such a content-free way that it sounds like I'm saying we would do something about that. My last sentence will cement this confusion. It's got to flow into our domestic markets first."
So you know, they'd try to enact legislation and regulations on markets where they're trying to get rid of legislation and regulations?
Really?
John McCain: For Regulation By Being Against Regulation
And I'm sure the execs who oversaw this will all retire on their Cayman island accounts
I'm so tired of that line. They would have done that anyway. Now instead of them having, say $400 million, they'll have $200 million. I'm sure that will be addressed by the forthcoming reforms.
Anyone on the fence should just be shown this quote and simply say "This woman would be a john mccain heartbeat from president"
"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."
What the hell does this mean?
Even though oil is a commodity—which means that any oil we dig up from Alaska is going to be indistinguishable, market-wise, from oil we import from Saudi Arabia—Sarah Palin believes that Congress is going to do something to make that not the case.
Posts
I think she is saying that:
1. Oil is fungible, meaning it doesn't matter where you sell it.
2. We're agonna make sure offshore oil it is sold right here in the good old USA by golly I tell ya what!
Head asplode.
Uhhh....huh.....
We could borrow if from some Ban.... oh.
If they walk away with fat wallets from this, then is it really a mistake for them? Not if you are a kleptocrat.
pleasepaypreacher.net
1. Economists have money.
2. Palin/McCain will give massive taxes to people with money.
3. No.
I could see that maybe there was point to be made with that quote, what with our massive trade imbalance in regards to oil, but she failed pretty spectacularly in making it.
My girlfriend works at an options exchange and I'm waiting for her to proudly proclaim that all her bosses and traders have jumped ship to Lord Obama..
My reading is that she is talking about tracking where offshore oil is sold. So "no, they don't have additives that show where the oil is drilled, but the congress is going to make sure the offshore oil goes to American markets instead of getting sold on the world market."
But again, if it is fungible that DOES NOT MATTER.
So I don't think she knows what "fungible" means. You might as well claim that your taxes are earmarked only for education.
ah you're right there's a calibration period that just happened
if I re-calibrate I get a 48 O 47 M for last night, so it's still not quite correct.
Eh, maybe I'll put more time into it later
Well of course, she could shout "I want to kill every 5th child *pause* FOR AMERICA!" and people would still cheer just like Barack could say "And when your wife is my wife you'll know thats CHANGE!" and people would cheer.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I thought we spent 10 billion a month, not 100?
After reading it about three times - I found it easier to parse if I skipped the bit about fungible molecules, because that invariably made my brain freeze up - that's what I interpreted, too. "Oil is a fungible commodity. Therefore, congress must limit the sale of domestic oil to foreign markets."
One heartbeat away.
American Oil gives +3 to SUV MPG.
And her parties solution to that imbalance is to allow offshore drilling which won't create much new oil at all and that will solve the imbalance. It's not just that her quote fails, their fucking policy fails. So in a way its hard to sound competent when what you are shoveling is grade z bullshit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Will the legislature unleash the fury on Palin for jerking them around so much on Troopergate, just to prove that they have that power? Or not?
Yeah 10-12.
Did she really just reverse her position/contradict herself in the same statement? I mean, I can SEE she did, so she either has no idea what "fungible" means, or she has no idea what anything means.
So dude's girlfriend meant what we'd spend in the Iraq war in 10 years.
Just checking.
Someone earlier suggested that Gallup may weight the daily tracking numbers with prior three-day averages, not with the prior daily tracking numbers. This makes no sense whatsoever, but does result in numbers that make yesterday's single-day lead substantial.
Another possibility is that the method we're using for calibration is flatly wrong in trying to assume a period of unchanging daily stats. Not knowing anything about the prior days, for example, a long string of 44-44-44-44-44... could mean daily results of 44, or a repeating series of 41-44-47, or all manner of other possibilities.
So... it may be impossible to really know what the daily tracking numbers look like unless we know for certain a specific set of numbers.
Someone needs to work this into that first Twisp and Catsby comic.
So you know, they'd try to enact legislation and regulations on markets where they're trying to get rid of legislation and regulations?
Really?
I think she's talking more about the transportation of the oil in Alaska. I'm in a unique position to discuss this, as I work for a Canadian pipeline company that owns pipes which stretch from Alaska down into the greater U.S.
Currently if oil is produced in Alaska there are tarrifs for transporting it via Canadian pipelines. Makes sense, the pipes are ours, in our land, you want to ship your oil through it; it will cost ya. Sometimes American companies doing business in Alaska will defer that cost by having the oil processed in Canada and then the refined product is transported down into the U.S., with Canada keeping a cut.
Palin has talked about this before, about how there should be a ban on Canadian refineries working with American oil reserves... except the problem is this; many of the large Alaskan reserves are Canadian reserves as well. These are massive swaths of oil, underground, and they don't respect borders.
Long story short; she's talking out of her ass, basically trying to sound like she knows something about the oil markets when she really doesn't. If an American company, doing business in Alaska, wants to transport the raw product through Canada into the U.S. so it can be refined and used WITHIN the U.S. first... that can happen very easily. The only time Canadian refineries get involved is if the American oil companys OPT to use them.
Well, one point that could be made is that with the trade imbalance it is more or less moot whether or not there are any roadblocks to exporting the oil gotten from the new drilling, as it would have pretty much the same effect on our trade balance either way. However, the other side of that argument is of course that we import so much relative to how much oil would be producing from the new offshore facilities that it would have an almost trivial affect on prices.
The problem for them is that the reason why prohibiting exporting of this oil is essentially meaningless is tied to the fact that the whole thing is a token measure.
No she's still an alaskan politician who sucks federal money like a pro, no way they get rid of her. Hell losing would let them sweep this under the rug like they intended.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I suspect that whatever she did there isn't so much grossly illegal as in direct contradiction to McCain's campaign message and basic human decency. If the position was at-will, then she could fire the guy for whatever stupid reason she wanted, up to and including going against her pro-rape policies. So if she loses, she'll go back to Alaska, shrug off the charges, and continue to buy her popularity with massive checks cut to each citizen.
Okay. The margin of error is a radius around the reported value for a given confidence interval. Gallup and most other polling places use a 95% confidence interval, so a 3% margin of error means that there is a 95% probability that the "true" value is somewhere in the that 6% range centred around the reported value. Margin of error is a good statistic when you want to talk about the quality of data, but it sadly isn't precisely what you're looking for.
Sadly, the statistic you likely want is nowhere mentioned in most polls and that is the probability that Obama is truly ahead of McCain. So, let's calculate that.
First off, we calculate the difference of means: .48-.44=.04=µ
Next, we calculate the standard error: sqrt((.48(1-.48)+.44(1-.44)+2*.44*.48)/N)=.0303=σ
Well, now we have a standard deviation and a mean, so let's make a normal distribution out of it. Now, we want 1-CDF(0), CDF(0) being the probability that the difference is less than zero, so we take 1 minus that to get the probability that it is greater than zero.
CDF(0) for our little normal distribution is .5*(1+erf(-µ/(σ*√2)))=.5*(1-0.812985)=.0935
So, the probability that Obama's true lead is greater than zero is 1-.0935=.9065=90.65%
stockholders in companies the government takes over get screwed. But the entire market is up, especially financials, because of the plan they're working on. So in that sense, stockholders are getting rewarded pretty handsomely in the short term (last few days). I think prices are generally still below where they were when Freddy and Fannie got taken over.
As for homeowners, they're still losing their homes. This doesn't help them at all, except in the sense that it will hopefully stabilize financial markets which will stabilize credit markets, which will make getting a mortgage slightly easier (not as easy as before, but easier than yesterday), which might help home prices, slightly (though they're still dropping and this won't help falling home prices).
You're making the mistake of assuming that McCain-Palin's policies exist along a single spectrum that precludes them from doing both X and -X. In reality, their policies exist along an indeterminate number of axes in N-space. It's sort of like string theory, but with more caribou.
Oh. So you're saying we're winning?
John McCain: For Regulation By Being Against Regulation
McCain/Palin 08
Or go on to be economic advisor's for presidential candidates.
I'm so tired of that line. They would have done that anyway. Now instead of them having, say $400 million, they'll have $200 million. I'm sure that will be addressed by the forthcoming reforms.
+3 to hit, +3 to damage, or both?