Oil Slide Worries Traders. *relax* This Should Get Sorted by Year End.

41 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Bill Clinton did a better job of owning up to his bad deeds (BJ, cigars etc.).

Trump tries to hide that he buys whores then pays them off.

bs....

he lied the whole time and denied it all...

Still lies about it.

He was impeached, by the House and stripped of his license to Practice Law, etc...

He was a rapist from his college days in England,  when after being charged with Rape on campus,  his Rhodes Scholarship was revoked and he was sent back to the USA and the charges were dropped.

Kept raping all his life.

You really need to think about your ability to properly judge people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

U.S. Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg - remember her history.  

RBG is currently very ill, and the far left is freaking out that RBG may pass away soon, allowing Trump to replace her with a conservative justice.

230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

(8 MB pdf, file size exceeds this forum's 2MB limit, so I can't attach it here, but you can download it yourself in the link above.)

Highlights:

● Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)

● Called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (Page 145)

● Insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (Page 169)

● Cast constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (Page 146)

● Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)

● Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)

● Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)

● Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)

● Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)

● An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)

● Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)

● Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.

More history:

http://humanevents.com/2005/08/23/senators-overlooked-radical-record-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/

 

Ginsburg is one of several perverts on the SCOTUS and i for one,  am very happy that she will be replaced soon.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Illurion said:

You need to stop quoting silly things from silly websites,  and go to CHURCH.

I attended a private Christian school from grades 7 to 9... church 3 times a week plus an hour of bible class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 minutes ago, Illurion said:

wikipedia = nonsense

Yes, only read what confirms your opinions.  Confirmation bias

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 minutes ago, Illurion said:

wikipedia = nonsense

Just for you Fox news hahaha

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/fake-news-is-here-to-stay-study-says

 

This trend will be fueled, in part, by “confirmation bias,” that “leads all people to seek out, select and value information that parallels what they believe and expect to be proven true,”

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

45 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Have you ever fought a sustained battle for your life against an enemy with no moral code? 

Sometimes i think i have,  and am.

Only i call the enemy liberals.

Despite what they claim to believe, they actually have no CORE beliefs.

Everything is RELATIVE.

Talking with them can be very exhausting,  and mostly fruitless.

Edited by Illurion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

I attended a private Christian school from grades 7 to 9... church 3 times a week plus an hour of bible class.

Golly Gee...

So,  you are saying you are in 9th grade...?

That explains all the silly things  you have written..

 

On the other hand,  if you are NOT in the 9th grade,   and what you referred to was long ago,  then you should go back to Church,  as you seem to have lost sight of the intent of what those Bible verses were trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Just for you Fox news hahaha

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/fake-news-is-here-to-stay-study-says

 

This trend will be fueled, in part, by “confirmation bias,” that “leads all people to seek out, select and value information that parallels what they believe and expect to be proven true,”

Golly gee..

You are quoting FOX.

Unfortunately,  FOX is not what it once was,  and contains much FAKE news.

You should go watch OAN,  One America News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Yes, only read what confirms your opinions.  Confirmation bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

You make me laugh...

You are writing that to me,  but are talking about yourself,  and you just do not see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Illurion said:

You make me laugh...

You are writing that to me,  but are talking about yourself,  and you just do not see it.

I'm glad we are both having fun 🍺

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

I'm glad we are both having fun 🍺

True,  but i am tired and going to bed.

Good night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Most of that is just bad policies - none of it science.  Like it or not science and medicine says that gender isn't binary.  I'm not much of a fan of gender transitioning procedures but physicians I know say that there is ample evidence that if they don't offer a "path forward" the patient will commit suicide.

Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2019 at 7:09 PM, mthebold said:

Trump's lies are public, obvious, and compulsive.  He also tends to be broadly correct on his narrative/direction while being wildly incorrect on specific details.  A chief executive's job is to lead, which requires narrative and direction.  Asking for low-level details from someone who leads an entire country is just pedantry. 

By contrast, the leftists tend to be the exact opposite: they use meticulously correct, carefully selected facts to build warped narratives.  This is subtle, and its subtlety makes it incredibly dangerous.  E.g. I had the opportunity to watch CNN news reports on Iraq as I fought there.  They were perfectly factual, yet the narrative they spun left out key context and details.  Their reports were intentionally misleading, resulting in the death of innocents and combatants alike. 

I would argue Trump is a good man with bad optics while his opponents are wolves in sheep's clothing.  Don't fear the loudmouth; fear the refined sociopath. 

Argue all you want. I do not agree that he is broadly correct on much, maybe a few things, and what is “narrative and direction” please elaborate.

 

It is not about a calculating loudmouth, it is about a rude impetuous unethical liar. The art of the deal is nothing more than bait and switch. When he made his pitch for the border wall under the pitiful guise of a press conference he looked like a bald white supremacist in a wig. He is currently using the government shut down as a bargaining chip to the detriment of the USA and the individuals who keep it working, all for something that is probably a waste of money.

 

 If he was threatened with a BB gun he would undoubtably use his family as human shields. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Razoo said:

Argue all you want. I do not agree that he is broadly correct on much, maybe a few things, and what is “narrative and direction” please elaborate.

An example of "narrative an direction": border control.  As I see it, illegal immigration and unsecured borders are bad for the US.  Trump does as well for the same general reasons.  That's narrative.  We both think the border needs to be controlled by some means.  That's direction.

Narrative and direction contrast with details.  I don't particularly care what details Trump gets wrong in his speeches, how he sells his ideas to the public, or what the "wall" ends up looking like.  All that matters to me is that borders are controlled and illegals disappear from my country.  I'm sure you've been employed at some point and, therefore, understand that your boss doesn't want all the details; he just wants the job done.  As a voter, I hire the chief executive to handle details and report results.  That is the extent of my concern with the issue. 

Would it be nice to have a more "presidential" president?  Sure - but none of the other applicants offered to get the job done.  In the absence of alternatives, I'm perfectly content to ignore methods.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2018 at 3:49 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

If anybody here hasn't heard my hundreds of ad nauseum comments this entire dang year about my hope for $65 oil [Brent] for 2018 and my hope for $70 oil [Brent] for 2019, please raise your hand, and I can reiterate yet again.

Meanwhile, I'll gently remind that I already warned repeatedly this year that $80 is simply not sustainable, and that the higher that oil goes above $70 then the harder the eventual crash would likely be.

And over to the news, would everyone kindly lay off guzzling the pots of coffee and stop artificially panicking.  Near as I can tell, $70 - ish oil for 2019 still seems about the right balance between the global economy and oil producers.  I hope the current over-reaction on the oil price See Saw will settle back to around $70 by end of this year or early next yearJust my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.

^ that was my comment 6 weeks ago.

Today's news:

Oil Enters Bull Market As Shorts Are Wiped Out

“‘Sentiment went from completely negative a couple of weeks ago to very positive right now,” said Matt Sallee, a portfolio manager who helps oversee $16 billion in energy assets for Kansas-based Tortoise.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And more updates this morning...

There Is Still Room To Run For Oil Prices

"The oil market looks to be broadly balanced in 2019, an improvement on 2018 which turned out oversupplied,” Morgan Stanley analysts Martijn Rats and Amy Sergeant wrote in a note. “This supports a partial oil price recovery.”

The investment bank says that the plunge in oil prices has “overshot,” with the selloff having been magnified in December due to the global financial turmoil.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2018 at 4:50 PM, Illurion said:

True.

One of the reasons i trust Trump is that he is already a Billionaire,  and he cannot be bought.

So many others i cannot say the same about.

So,  when it comes to WHO Trump does the right thing for,  i tend to think it is for WE AMERICANS,  or for HIS FAMILY.

I believe like most people,  he would do most anything for his kids.

It appears Putin has bought Trump and it is difficult for me to trust anyone who who lies many times in excess of 100 times per day.

 

On 1/8/2019 at 10:05 PM, mthebold said:

An example of "narrative an direction": border control.  As I see it, illegal immigration and unsecured borders are bad for the US.  Trump does as well for the same general reasons.  That's narrative.  We both think the border needs to be controlled by some means.  That's direction.

Narrative and direction contrast with details.  I don't particularly care what details Trump gets wrong in his speeches, how he sells his ideas to the public, or what the "wall" ends up looking like.  All that matters to me is that borders are controlled and illegals disappear from my country.  I'm sure you've been employed at some point and, therefore, understand that your boss doesn't want all the details; he just wants the job done.  As a voter, I hire the chief executive to handle details and report results.  That is the extent of my concern with the issue. 

Would it be nice to have a more "presidential" president?  Sure - but none of the other applicants offered to get the job done.  In the absence of alternatives, I'm perfectly content to ignore methods.

 Thank you for your prompt and respectful response. Of coarse I agree with you, as does the rest of the country, that “illegal immigration and unsecured borders are bad for the US”,  but if you think a wall or just throwing money at the situation is going to totally make “illegals disappear” or solve any of the other many border problems then you are the dreamer. Obviously we have been attempting to secure the borders since our inception and it is very possible that the current ‘war on drugs and imigration systems’ can be improved upon. I believe that most of the problems are caused by corruption on both sides of the border. Solutions for the drug problems, for example, seem similar to the solutions for Prohibition. 

However, that is about all I agree with.

I do not agree that Trump’s wall solution is the best answer. 

I do believe there are better uses for the time, resources and money. 

I don’t agree that there are not suitable alternatives.

Yes it would be nice to have a diplomatic, eloquent and well mannered president that didn’t alienate our allies and enemies alike. In reality being presidential isn’t that important to me, but I am not “perfectly content to ignore methods” especially if they are unethical and or illegal.

 

I want a president with a strong moral compass and is not a compulsive and constant liar. There is no way to trust or work with someone like this. He blatantly and unethically lies to get what he wants. He lies about his lies. It is a matter of character. I would not want a boss that acted like Trump whom does not seem to know the difference between right and wrong. Need I mention the many perfectly qualified people who served in his short administration, now gone, that would certainly agree with me? Sadly I would not have a friend or marry someone like our president.

 

More on topic for this forum... 

He wants to keep the price of oil artificially low and recently implemented policies to this end. 

Please forgive my rant I mean no offense to you. I appreciate your thoughtful reply and genuinely respect your views and opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

And more updates this morning...

There Is Still Room To Run For Oil Prices

"The oil market looks to be broadly balanced in 2019, an improvement on 2018 which turned out oversupplied,” Morgan Stanley analysts Martijn Rats and Amy Sergeant wrote in a note. “This supports a partial oil price recovery.”

The investment bank says that the plunge in oil prices has “overshot,” with the selloff having been magnified in December due to the global financial turmoil.

Read this and the previous article you mentioned up a couple posts among the political jibberish.  Your thoughts on WTI gains? I see it slowly continuing to uptick, still hoping for 65-70 balance price for 2019, I know it's just a bit overshot on your price predictions.  Baby steps Permian...baby steps 😂😂 @Tom Kirkman

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, cbrasher1 said:

Read this and the previous article you mentioned up a couple posts among the political jibberish.  Your thoughts on WTI gains? I see it slowly continuing to uptick, still hoping for 65-70 balance price for 2019, I know it's just a bit overshot on your price predictions.  Baby steps Permian...baby steps 😂😂 @Tom Kirkman

I can't see WTI sustaining at $65, which was my longstanding hope from last year.  WTI insists on shooting itself in the foot by overproducing.  Whenever WTI gets around $50 or so, there is a mad rush for everyone to ramp up WTI production all at once, all at the same time.  

So I see WTI self-limiting to a price rollercoaster this year, probably with the median average of around $50 or so, regardless of Brent.

$50 seems to be the self-imposed trigger for WTI:

● Above $50, WTI producers all go fricking apesh*t crazy and overproduce.  Dragging down their own WTI prices.

● Below $50, WTI producers reluctantly scale back activities, hampered by the self-imposed millstone hanging around their necks of previous debt. This reduces the overproduction, and gradually pushes WTI prices back up.

● Lather, rinse, repeat.  Empty gun by shooting footbullets, reload gun, aim for the other foot.

I really don't see the WTI rollercoaster median moving too far for long from that self-imposed median trigger point of roughly $50.

By all means, please feel free to convince me otherwise.  This is simply my observations and conclusions.  I certainly can't control it. 

Reinstating the Texas Railroad Commission would probably be a good idea, but with so many Americans convinced that "energy independence" is within its grasp (it actually is not) then it seems unlikely to resurrect the old Texas RR commission in order to herd these wild cats and restore a semblance of order.

Brent seems to me fairly likely to average somewhere around $70 - ish this year, as I've been hoping for and harping about since early last year.  Kindly note my hope for $70 Brent this year is a *hope* and not a *prediction*.  That number just seems to me to be the best sustainable, relative balance between oil producers and oil consumers.  Happily, quite a few professional oil analysts now seem to agree with what I have been commenting ad nauseum for dang near a year, that $65 -$70 Brent seems suitable and expected.

Just my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Razoo said:

 Thank you for your prompt and respectful response. Of coarse I agree with you, as does the rest of the country, that “illegal immigration and unsecured borders are bad for the US”,  but if you think a wall or just throwing money at the situation is going to totally make “illegals disappear” or solve any of the other many border problems then you are the dreamer. Obviously we have been attempting to secure the borders since our inception and it is very possible that the current ‘war on drugs and imigration systems’ can be improved upon. I believe that most of the problems are caused by corruption on both sides of the border. Solutions for the drug problems, for example, seem similar to the solutions for Prohibition. 

However, that is about all I agree with.

I do not agree that Trump’s wall solution is the best answer. 

I do believe there are better uses for the time, resources and money. 

I don’t agree that there are not suitable alternatives. 

Yes it would be nice to have a diplomatic, eloquent and well mannered president that didn’t alienate our allies and enemies alike. In reality being presidential isn’t that important to me, but I am not “perfectly content to ignore methods” especially if they are unethical and or illegal.

 

I want a president with a strong moral compass and is not a compulsive and constant liar. There is no way to trust or work with someone like this. He blatantly and unethically lies to get what he wants. He lies about his lies. It is a matter of character. I would not want a boss that acted like Trump whom does not seem to know the difference between right and wrong. Need I mention the many perfectly qualified people who served in his short administration, now gone, that would certainly agree with me? Sadly I would not have a friend or marry someone like our president. 

  

More on topic for this forum... 

He wants to keep the price of oil artificially low and recently implemented policies to this end. 

Please forgive my rant I mean no offense to you. I appreciate your thoughtful reply and genuinely respect your views and opinions.

Eh.  I don't think you're right, per se, but you're also not wrong.  People are dying from drugs and large swathes of the population are suffering from depressed wages.  Unsecured borders have, in fact, reached proportions of a national emergency by any definition.  When people are suffering and dying on a mass scale, I'm willing to ignore methods. 

Show me any other candidate willing to fight as hard as Trump for border security, and I'll consider voting for them.  Until then, I support Trump. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is rude to build a wall.  Is Trump not a big enough of a deterrent himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NWMan said:

It is rude to build a wall.  Is Trump not a big enough of a deterrent himself?

is it rude to put a door on my house? is it rude to shore up the entrances to schools? is it rude to make people jump through hoops such as metal detectors to get into an airport? it's just security.

it's not rude, it's just business. one could argue the pros and cons of building a wall and financing it, but I'm not sure that the rudeness factor should play into anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NWMan said:

It is rude to build a wall.  Is Trump not a big enough of a deterrent himself?

 

4 hours ago, Rodent said:

is it rude to put a door on my house? is it rude to shore up the entrances to schools? is it rude to make people jump through hoops such as metal detectors to get into an airport? it's just security.

it's not rude, it's just business. one could argue the pros and cons of building a wall and financing it, but I'm not sure that the rudeness factor should play into anything.

 

3dd9e70989925c2b7aa0185f22da01564ab71d6f5a48f0a2283abc7d8249a415.jpg

db4eefff2f55699e089bbc706a13fe1d7437a37371ac2059558baf9e09ac8ac6.jpeg

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NWMan said:

It is rude to build a wall.  Is Trump not a big enough of a deterrent himself?

 

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

db4eefff2f55699e089bbc706a13fe1d7437a37371ac2059558baf9e09ac8ac6.jpeg

^ that is Senator Chuck Schumer on the left.

 

e96f66968b02c4353a58ff3815f36e0a9e64f3933e112162917e4928996598e5.jpeg

 

NBC Meet the Press November 11, 2012 episode.  The video was recently disabled, but note this bit from the transcript:

=============================

SEN. SCHUMER:  Yeah, I think so.  Senator Graham and I have talked, and we are resuming the talks that were broken off two years ago.  We had put together a comprehensive, detailed blueprint on immigration reform.  It had the real potential for bipartisan support based on the theory that most Americans are for legal immigration but very much against illegal immigration.  Our plan just to be quick does four things.  First of all, close the border, make sure that’s shut.  Second, make sure that there is a non-forgeable document so that employers can tell who was legal and who was illegal. And once they hire someone illegally, throw the book at them.  Third, on legal immigr-- that will stop illegal immigration in its tracks.  Third, on legal immigration, let in the people we need, whether they be engineers from our universities, foreign or people to pick the crops.  And fourth, a path to citizenship that’s fair, which says you have to learn English, you have to go to the back of the line, you’ve got to have a job and you can’t commit crimes.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49778339/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/november-chuck-schumer-tom-coburn-joaquin-castro-steve-schmidt-doris-kearns-goodwin-bob-woodward-andrea-mitchell-chuck-todd-jim-cramer/

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites