Lyin' Biden is Big Oil's BEST FRIEND!

[Tommy]

Who wulda thought that just two years ago? Certainly not me! But the senile pervert is because he has done everything in his power to cut the supply of oil, and you know what that means to the supply v demand curve: it drives prices UP! So, Big Oil is selling fewer barrels for a MUCH higher price, which is creating RECORD PROFITS for them. This is great for Big Oil, but not so much for the average consumer, who is paying MUCH high prices for everything connected to oil (and what ISN'T connected to oil in some way or another?).

I know what the libtards will start screaming for: price controls. But they shouldn't (price controls NEVER work) - what they SHOULD demand is more oil production. But they won't because:
1. They're stupid
and
2. That would be SO philosophically abhorrent they would rather cut off their dominant hand first.

[Alan]

What actual things has Biden done to "cut the supply of oil", Sunshine?

List them.

[-hh]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 1:21:29 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-02-01 20:23, Tommy wrote:
> >
> > Who wulda thought that just two years ago? Certainly not me! But the
> > senile pervert is because he has done everything in his power to cut
> > the supply of oil, and you know what that means to the supply v
> > demand curve: it drives prices UP!

Ten years ago, crude was $97.77/bbl
Yesterday, crude was $76.22/bbl

> > So, Big Oil is selling fewer barrels for a MUCH higher price, which
> > is creating RECORD PROFITS for them. This is great for Big Oil, but
> > not so much for the average consumer, who is paying MUCH high
> > prices for everything connected to oil (and what ISN'T connected
> > to oil in some way or another?).

It depends. Case in point, CVX is in that one family portfolio that I'm managing,
and it is up by over +40% since it was purchased in 2021, which is more than
their 'inflation' cost of living increases. BTW, that is a longer time scale than
Tommy's TQQQ brag attempt, but its also 4x more appreciation (and LTCG instead
of STCG when sold), while also spinning off dividend payments at roughly +5%.

>
> > I know what the libtards will start screaming for: price controls.
> > But they shouldn't (price controls NEVER work) - what they SHOULD
> > demand is more oil production. But they won't because: 1. They're
> > stupid and 2. That would be SO philosophically abhorrent they would
> > rather cut off their dominant hand first.
> >
> What actual things has Biden done to "cut the supply of oil", Sunshine?
>
> List them.

Because we know it isn't the XL Pipeline extension
Because we know that Venezuela's coming back online..
Because we know that a permit on the Alaska's North Slope is looking up:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/climate/alaska-willow-oil-drilling-biden.html>

{pulls up bag of popcorn}

-hh

[Tommy]

Oh, PUHHHLLLLLEEEEEESSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! This is common knowledge to EVERYBODY with an OUNCE of brains, Fool.

[Tommy]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:38:54 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 1:21:29 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > On 2023-02-01 20:23, Tommy wrote:
> > >
> > > Who wulda thought that just two years ago? Certainly not me! But the
> > > senile pervert is because he has done everything in his power to cut
> > > the supply of oil, and you know what that means to the supply v
> > > demand curve: it drives prices UP!
> Ten years ago, crude was $97.77/bbl
> Yesterday, crude was $76.22/bbl

Leave it to the Lyin' Asshole to cherry-pick his data. Look at the price of oil under Trump vs today and get back to us.

> > > So, Big Oil is selling fewer barrels for a MUCH higher price, which
> > > is creating RECORD PROFITS for them. This is great for Big Oil, but
> > > not so much for the average consumer, who is paying MUCH high
> > > prices for everything connected to oil (and what ISN'T connected
> > > to oil in some way or another?).
> It depends. Case in point, CVX is in that one family portfolio that I'm managing,
> and it is up by over +40% since it was purchased in 2021, which is more than
> their 'inflation' cost of living increases. BTW, that is a longer time scale than
> Tommy's TQQQ brag attempt, but its also 4x more appreciation (and LTCG instead
> of STCG when sold), while also spinning off dividend payments at roughly +5%.

It depends upon WHAT? You make my case for me. BTW, I also own CVX, and TQQQ is up another 10% today.

> >
> > > I know what the libtards will start screaming for: price controls.
> > > But they shouldn't (price controls NEVER work) - what they SHOULD
> > > demand is more oil production. But they won't because: 1. They're
> > > stupid and 2. That would be SO philosophically abhorrent they would
> > > rather cut off their dominant hand first.
> > >
> > What actual things has Biden done to "cut the supply of oil", Sunshine?
> >
> > List them.
> Because we know it isn't the XL Pipeline extension
> Because we know that Venezuela's coming back online..
> Because we know that a permit on the Alaska's North Slope is looking up:
>
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/climate/alaska-willow-oil-drilling-biden.html>
>
> {pulls up bag of popcorn}

...and google "how biden cut the oil supply"

>
> -hh

[Alan]

And yet you cannot list a single one.

You'll write fourteen words...

...to avoid writing fourteen words.

Got it.

[Alan]

On 2023-02-02 09:42, Tommy wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:38:54 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 1:21:29 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-01 20:23, Tommy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who wulda thought that just two years ago? Certainly not me!
>>>> But the senile pervert is because he has done everything in his
>>>> power to cut the supply of oil, and you know what that means to
>>>> the supply v demand curve: it drives prices UP!
>> Ten years ago, crude was $97.77/bbl Yesterday, crude was
>> $76.22/bbl
>
> Leave it to the Lyin' Asshole to cherry-pick his data. Look at the
> price of oil under Trump vs today and get back to us.

Oh, PULEEEEEEEEZ. This is common knowledge.

Oil prices get depressed in a pandemic.

>>>> I know what the libtards will start screaming for: price
>>>> controls. But they shouldn't (price controls NEVER work) - what
>>>> they SHOULD demand is more oil production. But they won't
>>>> because: 1. They're stupid and 2. That would be SO
>>>> philosophically abhorrent they would rather cut off their
>>>> dominant hand first.
>>>>
>>> What actual things has Biden done to "cut the supply of oil",
>>> Sunshine?
>>>
>>> List them.
>> Because we know it isn't the XL Pipeline extension Because we know
>> that Venezuela's coming back online.. Because we know that a permit
>> on the Alaska's North Slope is looking up:
>>
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/climate/alaska-willow-oil-drilling-biden.html>
>>
>>
>>
>> {pulls up bag of popcorn}
>
> ...and google "how biden cut the oil supply"

Interesting how you not only didn't rebut what he said...

[-hh]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 12:42:58 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:38:54 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 1:21:29 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2023-02-01 20:23, Tommy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Who wulda thought that just two years ago? Certainly not me! But the
> > > > senile pervert is because he has done everything in his power to cut
> > > > the supply of oil, and you know what that means to the supply v
> > > > demand curve: it drives prices UP!
> >
> > Ten years ago, crude was $97.77/bbl
> > Yesterday, crude was $76.22/bbl
>
> Leave it to the Lyin' Asshole to cherry-pick his data. Look at the price of oil under Trump vs today and get back to us.

Under Trump, there was the CoVid demand crash, and prior to that there was also the US
Manufacturing segment sliding into a technical recession in 2019, so one needs to look to
late 2018 for actual "good economy" numbers which was $74.34 in Oct 2018. That's only
a +2.5% increase vs current, despite four years of inflation.

> > > > So, Big Oil is selling fewer barrels for a MUCH higher price, which
> > > > is creating RECORD PROFITS for them. This is great for Big Oil, but
> > > > not so much for the average consumer, who is paying MUCH high
> > > > prices for everything connected to oil (and what ISN'T connected
> > > > to oil in some way or another?).
> >
> > It depends. Case in point, CVX is in that one family portfolio that I'm managing,
> > and it is up by over +40% since it was purchased in 2021, which is more than
> > their 'inflation' cost of living increases. BTW, that is a longer time scale than
> > Tommy's TQQQ brag attempt, but its also 4x more appreciation (and LTCG instead
> > of STCG when sold), while also spinning off dividend payments at roughly +5%.
>
> It depends upon WHAT?

> You make my case for me. BTW, I also own CVX ...

" I closed out my CVX position today at a small gain."
- Tommy, on Sep 19, 2019, 12:19:23 AM

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/9A3D2vUgI7s/m/1jlSRgiOAQAJ>

FYI, this was that time where you speculatively bought on "bad news" and bailed with a max
theoretical profit of just 124.18/124 = a +0.145% gain ... before trading costs. That's far, far
short of a "satisfying 10% gain" you've tried to preach about.

So when did announce that you had bought back into CVX? Like never?
Because in March 2022 when I'd mentioned it, your 18 March 22 reply was:

"Off topic, asshole."

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/JrPM7cEwZzI/m/MvuUYo5tAwAJ>

So when did you ever announce that you had bought back in? Sounds like it was
probably after March 2022 (if ever).

> ... and TQQQ is up another 10% today.

And so it is...but its still quite far underwater YoY (-57%). Have you predicted when
it is going to return to his prior high of $88.57? Why or why not?

> > > > I know what the libtards will start screaming for: price controls.
> > > > But they shouldn't (price controls NEVER work) - what they SHOULD
> > > > demand is more oil production. But they won't because: 1. They're
> > > > stupid and 2. That would be SO philosophically abhorrent they would
> > > > rather cut off their dominant hand first.
> > > >
> > > What actual things has Biden done to "cut the supply of oil", Sunshine?
> > >
> > > List them.
> >
> > Because we know it isn't the XL Pipeline extension
> > Because we know that Venezuela's coming back online..
> > Because we know that a permit on the Alaska's North Slope is looking up:
> >
> > <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/climate/alaska-willow-oil-drilling-biden.html>
> >
> > {pulls up bag of popcorn}
>
> ...and google "how biden cut the oil supply"

Wasn't my claim, cupcake.

Besides, Google wasn't your friend when it came to invaliding your claims on
handling controlled documents (they don't have to exist only in a SCIF).

-hh

[Tommy]

Hey Fool, that is to put you on notice NOT to ask STUPID questions! It's like training dogs: you have to reward the expected behavior, rewarding the wrong behavior just encourages more of it.

[Tommy]

No response noted.

> > You make my case for me. BTW, I also own CVX ...
>
> " I closed out my CVX position today at a small gain."
> - Tommy, on Sep 19, 2019, 12:19:23 AM

Boy, who wulda known! The Lyin' Asshole CAN search for shit. FYI, I bought CVX again. That DOES happen.

>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/9A3D2vUgI7s/m/1jlSRgiOAQAJ>
>
> FYI, this was that time where you speculatively bought on "bad news" and bailed with a max
> theoretical profit of just 124.18/124 = a +0.145% gain ... before trading costs. That's far, far
> short of a "satisfying 10% gain" you've tried to preach about.

So the fuck what, dildo? News flash: not all trades work out, but the majority do, which is why I am a multimillionaire.

>
> So when did announce that you had bought back into CVX? Like never?
> Because in March 2022 when I'd mentioned it, your 18 March 22 reply was:
>
> "Off topic, asshole."
>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/JrPM7cEwZzI/m/MvuUYo5tAwAJ>
>
> So when did you ever announce that you had bought back in? Sounds like it was
> probably after March 2022 (if ever).

WHO the fuck are you, the IRS??? I have also said that I would stop posting my trades because you dolts did NOTHING but criticize them.

>
> > ... and TQQQ is up another 10% today.
>
> And so it is...but its still quite far underwater YoY (-57%). Have you predicted when
> it is going to return to his prior high of $88.57? Why or why not?

Which is GREAT for me because there is tremendous upside potential. WHEN will you fucking idiots learn? Never is my guess.

> > > > > I know what the libtards will start screaming for: price controls.
> > > > > But they shouldn't (price controls NEVER work) - what they SHOULD
> > > > > demand is more oil production. But they won't because: 1. They're
> > > > > stupid and 2. That would be SO philosophically abhorrent they would
> > > > > rather cut off their dominant hand first.
> > > > >
> > > > What actual things has Biden done to "cut the supply of oil", Sunshine?
> > > >
> > > > List them.
> > >
> > > Because we know it isn't the XL Pipeline extension
> > > Because we know that Venezuela's coming back online..
> > > Because we know that a permit on the Alaska's North Slope is looking up:
> > >
> > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/climate/alaska-willow-oil-drilling-biden.html>
> > >
> > > {pulls up bag of popcorn}
> >
> > ...and google "how biden cut the oil supply"
> Wasn't my claim, cupcake.

Then DON'T, asshole.

>
> Besides, Google wasn't your friend when it came to invaliding your claims on
> handling controlled documents (they don't have to exist only in a SCIF).

Again, DON'T google it - ask me if I give a flying fuck.

>
> -hh

[-hh]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:50:19 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 11:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 12:42:58 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:38:54 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 1:21:29 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > > On 2023-02-01 20:23, Tommy wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who wulda thought that just two years ago? Certainly not me! But the
> > > > > > senile pervert is because he has done everything in his power to cut
> > > > > > the supply of oil, and you know what that means to the supply v
> > > > > > demand curve: it drives prices UP!
> > > >
> > > > Ten years ago, crude was $97.77/bbl
> > > > Yesterday, crude was $76.22/bbl
> > >
> > > Leave it to the Lyin' Asshole to cherry-pick his data. Look at the price of oil under Trump
> > > vs today and get back to us.
> >
> > Under Trump, there was the CoVid demand crash, and prior to that there was also the US
> > Manufacturing segment sliding into a technical recession in 2019, so one needs to look to
> > late 2018 for actual "good economy" numbers which was $74.34 in Oct 2018. That's only
> > a +2.5% increase vs current, despite four years of inflation.

No response noted.

Going to whine about a *second* data point, and one you asked for, also not supporting your narrative?

> > > > > > So, Big Oil is selling fewer barrels for a MUCH higher price, which
> > > > > > is creating RECORD PROFITS for them. This is great for Big Oil, but
> > > > > > not so much for the average consumer, who is paying MUCH high
> > > > > > prices for everything connected to oil (and what ISN'T connected
> > > > > > to oil in some way or another?).
> > > >
> > > > It depends. Case in point, CVX is in that one family portfolio that I'm managing,
> > > > and it is up by over +40% since it was purchased in 2021, which is more than
> > > > their 'inflation' cost of living increases. BTW, that is a longer time scale than
> > > > Tommy's TQQQ brag attempt, but its also 4x more appreciation (and LTCG instead
> > > > of STCG when sold), while also spinning off dividend payments at roughly +5%.
> > >
> > > It depends upon WHAT?
>
> No response noted.

I overlooked a section. What it depends on is what part of the consumer's overall
interests one looks at: sure, they may be paying a bit more to 'big oil', but their next
car could be an EV, and/or they have energy stocks in their 401k .. or their employer
has the same in their pension fund.

> > > You make my case for me. BTW, I also own CVX ...
> >
> > " I closed out my CVX position today at a small gain."
> > - Tommy, on Sep 19, 2019, 12:19:23 AM
>
> Boy, who wulda known! The Lyin' Asshole CAN search for shit.
> FYI, I bought CVX again. That DOES happen.

Sure does (if actually true), but one doesn't get to brag about performance when you've
never announced the buy, because it enables dishonest after-the-fact cherrypicking.

> > <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/9A3D2vUgI7s/m/1jlSRgiOAQAJ>
> >
> > FYI, this was that time where you speculatively bought on "bad news" and bailed with a max
> > theoretical profit of just 124.18/124 = a +0.145% gain ... before trading costs. That's far, far
> > short of a "satisfying 10% gain" you've tried to preach about.
>
> So the fuck what, dildo? News flash: not all trades work out, but the majority do, which
> is why I am a multimillionaire.

Oh, you're trying to spin that old 'multimillionaire' yarn again? You were given opportunity to firm
up that unsubstantiated claim within the past few months, but have avoided it like a scalded cat.

> > So when did announce that you had bought back into CVX? Like never?
> > Because in March 2022 when I'd mentioned it, your 18 March 22 reply was:
> >
> > "Off topic, asshole."
> >
> > <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/JrPM7cEwZzI/m/MvuUYo5tAwAJ>
> >
> > So when did you ever announce that you had bought back in? Sounds like it was
> > probably after March 2022 (if ever).
>
> WHO the fuck are you, the IRS???

Merely pointing out the evidence that you've left behind, even if it wasn't your intent to do so.

> I have also said that I would stop posting my trades because you dolts did NOTHING but criticize them.

Nah, you were criticized because of what you're trying once again to do now: cherrypicking after
the fact for just 'winner' trades as an attempt to brag.

FYI, its why I listed that portfolio slice a year ago, so that due to that transparency, everyone can
see that there's individual winners & losers, because what's important in a long term diversified
portfolio is the net aggregate performance - - which was net up for CY2022 BTW. I'd ask how
you did overall for the year, but I've already floated that one before and you chose not to answer,
so we know what that really means.

> > > ... and TQQQ is up another 10% today.
> >
> > And so it is...but its still quite far underwater YoY (-57%). Have you predicted when
> > it is going to return to his prior high of $88.57? Why or why not?
>

> Which is GREAT for me because there is tremendous upside potential...

Except .. that that is still not a declarative prediction statement. There's not even any
assurance from you that you'll even live long enough to see it.

> > > > > > I know what the libtards will start screaming for: price controls.
> > > > > > But they shouldn't (price controls NEVER work) - what they SHOULD
> > > > > > demand is more oil production. But they won't because: 1. They're
> > > > > > stupid and 2. That would be SO philosophically abhorrent they would
> > > > > > rather cut off their dominant hand first.
> > > > > >
> > > > > What actual things has Biden done to "cut the supply of oil", Sunshine?
> > > > >
> > > > > List them.
> > > >
> > > > Because we know it isn't the XL Pipeline extension
> > > > Because we know that Venezuela's coming back online..
> > > > Because we know that a permit on the Alaska's North Slope is looking up:
> > > >
> > > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/climate/alaska-willow-oil-drilling-biden.html>
> > > >
> > > > {pulls up bag of popcorn}
> > >
> > > ...and google "how biden cut the oil supply"
> >
> > Wasn't my claim, cupcake.
>
> Then DON'T, asshole.

Exactly my point: its your claim so its lack of substantiation hurts you, not anyone else.

> > Besides, Google wasn't your friend when it came to invaliding your claims on
> > handling controlled documents (they don't have to exist only in a SCIF).
>
> Again, DON'T google it - ask me if I give a flying fuck.

Doesn't matter if you care or not: you've already shown to be wrong in yet another
topic area where you've tried to claim to be an expert.

-hh

[Tommy]

I DID substantiate it, but not to your satisfaction. You are welcome to present contrary data that proves me wrong, which I DOUBT you will do.

> > > Besides, Google wasn't your friend when it came to invaliding your claims on
> > > handling controlled documents (they don't have to exist only in a SCIF).
> >
> > Again, DON'T google it - ask me if I give a flying fuck.
> Doesn't matter if you care or not: you've already shown to be wrong in yet another
> topic area where you've tried to claim to be an expert.

Only in your demented mind - not the rest of the world.

>
> -hh

[Alan]

So you're write even more words...

...to avoid writing a single instance of a policy that actually "cut the
supply of oil".

Got it.

[-hh]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:29:24 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 7:19:24 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:50:19 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 11:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 12:42:58 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:38:54 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 1:21:29 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2023-02-01 20:23, Tommy wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who wulda thought that just two years ago? Certainly not me! But the
> > > > > > > > senile pervert is because he has done everything in his power to cut
> > > > > > > > the supply of oil, and you know what that means to the supply v
> > > > > > > > demand curve: it drives prices UP!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ten years ago, crude was $97.77/bbl
> > > > > > Yesterday, crude was $76.22/bbl
> > > > >
> > > > > Leave it to the Lyin' Asshole to cherry-pick his data. Look at the price of oil under Trump
> > > > > vs today and get back to us.
> > > >
> > > > Under Trump, there was the CoVid demand crash, and prior to that there was also the US
> > > > Manufacturing segment sliding into a technical recession in 2019, so one needs to look to
> > > > late 2018 for actual "good economy" numbers which was $74.34 in Oct 2018. That's only
> > > > a +2.5% increase vs current, despite four years of inflation. '
> >
> > No response noted.
> >

> > Going to whine about a *second* data point, and one you asked for, also not supporting your narrative? \

No response noted.

Nah, you made a claim without any support.

> You are welcome to present contrary data that proves me wrong, which I DOUBT you will do.

Already have, and you've not disputed or refuted any of them. Next!

> > > > Besides, Google wasn't your friend when it came to invaliding your claims on
> > > > handling controlled documents (they don't have to exist only in a SCIF).
> > >
> > > Again, DON'T google it - ask me if I give a flying fuck.
> >
> > Doesn't matter if you care or not: you've already shown to be wrong in yet another
> > topic area where you've tried to claim to be an expert.
>
> Only in your demented mind - not the rest of the world.

Nah, the dementia here is from the poseur who's cursing because he knows he's losing so badly.

-hh

[Tommy]

You, obviously, DIDN'T do the google search I pointed you to.

[Alan]

You obviously have nothing.

[Tommy]

You can lead a horse to water...

[Alan]

It's not my job to search out support for your claims, Sunshine.