Stock Market/Investing/Day Trading/Speculative Trading Thread

[Faux Sean Callahan]

 

[Toe]

Vlad, when you've managed to turn the Swiss against you, you done fucked up.

 

[BingoDingo]

Vlad, when you've managed to turn the Swiss against you, you done fucked up.

I saw Luxembourg sent anti-tank weapons today...who knew Luxembourg had anti-tank weapons...

 

[God is a Husker]

I saw Luxembourg sent anti-tank weapons today...who knew Luxembourg had anti-tank weapons...

Purchased by the US taxpayer


The entire country is the size of Lancaster county Nebraska


God damn I hate Europe

 

[BingoDingo]

Purchased by the US taxpayer


The entire country is the size of Lancaster county Nebraska


God damn I hate Europe

Good, money well spent, imo.

 

[God is a Husker]

(added a new wrinkle to the usual "I'm a Journalism" post @Faux Sean Callahan )

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

The statement isn't wrong though?

 

[BingoDingo]

(added a new wrinkle to the usual "I'm a Journalism" post @Faux Sean Callahan )

Eh, idk dude...might want to reconsider. That fact check is true...

If oil imports doubled, we'd be bringing in 1.38 million barrels a day from Russia(instead of the 848k we actually brought in). Crude only accounts for 200k of the 848k bpd...

 

[BBTown Bomber]

I saw Luxembourg sent anti-tank weapons today...who knew Luxembourg had anti-tank weapons...

Purchased by the US taxpayer


The entire country is the size of Lancaster county Nebraska


God damn I hate Europe

Luxembourg is home-base for my ancestors according to family research my dad did several years ago.

Lux army is the fucking bauce……🤣

.

 

[God is a Husker]

The statement isn't wrong though?

Eh, idk dude...might want to reconsider. That fact check is true...

If oil imports doubled, we'd be bringing in 1.38 million barrels a day from Russia(instead of the 848k we actually brought in). Crude only accounts for 200k of the 848k bpd...

Gentlemen, my post was intended to highlight (once again) the degradation of the term "fact check" by journalists defending the party at all costs.

The "fact check" is nothing but defending a straw man that doesn't exist.

Of USA oil imports 70-80% are Crude, nobody who says: "the US doubled its Russian oil imports" is intending to convey the distinction that they are only referring to "crude oil".

The Hillary defense ("wiped a Server? What with like a rag or something?") is never a good defense to use if you want to be taken seriously.

Especially embarrassing is that we are coming off of 5 years of fact checkers giving live fact checks during press conferences/speeches and issued "BREAKING" fact checks. (often for technicalities or rounding)

If a "fact check" is going to use semantics to argue statements that are the opposite of common usage within the community; or that are not the subject of the "fact" in dispute (straw man) then change the name from "fact check" to "in defense of...etc etc" and keep your integrity and dignity.



PS: Friendly advice, never destroy your reputation just to defend the current party line, its not worth it. Over time hypocrisy and flip flopping will make others view even your opinions as unreliable. This isn't the West Wing, this is isn't the beltway, we are on a message board for a 3-9 football team. You don't need to pretend like you're at a congressional hearing or giving a Q&A in the rose garden. You can admit that is a bullshit "fact check" just like I admit when the GOP does idiot things. Meet me halfway boys, I ain't looking for a fight.

 

[God is a Husker]

Luxembourg is home-base for my ancestors according to family research my dad did several years ago.

Lux army is the fucking bauce……🤣

.

I always knew you were a fancy boy.


PS: a former coworker of mine is now stationed in Belgium and covers all of the BENELUX, he went to Patton's grave in Luxembourg for Veterans Day and apparently its an even bigger deal there cuz Nov 11th is Patton's birthday too.

 

[BingoDingo]

Gentlemen, my post was intended to highlight (once again) the degradation of the term "fact check" by journalists defending the party at all costs.

The "fact check" is nothing but defending a straw man that doesn't exist.

Of USA oil imports 70-80% are Crude, nobody who says: "the US doubled its Russian oil imports" is intending to convey the distinction that they are only referring to "crude oil".

The Hillary defense ("wiped a Server? What with like a rag or something?") is never a good defense to use if you want to be taken seriously.

Especially embarrassing is that we are coming off of 5 years of fact checkers giving live fact checks during press conferences/speeches and issued "BREAKING" fact checks. (often for technicalities or rounding)

If a "fact check" is going to use semantics to argue statements that are the opposite of common usage within the community; or that are not the subject of the "fact" in dispute (straw man) then change the name from "fact check" to "in defense of...etc etc" and keep your integrity and dignity.



PS: Friendly advice, never destroy your reputation just to defend the current party line, its not worth it. Over time hypocrisy and flip flopping will make others view even your opinions as unreliable. This isn't the West Wing, this is isn't the beltway, we are on a message board for a 3-9 football team. You don't need to pretend like you're at a congressional hearing or giving a Q&A in the rose garden. You can admit that is a bullshit "fact check" just like I admit when the GOP does idiot things. Meet me halfway boys, I ain't looking for a fight.

Yeah, I mean idk about all that...I'm just saying the fact check was right...

 

[BBTown Bomber]

I always knew you were a fancy boy.


PS: a former coworker of mine is now stationed in Belgium and covers all of the BENELUX, he went to Patton's grave in Luxembourg for Veterans Day and apparently its an even bigger deal there cuz Nov 11th is Patton's birthday too.

“fancy boy”…….🤣


If you only knew….😘

.

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

Gentlemen, my post was intended to highlight (once again) the degradation of the term "fact check" by journalists defending the party at all costs.

The "fact check" is nothing but defending a straw man that doesn't exist.

Of USA oil imports 70-80% are Crude, nobody who says: "the US doubled its Russian oil imports" is intending to convey the distinction that they are only referring to "crude oil".

The Hillary defense ("wiped a Server? What with like a rag or something?") is never a good defense to use if you want to be taken seriously.

Especially embarrassing is that we are coming off of 5 years of fact checkers giving live fact checks during press conferences/speeches and issued "BREAKING" fact checks. (often for technicalities or rounding)

If a "fact check" is going to use semantics to argue statements that are the opposite of common usage within the community; or that are not the subject of the "fact" in dispute (straw man) then change the name from "fact check" to "in defense of...etc etc" and keep your integrity and dignity.



PS: Friendly advice, never destroy your reputation just to defend the current party line, its not worth it. Over time hypocrisy and flip flopping will make others view even your opinions as unreliable. This isn't the West Wing, this is isn't the beltway, we are on a message board for a 3-9 football team. You don't need to pretend like you're at a congressional hearing or giving a Q&A in the rose garden. You can admit that is a bullshit "fact check" just like I admit when the GOP does idiot things. Meet me halfway boys, I ain't looking for a fight.

I don't think it's really a party line thing, and Idk why you're trying to crowbar this into a partisan thing. More like if you're going to be pedantic, don't bitch about someone engaging w/ you on the same level. Russia isn't a significant supplier of crude oil. A vendor who accounts for that much of the supply is a gigantic who fucking cares, even if it's a YoY 2x% increase. The entire argument (that this shit even stems from in the first place) that the U.S. in any way relies on Russian oil imports or that those imports are in any fucking way the least bit meaningful rests on the broader definition of oil imports FWIW

 

[God is a Husker]

I don't think it's really a party line thing, and Idk why you're trying to crowbar this into a partisan thing. More like if you're going to be pedantic, don't bitch about someone engaging w/ you on the same level. Russia isn't a significant supplier of crude oil. A vendor who accounts for that much of the supply is a gigantic who fucking cares, even if it's a YoY 2x% increase. The entire argument (that this shit even stems from in the first place) that the U.S. in any way relies on Russian oil imports or that those imports are in any fucking way the least bit meaningful rests on the broader definition of oil imports FWIW

The argument surely stemmed from paying Russia billions of dollars a year no?

Since Sibneft/Gazprom was nationalized and the Russian state owns everything buying any oil/gas from Russia is literally just paying Putin who is the great satan.


If Russian oil is meaningless then surely the US government should stop buying it.


Unless of course, if none of the Russia hysteria is serious.

 

[BingoDingo]

The argument surely stemmed from paying Russia billions of dollars a year no?

Since Sibneft/Gazprom was nationalized and the Russian state owns everything buying any oil/gas from Russia is literally just paying Putin who is the great satan.


If Russian oil is meaningless then surely the US government should stop buying it.


Unless of course, if none of the Russia hysteria is serious.

All of this could have been avoided had you just replied to my post by saying "yeah, that fact check was right..my bad" 😎

 

[God is a Husker]

All of this could have been avoided had you just replied to my post by saying "yeah, that fact check was right..my bad" 😎

How does distinguishing between crude and total change that paying Putin billions is in direct contradiction with the current geopolitical rhetoric?

(Which is what my post you replied to was about)

 

[BingoDingo]

How does distinguishing between crude and total change that paying Putin billions is in direct contradiction with the current geopolitical rhetoric?

(Which is what my post you replied to was about)

Yeah, I think the issue here is that you're making this about everything else besides the tweet and I am simply only talking about the tweet. The party line stuff, the Clinton servers, the reputation bullshit...that's all dumb shit that no one was talking about at all...just the tweet, man.

I think we should cut off all Russian imports of oil, btw.

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

The argument surely stemmed from paying Russia billions of dollars a year no?

Since Sibneft/Gazprom was nationalized and the Russian state owns everything buying any oil/gas from Russia is literally just paying Putin who is the great satan.


If Russian oil is meaningless then surely the US government should stop buying it.


Unless of course, if none of the Russia hysteria is serious.

If your point is the bitching on Fox News about buying Russian oil is overblown, you're not going to find an argument here.

 

[BingoDingo]

Anyone rolling USO heavy?

Boys, I'm telling you...