WWTBAM Bored

Republicans are saying that President Joe Biden may have committed an “impeachable” offense with his deal to send near a million barrels of oil to China to a firm that has links to his son Hunter Biden.

In April, The Department of Energy sold 950,000 barrels of Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Unipec America, the American arm of what is China’s biggest energy company owned by China Petrochemical Corporation, The Epoch Times reported.

Sinopec is a state-run Chinese oil and gas enterprise based in Beijing that has been tied to President Joe Biden’s second son, Hunter Biden, whose foreign business transactions have fueled growing scrutiny.

The sale, though little noticed at the time, is drawing heavy backlash from Republican lawmakers. As the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), the world’s largest emergency supply of crude oil, tank to a historic low while Americans nationwide feel the pinch of soaring gas and diesel prices, such a move runs counter to American interests and is putting national security at risk, the officials said.

I don't know if this is true or not. If so, I don't know why anyone would think it was a good idea. Let's give the e-bigots something to do. Fill the rest of this thread with quotes and links to 'experts' who either say it never happened, is a big republican smear or it was Trump's doing.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 11:33 am

Republicans are saying that President Joe Biden may have committed an “impeachable” offense with his deal to send near a million barrels of oil to China to a firm that has links to his son Hunter Biden.

In April, The Department of Energy sold 950,000 barrels of Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Unipec America, the American arm of what is China’s biggest energy company owned by China Petrochemical Corporation, The Epoch Times reported.

Sinopec is a state-run Chinese oil and gas enterprise based in Beijing that has been tied to President Joe Biden’s second son, Hunter Biden, whose foreign business transactions have fueled growing scrutiny.

The sale, though little noticed at the time, is drawing heavy backlash from Republican lawmakers. As the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), the world’s largest emergency supply of crude oil, tank to a historic low while Americans nationwide feel the pinch of soaring gas and diesel prices, such a move runs counter to American interests and is putting national security at risk, the officials said.

I don't know if this is true or not. If so, I don't know why anyone would think it was a good idea. Let's give the e-bigots something to do. Fill the rest of this thread with quotes and links to 'experts' who either say it never happened, is a big republican smear or it was Trump's doing.

I am not familiar with this and have not researched it, but just out of curiosity, why are we supposed to accept your "experts" at face value and not have the same courtesy extended to us when we try to refute, explain, and/or extrapolate on it, if it occurred as this article states?

kroxquo wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 12:52 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 11:33 am

Republicans are saying that President Joe Biden may have committed an “impeachable” offense with his deal to send near a million barrels of oil to China to a firm that has links to his son Hunter Biden.

In April, The Department of Energy sold 950,000 barrels of Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Unipec America, the American arm of what is China’s biggest energy company owned by China Petrochemical Corporation, The Epoch Times reported.

Sinopec is a state-run Chinese oil and gas enterprise based in Beijing that has been tied to President Joe Biden’s second son, Hunter Biden, whose foreign business transactions have fueled growing scrutiny.

The sale, though little noticed at the time, is drawing heavy backlash from Republican lawmakers. As the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), the world’s largest emergency supply of crude oil, tank to a historic low while Americans nationwide feel the pinch of soaring gas and diesel prices, such a move runs counter to American interests and is putting national security at risk, the officials said.

I don't know if this is true or not. If so, I don't know why anyone would think it was a good idea. Let's give the e-bigots something to do. Fill the rest of this thread with quotes and links to 'experts' who either say it never happened, is a big republican smear or it was Trump's doing.

I am not familiar with this and have not researched it, but just out of curiosity, why are we supposed to accept your "experts" at face value and not have the same courtesy extended to us when we try to refute, explain, and/or extrapolate on it, if it occurred as this article states?

I stated pretty clearly that I don't know if this is true. I am just reporting something I've seen in many places. Probably in places you don't regard as reliable, but have as clean (or dirty) a track record as the ones you do. But it is something that's out there that, apparently, has caught the eye of some 'Republican Lawmakers'.

My 'experts', the e-bigot's 'experts'? Every time and every controversy, SOMEBODY'S LYING. And, probably both sides, if you look at it deeply enough.

Sadly, that's the only truth we can cling to nowadays.

And in most, if not all, the major issues of the day neither side of any argument wants to or will give one inch towards solving the issue. They just dig in deeper.
I think my efforts on this bored have illustrated that in microcosm.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 3:20 pm

kroxquo wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 12:52 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 11:33 am

I don't know if this is true or not. If so, I don't know why anyone would think it was a good idea. Let's give the e-bigots something to do. Fill the rest of this thread with quotes and links to 'experts' who either say it never happened, is a big republican smear or it was Trump's doing.

I am not familiar with this and have not researched it, but just out of curiosity, why are we supposed to accept your "experts" at face value and not have the same courtesy extended to us when we try to refute, explain, and/or extrapolate on it, if it occurred as this article states?

I stated pretty clearly that I don't know if this is true. I am just reporting something I've seen in many places. Probably in places you don't regard as reliable, but have as clean (or dirty) a track record as the ones you do. But it is something that's out there that, apparently, has caught the eye of some 'Republican Lawmakers'.

My 'experts', the e-bigot's 'experts'? Every time and every controversy, SOMEBODY'S LYING. And, probably both sides, if you look at it deeply enough.

Sadly, that's the only truth we can cling to nowadays.

And in most, if not all, the major issues of the day neither side of any argument wants to or will give one inch towards solving the issue. They just dig in deeper.
I think my efforts on this bored have illustrated that in microcosm.

That last line is especially funny.

It is evident that you haven’t sought help. So, I’ll again offer my free advice:

Strive to be sufferable.

Introspect.

wbtravis007 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 6:49 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 3:20 pm

kroxquo wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 12:52 pm

I am not familiar with this and have not researched it, but just out of curiosity, why are we supposed to accept your "experts" at face value and not have the same courtesy extended to us when we try to refute, explain, and/or extrapolate on it, if it occurred as this article states?

I stated pretty clearly that I don't know if this is true. I am just reporting something I've seen in many places. Probably in places you don't regard as reliable, but have as clean (or dirty) a track record as the ones you do. But it is something that's out there that, apparently, has caught the eye of some 'Republican Lawmakers'.

My 'experts', the e-bigot's 'experts'? Every time and every controversy, SOMEBODY'S LYING. And, probably both sides, if you look at it deeply enough.

Sadly, that's the only truth we can cling to nowadays.

And in most, if not all, the major issues of the day neither side of any argument wants to or will give one inch towards solving the issue. They just dig in deeper.
I think my efforts on this bored have illustrated that in microcosm.

That last line is especially funny.

It is evident that you haven’t sought help. So, I’ll again offer my free advice:

Strive to be sufferable.

Introspect.

Thanks for verifying my hypothesis.

Your trench is pretty deep.

There's a lot more to the story than Flock's source indicates.

In April, the Department of Energy solicited bids on 30 million barrels of oil from the SPR. These bids were not limited to U.S. companies since one of the purposes of releasing the oil from the SPR was to ease the burden of other nations that were cutting off Russian oil purchases. 12 bids were accepted, including Shell, Marathon, Exxon, and Phillips 66. Overseas interests bought five million barrels, including the one million to Sinopec. That one million barrels was the second lowest total of any of the 12 companies buying the oil. Several Democratic politicians have criticized selling the oil to any foreign interests, and it may not have been the wisest strategy. But the Chinese weren't given the oil; they bid on it at competitive market prices.

As far as the Hunter Biden angle is concerned, his hedge fund bought an interest in Sinopec in 2014. His personal involvement with the hedge fund ended several years ago, so neither he nor his father stood to gain from this transaction.This is just the typical Republican attempt to throw the name of Hunter Biden in whenever possible to try to manufacture a scandal where none exists.

And there's a guy with a shaft halfway to the center of the earth. ^^^