How manipulative is CNN fake news?? Here's an example...

[Lionfish]

The price has been going up, it is now $103.86.

On the 9th, it went up to nearly $120, the next day it dropped to nearly $80, and now has been moving up until it is now $103.86.


Transits have gone from an average of over 60 a day to less than 6 a day. None of the transits are significant amounts of oil. That is called "effectively closed."


20% of it does, and there is no obvious long or even medium term replacement for that 20%.


400 million barrels from multiple countries oil reserves, with 172 million coming from the US oil reserves for now. Other countries have oil reserves closer to the immediate need for oil, so they were cajoled into release oil on the promise that in the near future it would be replaced out of our oil reserves. That is not included in the 172 million, so we may be losing quite a bit more than 172 million.

Wallie, you drive a yaris which has to get 50/mpg. Why do you care about the cost of gas?

 

[Into the Night]

is releasing oil from strategic reserves a great solution or is it stupid and short-sighted?

just admit you work for China, asseater.

China does not benefit from US reserves, NoName.

 

[Into the Night]

It's very relevant. You are making somewhat of an argument based on a single word in a 1300 word article.

The dictionary definition of a word is a technicality? You are the one that is claiming a meaning of the word that is not the meaning most often used. That means it is YOU that is attempting to manipulate what the meaning is.


I see you want to ignore the other words so you can rely on this one.

Irrelevance fallacy. Word games. False authority fallacy. Dictionaries do not define any word. Go learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean 'proof'.

CNN states in the article in the second paragraph-
"Now, as oil prices hover near $100 a barrel just over a week into the war and US gas prices are moving sharply higher, it’s prompted a belated rush to try to reassure investors and seek ways to tamp down the impact."

False authority fallacy. CNN's opinion on the price of oil is irrelevant.
Oil prices have not gone over $100 YTD. Source: NYMEX.

So CNN long before the part you claim misleads the reader says that NOW the price is near $100 a barrel.

So? The article is misleading.

You are being stupid. The article is about the White House response to the price of oil going up due to the war.

172 is not 400, Poorboy. Not even CNN can make it so.

Once again, you simply ignore all the other 1300 words and what they refer to to make a pedantic argument that makes no sense. The article twice mentions $100 a barrel. This is what the article is about - It's the second paragraph.

Your word games won't work here, Poorboy.

Now, as oil prices hover near $100 a barrel just over a week into the war and US gas prices are moving sharply higher, it’s prompted a belated rush to try to reassure investors and seek ways to tamp down the impact. But the administration is confronting the limits of its power — and the reality that President Donald Trump’s decision to wage war abroad threatens to wipe out some of his key economic accomplishments at home.

Your Doom and Gloom isn't working, Poorboy.

 

[Into the Night]

CNN reported the low number at the end of the day, as they did yesterday, as they will Monday.

CNN is not oil prices, Stooge. False authority fallacy.

 

[Jake Starkey]

If this was Biden with $100 a barrel gas, Lionfish's eyes would bulge twice as much as Patel.

 

[Walt]

Wallie, you drive a yaris which has to get 50/mpg.

We have a Yaris and Priuses. The Yaris gets like 38 mpg, and the Priuses get closer to 50 mpg. Obviously, we also buy things which are transported with petrol products, and some are even made with petrol products.

Why do you care about the cost of gas?

I am not particularly worried about myself. I make several times what I spend.

 

[Jake Starkey]