Depends. To they extent that Iran really opened its spigots, not that they can after all of the years of neglected maintenance, and attempted to undercut Saudi and other producers AND they employed **only** their own tankers, they would displace the need for tankers from FRO, NNA, DHT, et. al.
The "negative" might not be huge. But it **could** be meaningful.
Disagree, Lake. I think immigration policy is close to a shambles.
I believe we should have a generous guest worker policy.
But there is no way I would agree that folks who are here illegally should receive preferential treatment and an accelerated path to citizenship. They KNOWINGLY cheated. In return for NOT prosecuting them, they would go to the back of the line for citizenship
If a kid is born in the US to a LEGAL immigrant or guest worker... that fine; (s)he gets citizenship. But kids born to illegals should not be citizens just because they were born within the borders of the US. The parents were illegal. So is the kid. They, or their parents, can **apply** for citizenship just like anyone else. As it is, they'll be getting the benefit of the US healthcare system (vs. wherever they came from).
As for the God / murder thing... there is / was NO change of mind on the part of God. Jesus didn't change a thing; he was "busting" on his audience(s) for their hypocrisy. It was He who made the "tittle and jot" comment. God commanded genocide in the OT. According the prophecies there will be a future genocide (or at least a mass destruction of people).
It takes an exceptionally... creative... reading of Scripture to conclude that Jesus is some good-guy God. Jonathan Edwards had a much more accurate view of theology than many of the posters who have been contributing to this thread.
Rog, if the Syrian refugee problem is **such** an issue for YOU in re: to following Jesus, there is nothing preventing you from doing as Jesus directed the rich young ruler to do: sell all you have (or at least sell all of your FRO shares) and give the money to help those unfortunate people.
But you won't.
Oh, you'll toss a few coins at the problem, and then, like your buddies the pharisees, plump out your chest and brag about how "compassionate" YOU are vs. everyone else.
There is nothing preventing you from signing up to host a refugee family when they finally make it through Federal screening. Indeed, your very effort at doing so increases the likelihood that a family will get a visa. So, have you done so? Have you signed up to sponsor a refugee family?
And there is nothing preventing you from liquidating your assets and using the proceeds to benefit the poor, as Jesus required of the rich young ruler. Have you done so? No?
Why am I not surprised?
Hi Mr. Shores,
Imagine: the family next door gets into a huge brawl that ends up with them burning down their house.
So they, or some of them, abandon it, show up in your yard and demand that YOU take them in, YOU house them, YOU clothe them, YOU feed them, and YOU provide them jobs and income.
THAT is Syria.
No doubt there ARE some economic migrants But, really, it's not about doing "poorly". It's about "reaping" what one "sows".
Parity... on what basis?
If comparison is price-to-book, price-to-sales, PEG, etc. etc. FRO is seriously overpriced at present and should be selling for closer to $1.10.
A 10% dividend on that basis would mean a divy of about 3 cents a quarter
So, Rog, to your "thinking" the **only** way to be neighborly is to take in refugees?
Have you done so? Have YOU taken in one or more refugees?
Then once again you are being a hypocrite - demanding of others what you yourself have not, and will not, do.
It won't happen.
The announcement said "up to" 100% of earnings.
But the reality is that FRO2012 has an aggressive newbuild program. A lot of free cash flow will be needed for that purpose.
In my response to Rog I stated:
"No one is disputing that there is a distinction between governmental and individual (Christian) obligation. "
that is... we, you and I, are in agreement on "vengeance is mine".
But the fact remains that our buddy's assertion that Jesus "opposes" Capital punishment is wrong.
The Scriptures are clear that God put Ananias to death. And (Spirit inspired) Romans is clear that governments are still empowered to "wield the sword".
No doubt we all agree that God would (probably) "rather not" impose Capital sanctions. But arguing that He is "opposed" to Capital sanctions does not jibe with the whole of Scripture, both the OT *and* the NT; the argument posits the absurd situation that God would be engaged in what he opposes.
So, the **best** that Rog can argue is that Jesus is opposed to **individual** applications of Capital punishment. HE still, and will in the future, impose the sanction. And it was never obviated as a legitimate governmental sanction.
Just as "turn the other cheek" was never intended as instruction for governmental / societal dealings with crime.
The problem with our buddy's post(s) is that his understanding of Scripture is *determined* by his social policy. That is the reverse of what we are supposed to be attempting to achieve. Religion, God, is not his objective. It is just a tool he employs in an attempt to justify his preferred social policy. That is what Judas did as well.
Rog, you seem to believe that the world is answerable to YOU and that it is obligated to implement whatever rules of social justice YOU believe should exist. You are mistaken on both points.
No one is disputing that there is a distinction between governmental and individual (Christian) obligation.
But, clearly, you need to spend some time actually **thinking** through your positions on legitimate enforcement and penalty options that are permissible to both society and to the individual.
Following your limited thinking to its conclusion, no parent could ever "train up a child in the way it should" if doing so meant imposing discipline due a personal "wrong"; these parents must, instead, "turn the other cheek" and permit themselves to be abused and fleeced by the little darlings.
Likewise, following your limited thinking to its conclusion, no business could terminate, discipline, or object when cheated by an employee.
Jesus is not opposed to capital punishment. It is either that or you have a serious problem with God and what he did to Ananias and what he "inspired" the author of Romans to set down.
You can hiss and spit at me all you wish. But at the end of the day, your OPINIONS about social justice are not in-sync with the Scriptures. You need to stop blaming OTHERS for the discrepancy.
So, having once AGAIN lost an argument based on fact, you resort to Gnostic nonsense.
Get this Rog, and internalize it: YOU are no Spiritual wizard. You are barely able to comprehend the scriptures, if at all.
To take but one example... the claim you made in this exchange that Jesus is "against Capital punishment".
Presumably you believe that Jesus is God, yes?
Presumably you believe that God gave "the law" to the Hebrews, yes?
So you advance the absurdity that the God who instructed the Hebrews not only to put various classes of felons to death but who also on several occasions instructed them to commit genocide (and then punished them when they did not do so) is opposed to Capital punishment.
You could TRY to argue this away as an Old Testament vs. New Testament "thing". But there are several problems with that quibble. Ananias and Sapphira, for one; but perhaps you believe that God the **Spirit** is "okay" with putting men and women to death for lying, whereas God the **Son** is not. That would be a convenient "explanation", too, to sidestep the contradiction of saying Jesus is opposed to capital punishment yet the writer of Romans - whom you would argue was "(God the) Spirit inspired" ***affirmed*** the authority of secular government to 'wield a sword" against those who break secular laws.
The reality, Rog, is that you have no idea what it is that the Scriptures teach. You are so blinded by the pursuit of a particular version of social justice that you cannot grasp how far afield you have drifted.
In your twisted worldview, the virgins who were prepared and had oil for their lamps are not to be celebrated for their wisdom and preparation, but **criticized** because they did not share their oil with with the needy, if wastrel, virgins.
You're a religious fraud. And what is truly unfortunate, is that you do not even *realize* that you are a fraud.
Bad news? Maybe.
Just as likely, though, that the recent price rise was nothing more than the effect of short-covering in advance of the merger.
Which would mean that FRO is back in its "trading range" of the past few months.
As usual, Rog, whether through ignorance or willful intent, you totally miss the point.
You criticized the governors for not doing what you yourself have not done. How is YOUR hypocrisy in this situation in ANY way similar to the instruction provided by Jesus or Paul?
To be sure, the Church was indeed instructed to hold its members accountable. But, YOU are not the Church. Just as YOU are not Jesus. Nor are YOU Paul.
In fact, Rog, you are the quintessential "blind guide" that Scripture warns about. Your every post confirms that you do not read the Scriptures so much as twist and contort them to fit your preferred social doctrine.
But, by ALL means... if YOU feel compassion for those refugees, then YOU should take them in and care for them.
But you won't. You're a caricature of the "Good Samaritan". Rather than ***inconveniencing*** YOURSELF by helping the individual in need of assistance, you demand action on the part of others - and then get in a huff when others do not do as YOU direct.
So model the Christian behavior that you demand of others. Take a refugee family into your home and care for them.
One can only hope that was your last message. You seemingly cannot post a single paragraph without condemning yourself.
Try to wrap your mind around this, Rog. In every way that you condemned the governors, YOU too have failed. You have no business worrying about, let alone commenting on, their "sin" or their moral failings; you have your own life to clean up.
You have zero "right" based on Christian principle to condemn them.
Remember Jesus' admonition that "he who is without sin can cast the first stone"?
Of ALL people, you are one of the LEAST empowered to be a stone thrower.
Rog, there was neither hate nor name calling in that response. It was factual observation. It was you, not the govs, who introduced Christian principle into the discussion.
You seem to think that you are a follower of Jesus are are therefore *empowered* to call others to account for their failings. I merely point out that, of the 12, you most exemplify the opinions and behaviors of Judas. Like your "model", you're involved with the "group" - but you've rather missed the point of the message.
If you're going to use Christian principle to condemn or find fault in others in regards to the Syrian refugees, then the very *least* you must do is model those principles yourself. Which you have not done.
Don't worry about failings on the part of others. You need to get your own life "fixed".
Here ya' go, Lake... this one is for you:
Driving oil price to zero will likely crater other middle east governments and make the situation over there worse than is currently the case.
Better to do as island has recommended - destroy IS' economic infrastructure.