Aristides

You have. I'm not saying it doesn't have any bias but that doesn't mean it is controlled by government. So what about US networks where every second add is from a drug company? How about their independence?

Which does? The CBC's editorial independence is guaranteed by the Broadcasting Act.

So knowing that a network receives government funding is more important than a private network is being bankrolled by say the NRA or big pharma? Could it be possible that a network receiving government funding that has its editorial independence enshrined in law, could be less influenced than one which depends on big buck sponsors? Of course this is an ideological act.

Well, you seem to have no problem with countries who invade their neighbours.

If that were the case they are doing a hell of a lot better than the Russians who were grabbed and put on the battle field.

No doubt you would have been rooting for the US during the War of 1812 as well.

They didn't sign up for anything, Russia invaded their country FFS.

The mind boggles when the same people who would use their claim that a fertilized egg is a person in order to control women, will do nothing to prevent kids being massacred in their schools. How do they reconcile that?

If it doesn't matter, why tag it? Twitter is making an ideological statement of its own. Disclose the primary funding source of all media on Twitter if you want to really inform people so they can make their own determination of its validity.

Along with NPR and PBS, the CBC has stopped using Twitter.

Who is forcing you to buy Bud Lite? Get real.

Alexander Keith as well.

The stock is recovering, 1st quarter numbers won't be out until July. Revenue loss estimates are just opinions.

Then you certainly wouldn't want to pay for heart attack victims who are overweight or lead a sedentary lifestyle. We certainly shouldn't be treating diabetics who got that way for the same reasons.

What large cut in product sales? No sales numbers have been announced for the period after she was hired. There was probably some but we don't know how much. The fact the company hasn't backed off means they aren't panicking.

On no one's authority but its own.

I'm saying they need a resolution to act in the name of the UN. Countries can't act unilaterally in the name of the UN just because of something in their own constitution.

I'm not saying NATO's assistance to Ukraine is unlawful. What gives you that idea?

If Russia started building up forces on the Finnish border like they did in Ukraine, countering with NATO forces would be justified. Otherwise not. It is definitely a bad move for Russia, they have lost their ability to apply pressure to Finland. Finland had to be very careful regarding its relations with Russia, now, not so much.

NATO is not part of the UN. It cannot act for the UN of its own volition.

Like I said, we'll see. Sometimes you have to go backward a step in order to keep going forward. I don't really care. I don't own the stock and if don't like their presenter there are lots of other choices.

Companies make long term decisions that affect short term stock prices all the time. I don't think the trans market is big enough for them to go after on its own, they are looking at future attitudes of the general public toward trans people. It has nothing to do with politics, this was a business decision. You think it is a bad one. We'll see but it is InBev that is putting its capital at risk and they think you are wrong.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bud-light-draws-backlash-after-promoting-trans-activist-dylan-mulvaney-but-marketing-pros-say-its-a-smart-move-9c9becac?mod=mw_quote_news Bud Lite customers are generally older and slowly dying off. They are looking to their future market. The Kid Rocks of the world should grow up. Their reaction to everything they don't like is to shoot it or blow it up. Immature twits.

UN Article 51 requires Security Council approval. Never happen with Russia's veto.