CdnFox

Sure kid, whatever you need.

Sort of - the 'equal' part is important. This deal was equally bad for both, but necessary. And it's been explained. You don't really understand how english works do you I get what's happening. You feel bad about yourself for having completely "lost" the rest of your argument and you feel bad about yourself for being shown up. So - you think if you can just find SOMETHING! SOMETHING to be right about then MAYBE you won't be a total failure!!!!! So you search for some technicality somewhere that you can shift the discussion to... "HEY, THAT COMMA DOESN'T GO THERE!!!!!". And try to win that. So you can sleep at night with your other failures. Your life is that pathetic, and you're reduced to being basically a grammar nazi to try to salvage your ego. You know what? It obviously brutally important to your self esteem so fine, if it makes you feel like you're not a total failure, the dictionary and i are wrong, you're right. There you go - you can rest easy again

of course there is. go take a law course or two and then we'll talk. It has to be entirely relevant - more of that evidence is thrown out than kept. I dont think you understand what 'circumstantial' evidence is. It means something that is RELEVANT ENTIRELY to the case but is not direct evidence. and relying on it is not a good way to win a case. POSSIBLY a civil case maybe, but even then. lets just let this go. You REALLY don't have a clue what you're talking about and it's just becoming silly. Sigh, They still decide the case based on law, not how they feel. Balance of probability still means that the RELEVANT evidence must be considered and weghted. Otherwise it goes to appeal guaranteed. If a judge said "well - the evidence doesn't really support it but you DID fire tucker and i think that's shady sooooo " then appeal is guaranteed. They care about law, that's all they care about. If the law says one thing and common sense says another then too bad. Exactly. try to keep it in check in the future if you could. They absolutely do Jon Stewart was probably the worst for it Same thing. Whether it's comedic or dramatic, it's spinning lies off of core truths to pander to the tastes of your audience and both spread misinformation that their audience buys entirely. Well it's good when we agree on at least something

I think this is the bottom line. People saw it as insincere, as dragging identity politics into a simple product, and virtue signalling and they got pissed off. Honestly - i don't care if some tranny somewhere drinks something. I really don't think the majority of people do either. Despite barbie's claims, there's just not that many people who 'hate' trans. But when it's in teh paper every day, you're being bombarded with trans story time, and giant fake breast teachers and kids being thrown out of school for saying maybe males should stay out of girls bathrooms, and now even school shootings - you're going to get damn sick of it. And i think they tapped into that anger and it just blew up on them. I mean they've done stuff with gays and lesbians and stuff for years. Spuds mackenzie was a girl Nobody cared. But its' just getting to be too much.

These Cockneys are crazy.

So then you admit he was right. Just because biden says something does NOT mean that all democrats agree with it. In fact - logicaly it's entirely possible that NO democrats agree with something he says. They just have to agree with more of what he says than they disagree with to support him. Even you don't agree with all of it. And whatever you don't agree with, there's a good chance that a lot if not most other democrats also don't. So are we done pretending that if biden says something it must mean that all democrats or even most democrats MUST agree with it?

WHAT!?!?! That's beverage suppression!!!! What about their consumption rights? REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! Joking aside, of course they have id. And of course they can go to a normal polling booth. But - if there's a polling booth at the campus then the indoctrinated left wing drones can grab their fellow college kids and pressure them into going to vote and voting democrat. You can't really do that around a regular polling station. It'd be like putting polling stations inside a large gun show for the republicans LOL! SO of course the dems are pissed - it's an easy exercise in vote harvesting for them and most kids don't care enough to go to the normal polling booths.

Then appealing to you would be stupid for them wouldn't it. IF they do things that appeal to you and you wont' drink their product - that's a waste of money. So what you're saying is that companies should be appealing to the transphobic bigots, because they're SOOOO many of them that it will guaranteed sell their product.

Clearly a blackadder fan Anti-distinctly-minty...

Tit for tat doesn't mean 'revenge'. So lets go to the dictionary tit for tat noun Repayment in kind, as for an injury; retaliation. equivalent retribution, an eye for an eye, returning exactly what you get. hat. I'm not sure why "hat" other than i've heard the phrase 'hat for a cat or a cat for a hat but nothing for nothing" before. But setting that aside, it's not 'revenge', it's where they equally hurt each other. And yep - that's absolutely true with that deal They both take serious damage of about equal amounts but - they maintain the status quo and stable gov't they both want at least until jagger's pension kicks in. In any case it's definitely not compromise. You're so cute when you think you've won a point and then it collapses on you LOLOLOL And it's hilarious when you've realized you can't defend your points so you pick something trivial to try an d "win" over

They only get to hear admissible evidence. Juries don't try people based on how they feel, they try them on the law. You often hear things like 'such and such will really influence the jury' but most of the time it has no bearing. The only way it would be admissible is if there was actual evidence that the firing was for the express purpose of covering up the truth or somthing, They could not care in the slightest and they care nothing for common sense. They focus on the law. And that is DOUBLY true of civil cases. Sure - but he doesn't need to be there for the texts to be entered as evidence. They were already uncovered during disclosure. Yeah - nobody cares about that. Everybody assumes news people lie. If anything people will say 'at least he tried to stand up for his principles and look, they fired him". Won't hurt him in the long run. But of course it's death for fox in the dominion case. Well your puerile attempts at spreading hatred and intolerance aside, i think it's mostly true that people don't watch him because they think he's factual and unbias Just like people like to watch the 'news comedians' that have become popular. The new 'infotainment' industry. He raises just enough true issues to have some credibility but as a judge recently said, a normal person could see from the nature of the show that it was not meant to be taken entirely seriously. I think fox will indeed take a solid hit from firing him, and i do think he'll pop up somewhere else and do well

At this point, just about everything is a bridge too far. When people become fed up with hearing about something then it's irritating no matter what the context. But - when that context is something that people reasonably expect to be 'politik free' like beer or disney children's movies or mundane things like soap - doesn't matter, they're going to get pissed. It's not the item. It's the politics. People have had enough of the fighting. The people have taken offense. Everyone's sick of it. And getting sicker by the day. So the backlashes will tend to become more and more significant over time until things change. Yeah. It does. Glad you're finally getting it. If you take ANYTHING and bug people about it enough they'll get sick of it. And when they do there's pushback. People are sick of trans issues at this point. They've pushed too hard and too far and instead of selling their message they're driving people to anger.

From your link: "an irrational fear of masks, people in costumed clothing and mascots" So now you're saying that trans people are just wearing a costume? They're not REALLY women or men, they're just putting on a costume? Or considering the story we're following perhaps you think they're a mascot. For trans people it's not a 'costume', they're not 'playing dress up'. Pretty callous of you. Do you even think before you talk?

Sort of. He's got his head stuck in the sand.

No, it was less by far, only about 1.3 billion - and harper got shares from the automaker to offset that which were sold later. Ontario put in more money because of course that's where the cars are built. But even together it was only like 4 billion. I think the oil and gas industries would be a better example, if we're going to call a tax break a 'subsidy' then they ceratinly get more than 13 billion. but - that's an entire industry employing literally hundreds of thousands of people and producing massive tax revenues in subsidies for the provinces that have oil. But in fairness that was actual money. MOST of this is basically a tax break, with about 1 billion in actual money being given to the auto maker if i understand the details, 700 million for the plant and then some extra expenditures here and there. So - in terms of cash dollars being handed out it's comparable. But as i noted harper got shares in the companies to offset that, while justin will be giving up 12 billion or so in tax revenues. Now you could argue that if you didn't give the tax break they woudlnt' come at all and you'd lose 100 percent of the tax revenues and that's not untrue. it's not like we're actually handing over THAT part of it. this doesn't sound like a great deal on the face ot it - it feels like we could have negotiated something better. 12 billion in tax breaks and a billion in cash is a HELL of a lot for one lousy factory. But it would take a deep dive to really work that out. I think dividing the total tax break over time into the number of workers is kind of silly to be honest. And even if it's not a great deal, it's probably a net benefit.

You provide proof that I was right and i'm the twat? Oookkaaay there Junior. You clearly said there was an organized boycott and there was an expectation that smashing wine etc would hurt france. You lied. There was no boycott. Smashing wine is symbolic, it's not a boycott. And there was no boycott. People got mad at the french and polling at the time shows that sentiment against the french WAS actually higher during that time so you could say that it actually worked. But it's not a boycott and nobody expected it to hurt france. Nice attempt to try to rewrite what you said. Never happened. A guy selling an anti france bumper sticker is NOT a boycott. So why is it that you can find SNL skicts and you can find bumper stickers - but you can't find anything about an actual boycott. I can find TONNES of stuff about real boycotts, like isreal or the russian vodka boycott etc. But nothing on this. Because it never happend and you're a liar. https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-nation/foxs-oreilly-fabricated-evidence-success-purported-boycott THat is not a republican, that is an infotainment personality giving a shitpost interview. If as you say the republicans were behind the boycott why can't you find an actual republican organizing a boycott? There was no boycott, nobody thought france would actually be financially impacted. I'm sure that some people decided not to buy french stuff for whatever reasons but there was no boycott. That would be you, And least you've given up insisting bud didn't lose stock value or sales. That was particularly dumb.

You literally JUST SAID TO ME THAT THIS WASN"T TRUE. and then like 2 posts later you claim it's true. Your lying is getting out of control kiddo. You should at least try to keep your lies the same for the whole thread instead of directly contradicting yourself within 2 posts.

Go look at the emails child. He specifically said that the whole thing was rediculous and they shouldn't be doing it. And every media source agreees he was complaining about it - That is WHY it's EVIDENCE! It's proof that fox KNEW that the stories were fake because their reporter SAID so. THat's the whole point of his emails. Honestly - 30 seconds of research would prevent you from looking this stupid.

I'm sure. SOOO many women were raped or assaulted by him even before his presidency that it should be no surprise that it was 'known'. Just like Harvey Weinstein where everybody knew not to be in a room alone with him. But also like Weinstein, he was powerful and charismatic and the democrats didn't what to lose a good candidate so - under the rug it went till all of a sudden it couldn't be held back anymore and poof. I think the number of women that have actually come forward are well past a dozen now? And that's just the ones who come forward. And I never lie. That's why we have you. Based on your reactions i think that's what you hate about me the most. So when i say things like you've called jews nazi's several times, its the honest truth no matter how much you like to deny it.

That would be a huge score for them but i doubt he'd take the pay cut.

They tried to drag beer into the culture wars and identity politics and their consumers are sick of that crap. that was a pretty big F__k up.

Well don lemming (sorry don lemon) was fired so i guess there's an opening at cnn...

He was widely known to have been before that. Democrats just ignore stuff like that when it suits them.

sorry - i missed the question - was it "why does antifa think jews are nazis?"

And you've already been shown that it is. You just simply lied. But if you don't want to accept the stock slam, lets look at sales. We've got numbers in now. https://nypost.com/2023/04/24/bud-light-sales-plunge-17-amid-dylan-mulvaney-controversy/ They took an unbelievable hit. And it's still going. No matter how you slice it this has cost them billions. You're desperate and it really shows. The lying, the emotion - you're beside yourself that this is happening. Probably because it screws with your narrative - get woke go broke tends to annoy the left at the best of times. But - for whatever reason it's obvious, Ummmm... your link says that the beer's stock crashed hard very quickly after the announcement and hadn't even recovered to where it was yet. Did.... did you not know how to read stocks? LIke - it's a graph, surely you could have figured it out. Select one month ,the announcement went viral shortly after the start of april - and the stock nosedives. Never happened kiddo. Ahhh so now they're lying about a boycott that never happened. Nobody thought that. So you're source is SNL?!?!?! THAT's where you heard about this?!?!? I think we may have figured out your problem. So... that's actually a comedy thing, it's not real. The french were right about the boycott that never happened. Ok Uhhh - that literally says there was no boycott.. they just made fun of the french. Are you going to keep posting stuff that proves i'm right? Like - do i need to be here, i kind of feel you're proving all my points for me... OH my god... your source really is Saturday night live. That's where you got this. Welp... at least it wasn't something even less credible. Like CNN. I don't know what to tell you kid. IF you're getting your info from SNL's "news room" there may be a few things you're misinformed about So to recap Bud 's stock is down, you literally posted a link that shows that. bud's sales are down, i posted a link that shows that. Freedom fry boycotts never happened. At best people made fun of the french. Saturday night live is NOT a reliable source of news. You're an !diot.