CdnFox

I agree. Its like arguing over who's got the superior instant cup noodles.

No you're right many won't and some will inevitably switch in protest to another inbev product but - at the end of the day bud will still take a massive hit and for its people this will be a big deal. And inbev will take some loss for sure. And will be looking at that and its other brands saying "Maybe the rest of you need to pay attention to this".

Hard to say. It may technically be forever. some customers may leave and just get used to other beer and never come back. But a small number of those won't make a huge difference. Regardless, they'll have lost billions over it even if it is only just a few months. People tend to be creatures of habit. They go to a new brand, that's what they'll decide they buy. And there's a certain stickyness. there are still a LOT of men who won't buy gilette products. Not enough to make a huge difference but definitely out there. And how long's that been? I moved away from gilette and havent' gone back , I like my current system so i don't really think about it. So gillette loses about 200 bucks a year in sales from me every year due to their little faux pas even tho i'm not that mad anymore.

There's no need. Regardless of any differences in opinion about the start, we're both in agreement at this point in time. Currently we both agree that covid is contageous but not harmful. ???? I think you maybe replied in the wrong thread? Oddly specific. I'm now almost 100 percent sure you posted by accident

You mean you lie, insult and misdirect. Slightly different.

Well - i don't think we do exactly. If they're still calculating that the way they used to (and i'd have to check but i bet that's the case), then we don't have 100 deaths per day OF covid - we have 100 deaths WITH covid. In other words, anyone who dies and tests positive for covid is considered to be a 'covid death'. Right now covid is very very contageous - but much less harmful. So lots of people get it and some happen to die while they do. There was a reason in the beginning they had to be done this way but now it's just misleading as hell. They know it's not an issue. They're just being vindictive The fear of it is competely gone - people get it multiple times and its like 'man i was really sick for a few days there' and then on with their lives.

When a liar chooses to pretend something is true, we need to ask why they're lying. I realize that you know you're lying when you say i blame the surgeons as i discussed that already but feel for some reason that lying is necessary to make your point. Yes - your lies are stupid, they usually are, we've all accepted that, carry on... Ahh, the 'vague' lie - one of my favorites. That would be on YOU sparkles- you made the original claim. Show anywhere in his diatribe where he said that it was about that. What he did clearly say is that he was referring to ANYONE who STILL REFUSED TO TAKE THE VACCINE. His words. Prove otherwise if you're going to make a claim. Of course you can't, you're a liar but nice of you to prove it.

Really. So - if someone has black skin and someone has white that difference is biologically meaningless, they're exactly the same scientifically or biologically. Do you even hear yourself?

Yes factually. Learn to speak english and come back and we can talk.

You're currently a hate filled bigot who's as dishonest as the day is long. If this is the 'better' you, what kind of psycho were you before'? like -there aren't any 'freshly disturbed earth' piles anywhere you'd like to tell us about is there?

No, it does not. that's beyond stupid. RACE-ism is about RACE. It's in the name. It's like rice crispies - what do you THINK they're made of? There is an effort on the left to redefine racism to mean more and less - more in the sense that they want it to mean EVERYTHING they don't like, and less in that they don't want it to count if it's directed at white people And the reason is that 'racism' has been established as very very bad, - so they want to use the word as much as possible for things they consider bad. But no - It is about RACE and nothing else. When we're talking about hating jews the correct term is antisemitism. The problem is that just doesn't' sound as evil as 'racist' You could also use prejudiced. Or bigoted. Or even ethnophobic. But again - they don't have the same 'emotional punch' as 'rrrrrraacesism!!!!!!" (boo!) So people on the left don't like them as much But no - the issue with the jews was an ethnophobic issue. Funny enough - ethnophobia CAN refer to race as well, so using that word covers you both ways. Scientifically speaking NO words actually exist, they're ALL made up. They're just symbols we use to describe things, The only thing that is what it it's word is is "word". (yes, that did make sense, just read it again a few times). Look kid. If your argument is that there is NO difference between groups of people and it's IMPOSSIBLE to classify them by various genetic traits such as skin colour etc, then you're just wrong. It's a stupid argument, Of course you can. And if your argument is that we DON"T do that somehow - BLM would like to talk to you. When we refer to racism we refer to prejudice based on racial attributes such as skin colour or the like. We are NOT referring to religion. Cool story. The history of racial diversification from a common ancestor and the spread of various races around the world and which lived and which died out is, of course, a fascinating one. And perhaps at some point worthy of a thread. But - at the end of the day, racism is still about race.

You don't do that yourself with your own bigotries. How can you expect others to.

Yes, you still make zero sense. Yeah whatever kid. Learn to speak english and come back and talk.

Dude - you're not playing, you ARE dumb. Learn english and come back and talk to us freak.

of course she does. She has every right to it in a public health system. EVERYONE has the right to equal access . That's the law. Which is why this is going to court. The doctors who checked her are. Read the story. On March 29, Lewis provided her Alberta Transplant Program doctors with a privately funded medical report, known as the Kinexus Report, establishing her natural immunity to Covid-19. Because her organ is failing. If you're deciding to be deliberately obtuse or stupid then maybe just stop while you still have a shred of credibility. She's fine other than that and had already been accepted into the program. She does - she was already accepted into the program. She does. SHe was accepted into the program. It is the absolute truth. Suddenly you're uncomfortable with 'compelling' people to submit to medical proceedures against their will as a condition of access to their lawful benefits. Imagine that It's the same thing, You are NO different than the doctors who did that to those women. You are on the wrong side of history here, think carefully about what this kind of thing means and take a step back. I get that you aren't going to want to admit being wrong here. That's fine. But while you're offline THINK about it. She has done nothing wrong, she is at no risk from covid any more than anyone else and has proof. And they are denying her because she disagreed with them and THEY feel that they know what she should have done better than her for non medical reasons. Do you WANT that kind of thing to be precedent? Is it ok to pressure people to take medical treatments they don't want to do and threaten them otherwise.

yes, how DARE she exercise her right to determine whether or not to have a medical treatment. well it is. That part is undesputed. They are withholding treatment. And what is she refusing to quit? She doesn't have covid, she has the antibodies of a vaccinated person and there are plenty of ways to address covid without vaccines. There is no medical reason for this. But she isn't abusing drugs. Is she. She's healthy as a horse - she was on the list already. Sure they are. In this country if someone is an organ donor it goes to the next person on the list. She met the qualifications. THis is arbitrary. I don't think you realize what this means. When it gets used in a manner you disapprove of, and it will if this is precedent, then you'll scream to the heavens how unfair it is. But it will be too late at that point. This is no different than "not forcing" first nations women to get sterlized or give up their children. This is morallly repugnant.

THat's absolutely untrue. I mean - i haven't actually looked into it or anything but you're so consistently wrong every single time you speak that i feel comfortable making that assumption just based on your track record.

But we dont' set them out for special groups. We put them within the ridings and eveyrone has to go to the same ones. Like i said, we don't put them at the local gun show either. Well that's just dumb. What they would try to do is make it fair for everyone, not just special treatment for a select group. The only reason you like it is because you know it favors the dems. But if they said 'we're not going to put them at schools but we are going to put them at the local rod and guns' you'd sing a different tune. we have ridings based on population. I think it's similar to your system. And yes we try to evenly spread them so as not to cause anyone an advantage or disadvantage. (We require id too) Sure. That's what i think. i think you know you're losing this argument so you're blathering out of anger Yes, but i'm sure you'll come up with whatever fake meaning suits your purpose regardless of the real one. Of course it's not cheating - or more accurately it's not illegal. But it's something that favours the dems because of various reasons. Funny enough in canada it would favour the right wing. WE don't really allow it the same way here tho, you have to make a special request to get a mail in ballot. No it doesn't. At all. And i love how you claim that equality means repression Black people aren't children. THey don't need you to hold their hand when they cross the street. What a low opinion of them you seem to have. They're people like any other people. I'm a big fan of telling the truth, so it would be hard for me. We have you here when we need someone who can lie easily like that. Well seeing as you think EVERYONE'S a nazi that wouldn't leave many people to like would it I'm curious - where you aware that when you beg and whine and try to plead with me like that everyone realizes that you know it isn't true and that knowledge is breaking your heart?

Possibly true i haven't looked up the states and only know the canadian ones. I can't see anything in a quick google search,

Right - if you choose to make your OWN decisions and they disagree with those decisions they may kill you. You realize that's a bad thing right? Sure. Why not. But it's not the surgeons that are refusing. The beurocrats and politicians set the policy, and they've made their positions clear. where did i say surgeons? For sure. He was very clear that he was not. He was QUITE specific. But - then we knew you prefer to rewrite history when it doesn't suit you

But they're not - gender is biologically driven as well. And you just made that same claim a post ago or thereabouts. So - you're wrong again. That's what happens when you flip flop to try to keep your story straight. Gender is in significant part biological. Sounds like you're back to word games to redefine things as necessary to fit your argument. What you mean to say is 'sex is defined as whatever i need it to be right now". You certainly do. "I'ts biological, it's not biological, it's biological" - you ignore the science whenever it gets in the way. I don't know if other facists do as well but you do. No there aren't. They would say it doesn't wash off as easily but then again there are people who have make up 'inked' onto them as well. Nope. Sorry. Tattoos were never considered to be self mutilation,. They were considered to be bad things and desicrating your body etc but not mutilation. And why would it - it's just putting ink on your body. Cutting body parts off is mutilation. No, you didn't say that. More flip flopping when you get cornered i see. But a person could. That's the point. What if i claim i'm a street lamp. So i was right. They weren't banned at all. You just lied about it. Typical. not even a tiny bit. Is porn 'banned' in america just because schools don't carry playboy? It's a retarded thing to say. "we don't feel this book is appropriate for this school library but you can buy it anywhere and other libraries can carry it and it's perfectly legal" "oh - the book is banned'. but you'll claim dr seuss which realily IS out of production is not banned. Hypcrite. I've won on every point. This is just icing and no - most cultures don't involve biology. Other than the people in them tend to be living creatures. You've flip flopped so much that you don't even HAVE a point any more. So lets recap: Gender is in a significant part biological - and while culture plays a role it is NOT cultural. Sex doesn't change regardiless of gender - so a male is a male even if he thinks of himself as a woman. You do not become something jsut because you identify with it. If i were to identify as a street lamp, i wouldn't be one. Trans people are not banned. Culture and biology are not the same thing. Glad we could sort this stuff out.

That's cool but this is the modern era. You just THINK that 18 years is a long time because it's longer than you've been alive. As you get older it seems less. For every election that they've won, and they've won MANY, with the exception of one they've won the popular vote and the dems are the ones who gerrymander the worst. So - lie on your part. Like i said - when you grow up it won't seem like such a long time that you can't get your head around it like now.

Yes! Well ... that and to make the lefties here my emotional scratching post, obviously. But definitely what you said too!!

THe holocaust WASNT' about racism you dimwit. Not only are there the ethnic groups you mentioned but also black jews and other ethnicities who were jewish. Germans were racist AS WELL, but the holocaust wasn't racial, it was ethnic. Duh. They were after JEWS, not just a race

No. She is not. She's saying she wants the operation. She has qualified for the treatment and priority. She is NOT the one saying no. They are the ones saying 'we have decided to take this choice away form you because we disagree with a choice you made in the past." And anyone else would be entitled to the treatment. She was already on the list and already prioritized. And there is no medical reason for this decision. Just give her the same as anyone else would get. Of course she is. She is being threatened with death unless she does what she is ordered to at the whim of others. Theres no medical reason for it, its just vindictive. "You made an unrelated decision which we disagree with. You shall be punished'" Think very carefully about this. If we establish that it's ok to withthold medical treatment because we don't like others' decisions - where does that stop? Can we order our EMR's to not treat drug patients and revive them because we disapprove of their drug habits? Can we order doctors not to do aboritons on moral grounds and screw the rights of the woman. Can we withhold medicine from people who marched in a rally the gov't doesn't like? THe woman has decided she wants this treatment, the woman has qualified for the treatment, the woman only asks for what others would get. But without medical reason, others have decided that they don't like other decisions she's made so she must die. That's not ok