CdnFox

Which is untrue. He's dead right - there's nothing 'nazi' about calling someone who's marxist a marxist. Honestly @WestCanMan, she just calls everyone a nazi that disagrees with her, and then pretends she didn't REALLY call them a nazi. She's just a lying leftie and a hate filled racist, bigot and fierce anti-Semite. Why are you even worrying about her calling you a nazi, eveyrone's a nazi in her world. (oh except it's not REALLY that you're a nazi, it's that your ideas or your gov't or your actions or whatever are nazi when you push her on it).

Well that company is ABSOLUTELY engaging in the culture wars if they hired the person BECAUSE they are trans. Here's how that works. If they just hired who they thought was best and that person HAPPENED to turn out to have a penis, then they're just trying to sell beer and their best choice happens to have a penis. If they hired someone BECAUSE they were trans with the idea that this would make them look more 'woke' or intersectional then it's identity politics and culture war. You're forcing a moral issue on people instead of selling beer. That does not appear to be the case here. They appear to be reacting to the company deliberately putting the person forward because they are trans. If you happen to have a mixed race couple then fine -if you choose them BECAUSE you want to normalize mix raced couples then that's a different situation. Your politicizing your product and people don't like that. Whether they do or not others will see the loss they're taking and think twice before doing the same thing. And they should. This company deserves it's losses. If you make beer - sell beer. If you want to sell politics then start an acitvists group. People don't want to have to deal with this shit in every single area of their life and if they are forced to then it wont' make trans people more accepted, it will lead to a backlash where they are far LESS accepted.

Neither are preferable. When you 'borrow" at high interest for an "investment" - you risk the investment not paying off. It is a BAD idea to put home renovations on a credit card and HOPE that the home sells for more money. Imagine you did that and some underwear-streak of a prime minister drove inflation up and interest rates with it and your home was suddenly worth less before you could finish the renos and sell it. Then what? YOu're still stuck with the high interest rate loan on the credit card. Sounds like you're a pretty serious liar. There is no renovation you could do to a home in this market to triple it's value, never mind one that would fit on a credit card. and no sane person would put it on a credit card, they'd take out a loan. So - bullshit. You're a liar. As to buying parts to sell that's not an investment that's just work. The parts don't increase in value, you just add value by charging for your time. Not the same thing at all. He told you not to do that That is easily the stupidest comment on the internet And as you can imagine, it was up against some pretty stiff competition.

It is crystal clear. His language is consistent from beginning to end. You have to WANT it to mean something different for it not to be clear. I get it - you like the guy and you don't like to see him saying stupid things. But unfortunately that's something he does now and again and this is an example. and that's about where you should have stopped. There's no exaggeration here. This is just how he thinks.

I have to admit - i haven't' followed this case closely (nobody in canada drinks bud light, or at least if they do they're not willing to admit it) but usually in cases like this the undergarment clumpage is due to feeling like this was foisted on them for the purpose of demanding they agree with it. In other words, it stops just being an ad about the beer they like and is now weaponizing a product they like to try to force them to agree to something they may or may not want to. Nobody likes that.

That's dumb. If we're going to go that route then why not to back to god - it's all his fault for creating mammals in the first place! What a bastard. You are literally sitting on your high throne making up facts. There's no science behind it, sorry. And a dictionay definition that doesn't actually demonstrate your point doesn't help much. Again - the fact you have to lie to make your point shows you don' t have a point. Sigh. No, stupid, roe was overturned because it IS about the constitution AND they decided roe vs wade incorrectly indicated abortion was covered by the constitution. As we will see The very first line of your quote says it all. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such rightis implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. All you had to do was read the first line. It spells it out crystal clear. This is about the constitution and whether or not abortion falls under its' protection. Roe claimed that it did under the 14th amendment to the constitution. It has now been decided it does not. That's it. That's what the whole thing was about. And if it's not part of teh constitution then it's not a federal issue -the issue belongs to the states. I'm sorry. You just don't have enough education in these matters to speak intelligently on them. The rest of your drivel was equally uneducated. Maybe consider doing some reading and educating yourself a little before speaking further. Honestly you look pretty stupid right now. You can fix that by obtaining a little knowledge.

You know - joking aside this really is a complex question. How do we define winning the war? Achieving the objectives? or does winning have differnet levels, like sort of won, won, really won, and so on? Russia clearly intended to take control of ukraine. And they intended the war to be short. There is much evidence fort his. So from an 'objectives' point of view they lost. But - if they still walk away with more land and the donbas area etc - is that a win? Or not? Ukraine wanted to avoid being taken over by russia as their goal and has added taking back crimea. I doubt they will achieve that, there's a pretty good chance they'll lose a little land and won't get crimea back. But - if they end the war and drive off the russians and have 90 percent of their land back is that a victory? Given what it's done to their country? Really the only clear winners appear to be nato and the west, which is fine with me. But kind of crappy for russia and the ukraine

WHY do you THINK that CAPS make A LIE you TELL more TRUE somehow? IT'S really WEIRD. And no. Logic and reason don't require facts. There's entire branches of that world that exist without it in fact - like Philosophy. I see your education still needs some work. In any case we do have facts and evidence to work with here. We have the fact of the lawsuit and the fact of Fox's current leadership position in viewership which i mentioned and their income and their behavior with the lawsuit and a bunch of other things. Soooo .... Ya done being wrong?

Intelligence. try it sometime. It would seem like that to an !diot i suppose. Oh shit kid, there's been TONNES of lawsuits about media lying in the states and even a few in Canada. The MSM's lie ALL THE TIME. Remember when the convoy was funded by radical americans? But really this isn't about lying - this is about defamation which is different. So you were wrong there as well.

SORRY but making EVERY few WORDS use caps DOESN'T actually change ANYTHING either. And logic and reason is in fact valid evidence. Of course - you being a leftie you might not have ever heard that before And lets face it - you know i'm right or you would have made a counterargument and presented your own facts. I mean seriously - how thick do you have to be to make an assertion that an assertion without providing facts is meaningless without providing facts? (yes - the previous sentace does in fact make sense. Read it again. Deep breaths, take a break part way through if you need to).

It's pretty clear he's not. This is just how he thinks of things. You can make all the excuses for him you like but at the end of the day he was very clear about what he said - and it wasn't your twist on it.

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Tip your waitresses! Denouncing deluded commie putin--pals a specialty! (bow bow bow)

Nope. They're not guessing and they clearly support the coops. It's just what you said was untrue. Sorry. that's because they lumped single owner small businesses in with that - and they're the most likely to fail period. Sorry. I get you want socailism to look like it works but it really doesn't Now - technically every single public traded company is a co-op - the employees have as much right to own a share of the business as anyone else. But there's nothing actually more stable about co-ops. Other than they tend to only exist in a specific segment. Well we can agree on the first part. However - gov'ts are NOT a way to keep that from happening, govts tend to race towards that end even faster. That's why any attempt at a 'socialistic' or communal society managed by gov't is doomed to failure over time. Sure it can. Donald is VERY skilled and so is elon, and they've both risen up. What's the problem. What a load of crap. Trump was SORT of born to wealth but not really. Musk wasn't born to wealth at all - he earned it. ANd in fact the majority of millionaires and billionares come from low to middle class. Which proves that you are ENTIRELY wrong. Bull. Socialism seeks to repress anyone above the average. Socialism seeks the lowest common denominator, not the highest. So socialism is death to merit. It actively punishes those who excel.

And you can't buy that kind of advertising. They probably do as well. The fact is that if they wanted this solved it would have been solved already out of court by the insurance people. Instead this will drag on for years and fox will wind up benefitting. Even if they do have to pay something eventually it'll be a decade from now and in the meantime they'll have had earnings of about 25 billion dollars. Take a look at the viewership - fox VASTLY outnumbered everyone else in feb https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-are-fox-news-msnbc-and-cnn-ratings-for-february-2023/524861/ And they've been going up for years now. So this kind of thing is worth every penny to them. Their viewership isn't suffering for it - it got better for it. I'm sure they don't want to pay any cash if they can avoid it but if you think this is going to convince them to do business differently you're sadly mistaken.

Oh but they're free to lie about anything else? Please. You condone dishonesty and extremeism in media you like while condemning it at fox and that means this is going to continue. Fox will wind up benefiting from this in the longer run. People don't care that they lie a little. if they did then neither trump no biden would ever have been president. I dislike seeing lies or excessive partisan rhetoric in any media period - with the possible exception of those who bill themselves specifically that way so people know up front. But the fact is that it sells papers as the saying goes.

Not if what it really wants is attention. And that's what it really wants. Fox is going to make lots of money as long as it gets attention There is no such suggestion. The problem isn't the child. The problem is the parents. Remember the left wing media is EVERY BIT JUST AS BAD. So the answer is we have to be better consumers. That's really the only thing that works. And that's not terrribly likely to happen. As evidenced by the fact you posted an article thats 'every bit as salty as fox news is as if it were a legit piece Consumers like that kind of stuff and they're not likely to give it up anytime soon

Is SHEEEE The !diot here? because it's kind of soundling like someone else is being the !diot here So life doesn't apply to non mamillians? I'm not sure you thought that through. And the nature of the consequences doesn't change the fact you do stupid things. We all do. Can't condemn humanity for that. Well it isn't. As we've discussed. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Sorry. And it's also not relevant to that point. You claim a fetus is a human being -you would have to demonstrate why that's true for that to be a factor in your argument. Nope. The vast majority of rapes do not require a trip to the hospital. I don't know woh told you that but it's simply not true. Getting punched in the face is an act of violence as well but we've all gotten into fist fights when we were younger right? How many times did you go to the hospital for it out of all the fights you got into? Where did i say i was for or against anything? All i said is you can't call it a compromise solution AND i pointed out where you were wrong in your assertions. Where does "science" say that? If anything it says otherwise. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/sexual-assault-remains-dramatically-underreported https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rape-study-report-america-us_n_4310765 Didn't have to wait long didja. The vast majority of rapes go unreported. Sorry sparky. Why? Their body won't change. Nothing will be different. Even sophisticated hormone testing can miss it. Saying 'they're stupid' just makes you look stupid. If you have to lie to make your point, you don't have a very good point. Sure - but first off for that argument to work you'd have to prove it was a baby. Instead of just a fetus. As i noted before you'd have to make a convincing argument it's a human being. So? A heart beat isn't what makes a human a human. If a human's heart stops are they dead at that moment? Of course not - people's hearts stop all the time and they're revived. If we took a heart out of someone and kept it alive in a jar - would it still be a human being? And it's not even a real circulatory heartbeat yet, it's just the muscles forming and beginning to learn how to contract. So why exactly would that mean it's a human? Other than Muh Feels? Yawn. Wake me when your brain starts to work again. Irrelevant. You've obviously never read or even understood the case. It had nothing to do with 'abortion' in and of itself. It simply asked whether or not abortion was addressed within the constitution. It was a case about the constitution not abortion. I never liked the verdict in that case to be honest. I think the supreme court was right to strike it down. But it's got SFA to do with 'abortion' other than whether or not it's in the constitution. So the tech available is irrelevant.

Sure. That's the problem we face today. We're becoming more and more tribal and locked in our echo chambers. As you say- more naughty children. One only has to look at the last 15 years to see you're right. Er... well if you want to go give tucker a spanking then more power to you, but just the though of it would cost me a few nights sleep And spanking one bad child while allowing all the others on both the left and right to go unpunished actually makes things worse. You have to be consistent. And our society isn't interested in holding the children to account right now. Nahhh. Its free publicity that will wind up benefiting all the bad children moving forward. If a child acts out looking for attention, even if it's negative attention, and it gets attention... guess what?

like i said - you can't even do it till after a missed period so it's not actually that 'easy' - its impossible for much of that 6 weeks. Sure - people are stupid. I bet if we looked real hard we'd find things you've done in your life that are stupid too looking back at it, wouldn't we If we are going to condemn people for being stupid we might as well just nuke the whole planet. Well you'd have to demonstrate that a baby is a human life. And that's not so easy. Obviously at some point between being an unfertilized egg and it's first college exam it becomes a human being , but exactly where is a bit tricky. You may BELIEVE it's from conception and thats fine but then we can't really call this a compromise solution. First off - there absolutely is worse trauma. FAR worse. Getting killed is over quickly. However its just dumb to claim that was my comparison. A woman who's been severely emotionally and physically traumatized may not go to the police right away - whether the baby is aborted or not. That's just life. No, most of the time they don't. The vast majority of rapes go unreported. I dont' know where you got that idea. well as we've discussed that's a lie. And if you have to lie to make your point then it's not a very good point In fact many won't even realize they're pregnant that fast. And even those who are 'watching' for it have to wait till a period has been missed, so that could be easily 4 weeks before they can even test - and even then the tests are not 100 percent accurate. So get real. You can make a DIFFERENT argument that says 6 weeks is all we can give for some reason or another but it's a lie to say its 'plenty of time' so if your argument hinges on that, then you've got a problem with your argument don't you.

Well your article tends to disagree with you despite the fact that its trying its best to support your position. It's full of "can be" and "might be" and "in some cases" and such - and cites no actual research or numbers. Further it basically admits that from a profitability point of view it's not as effective. And of course its' comparing apples to oranges - larger corporations to smaller business worker coops. But - we already know that smaller businesses tend to be more efficient as far as labour goes. A small 'regular' business is more efficient on average than a larger corporation by far. So as suspected - a 'less than true' truth. But those two are critical. You cannot have a human society or group without social and political power being involved and humans will always organize that into a hierarchy. It is the nature of every pack or flock animal in existence. Well that's not really a 'hierarchy'. It would be if that doctor decided who gets to learn and who doesn't and controls the medical services from that perspective. A bunch of feudal states or more often one very large state controlled by an elite class. Which we've certainly seen. And it's a problem with all socialistic or communal models. Of course the problem with a true hierarchy model such a s a meritocracy or 'pure' capitalist economic model is that it leaves those who don't fit on the hierarchical scale to suffer and fall by the wayside and die. In nature that has some advantage but as thinking creatures we don't really like that. So the best models tend to be a meritocracy and free market style hierarchy with a VERY small amount of communal model included to make sure that people aren't just cast aside. Then the trick is to create as many successful hierarchy's as possible. Business ones, sports ones, computer programming ones, basket weaving ones, whatever - as many areas where people can compete and find SOME skill they have that will allow them to be of value. The more there are, the more people are likely to find the ladder that they can do well on.

So your argument is that Justin Trudeau and his style of gov't will be the same as PP and his style of gov't? Do you really feel that's a defensible postilion?

So here's a few of my concerns when thinking about it as a "compromise". A lot of girls won't even realize they are pregnant until almost 6 weeks. You miss a period and then you start to wonder - well you're already potentially 4 weeks at that point. It could be 6 weeks before you even take a pregnancy test and figure it out. It's not very much time at all. Remember - it's not 6 weeks after you find out - it's 6 weeks after you get pregnant whether you know about the pregnancy or not. A lot of people get pregnant even with protection. It happens. But more importantly - pregancy tests require you to miss a period before they're accurate. IT's not like if you have sex today then tomorrow you're going to test positive. So yeah even if a girl has unprotected sex once and thinks "i may be preggers", it might be weeks before she can even find out. A lot of traumatized women won't go to the police right away . Get raped a few times and then talk about it. However this law does allow for rape to be an exception Well this is the argument from those who believe that the fetus is a human being from conception of course. And that's fine - but that is NOT a compromise solution. A compromise solution would have to at least give a reasonable chance for the woman to discover she's pregnant and have time to arrange a medical procedure.

Well that depends on what you mean by 'co-ops'. And how big the 'co op' you're talking about is. If you mean like a farmer's co-op or co-op store, no. Sorry, you're dead wrong. If you mean co-op housing, certainly not. The best you can say about that is it helps keep prices lower but that's because it has less value. But perhaps you mean something else, 'co-op' is a pretty wide reaching term. Frankly i think we'll see pretty quick this is another one of your ... ahhh... "less than true" facts Communism isn't about working together. Even capitalism REQUIRES that people work together. But communism suggests that their is no such thing as 'hierarchy', and that is simply against human nature entirely. We are definitely pack animals - but like almost all pack animals we are hierarchy based. This is something the left often pretends doesn't exist, which is why they THINK its possible for the 'communal' model to work on any kind of scale. But it doesn't. And at the end of the day that's the problem with the left these days - they don't care about facts, they don't care about science, they don't care about human nautre - they care about 'muh feels' and what they perceive as desirable and demand that their vision of utopia is true despite any evidence to the contrary.

Well lets put it this way - if they do then they did before tucker showed up. Like i said, news today tends to be less about informing people and more about manipulating their confirmation bias. Either postively by stroking the things they believe already in some manner or negatively by enraging they by refuting things they believe already in some manner - both get you clicks and both get you discussed around the web etc etc. The article you posted is no different, it uses emotionally charged language and really tries to press the buttons of those who dislike fox in an exaggerated and over-the-top manner that those who do will point to and say "not fair not true". These days its all about pushing people's tribal buttons rather than actually informing.

That would be true, if i had said anything remotely close to that. Which i did not. Go read it again. Slowly.