Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by CdnFox

  1. 1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

    you don't state what I am supposedly disloyal to

    I am not bound to be loyal to something which doesn't exist

    It literally does specifically. So at this point you're just playing childish games. So - disloyal, dumb,and childish. Your parents must be so proud.

  2. 20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    Does anyone know what this dingbat is talking about? He's been going off like this for a coupe days now.

    Everyone knows. That's why nobody takes you seriously. You're pathetic. I mean who even does that? i'm sure all your kindergarten friends were impressed. 

    You think about what kind of person you've become when you go to sleep tonite.

  3. 3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    you can't say what it is

    It's like the first line i wrote about your disloyalty.  It's right there for everyone to see.

    This is what i mean - you blather like a retard and haven't got a clue.

    whatever - go to bed jr ,the adults are talking. Maybe tomorrow you can find a 5 year old with better reading skills to help you figure it out.


  4. 31 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    you asserted that your opinion is true, which is a fallacy obviously, your opinion not being proof of anything

    that would make it unsubstantiated, not a logical fallacy. And that is only for such things that require proof. If i say "the sun will rise in the east tomorrow" and say "this is true", then you COULD say you didn't believe it without proof, but the rest of the world would know you were an !diot and that it's probably true.

    In either case however it is not a logical fallacy.  And you're still an !diot.

    31 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:


    you still won't say what it is I am supposed to be loyal to and how I am disloyal

    Of course i did. As i said earlier go back and read. Me typing it out again won't make it any easier for you to get your disloyal little brain around than the first time, will it.


  5. 2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    What fake posts?

    The one you deleted :) And everyone knows you did.

    2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    Usually when you called out doing something slimy you provide some evidence

    USUALLY? - so you do this to people a lot?

    Not surprising.

    Anyway - it's obvious from the fact you would do that that you care what people think. But people just think you're a weird joke.

  6. 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    you assert something to be true based on your own assertions : circular logic

    No, i asserted it was true. I did not make any claim as to why it's true. You're an !diot.

    2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    I am not ranting & raving at you

    You rant and rave continually.

    2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    what is it I am supposedly disloyal to ?

    you don't even say what it is

    I did in fact. Go back and read again. This gets beyond tedious if i have to explain everything to you TWICE.

    2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    I am not seeking your approval, but I don't know what you are pointing to as supposed disloyalty

    Nobody cares what you're seeking. That was the point.

  7. 1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

    Denmark is a founding member of NATO since 4 April 1949

    True, slip of the tounge.

    59 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    circular logic fallacy

    No, that is not a circular logic fallacy. My god could you please stop using words if you don't know what they mean.


    if someone is ranting & raving

    You are the only one who rants and raves, desperate to explain  your disloyalty and dishonor in a sad attempt to make it look like its opposite.

    But yes - you certainly do rinse and repeat.

  8. 3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

    it's an internet forum


    Yes - and everything i said remains true.

    And you are disloyal by your own admission - which you don't make a 'considered' response to, but rather to which you blather and attempt to justify your disloyalty in the most painfully ridiculous ways.

    And you're not just disloyal, you're stupid if you think that russia doesn't care about denmark becoming part of nato and the potential for land forces being based there.

  9. 1 hour ago, dialamah said:

    Socially, swastikas are not acceptable - even if the concept of free speech allows it. Trans people are acceptable socially - in theory.  But, per the objections of a vocal minority, not in reality.

    Socially the culture wars and identity politics are no longer acceptable.

    I honestly don't know how you're not getting this.  it's very simple. People are sick of identity politics. Bud enagaged in identity politics. So even while trans may not be something people are eager to oppose - this incident is.

    Free speech good but swastika bad.

    trans good but weaponizing beer in the culture war bad.

    Not complex.

    1 hour ago, dialamah said:

    I disagree - I don't see anyone non-partisan who cares, beyond chuckling about it.  And, as already noted in this thread, it is already rebounding.  Yesterday, stock prices rose by 34%.

    8 billion in stock loss. That's not just a few unhappy conservatives. Every liquour store they're interviewing reports drops in sales well into the double digits - 30 percent in some cases.  That is NOT a few unhappy conservatives.

    1 hour ago, dialamah said:

    So, cancel culture.  Be proud, conservatives, if you succeed, but don't accuse liberals of being the only ones engaging in cancel culture with these kinds of cancelling attempts on your resume. 

    No, demanding that the influencer be taken off tik tok would be cancel culture. This is a boycott.

    1 hour ago, dialamah said:

    The fact remains that those who object to Budweiser's actions do so because they disapprove of trans people. 

    No that's just your own bigotry. The evidence does not point to that.  Unless a hell of a lot more people disapprove of trans than previous polling and information would suggest.

    This is people sick of this being a 24 hour a day issue.

    1 hour ago, dialamah said:

    Imagine if they tried the same thing if a Black person was featured - you do know what that would be; how can you claim this is any different?

    They do it with black people and this doesn't happen. So it's different. And bud has done MANY gay and les supports before. Many. This didn't happen.

    Are you getting it yet?

    1 hour ago, dialamah said:

    The objectors are the people creating and maintaining this culture war; they're the ones creating the news stories and headlines.  It's certainly not those who accept trans people.

    No, they are people sick of the culture war. This is a backlash to the culture war that the far left has been fighting relentlessly

    1 hour ago, dialamah said:

    Disagreeing with you does not mean I'm lying to myself; I thought you were better than that.

    Lying to yourself means you're lying to yourself. That remains true whether i agree with you or not.

    The obvious evidence does not support your position, yet you cling to it desperately. I'm saying that while you can continue to self delude yourself to scratch your confirmation bias itch it woudl be better to dispassionately look at the facts and be honest with yourself as to what is going on.

    You WANT this to be "conservatives bad people, hate trans, bad bad".  But the evidence is that this is not the case, that something else is going on here.  I'm sure there are people out there who hate trans people, but that does NOT account for this reaction. 

  10. 13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

    You make my point for me - swastikas are not acceptable in any context - trans people are, in theory at least. 

    You miss the point entirely. Free speech is acceptable in any context (in theory at least). The fact that it's being used in a manner you might not entirely approve of yourself is not relevant. If someone wishes to wear a swastika bikini they can.

    So - the fact that you don't disapprove of free speech does not mean you're not going to find that particular advert annoying. You've turned the product into a controversy.

    Likewise - just because you don't disapprove of trans doesn't mean you're not going to find an ad politicizing them to be annoying.

    13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

     If sending some cans of Bud lite to a person in a swimsuit is unremarkable, so should be sending some cans to a trans person.

    Well lets test that with my example - if sending some cans of bud lite to a person in a swimsuit is unremarkable so should be sending some cans to a person in a swimsuit with a swastika.

    Ummm - nope, turns out there's a difference ;) 

    You can pretend otherwise but you'd be being dishonest at this point - sending it to the trans person to celebrate their one year anniversary of being trans'd is a political statement. The person doesn't even drink beer.

    13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

    It remains the people who object that makes it political.

    That's not true at all - and bud wouldn't be taking the hit that it is if it were JUST harder conservatives who don't like trans people that were the issue. It's clear that it's stepping beyond that.

    People eat breathe and sleep trans issues right now. Every day it's in the papers - trans issues in our schools, trans issues wiht teachers with fake gigantic breasts, trans issues with them shooting up churches, trans issues with bathrooms, trans issues with trans people demanding to tell stories to underage children, trans issues with every single thing under the sun and now we can't have a beer without thinking about trans issues.  And if you have ANY concerns with ANY of it - you're a terrible evil nazi.

    I don't care WHAT the topic is - eventually people get sick of it constantly in their face and being told if they don't agree 100percent with all of it then they're scum. And this is the predictable result. At some point people were going to snap and bud is paying billions for holding the potato when that happened.

    Lie to yourself if you must, but the fact is that the backlash means that companies will realize that it's not sate to be supportive of those groups in the same way any more. Which is too bad for those groups. But it was predictable.

  11. 4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

    f these people were actually accepting of Trans people, they'd react the same as they do when beer companies feature scantily clad women and "manly" men - that is to say, not at all. 

    Well that's not true in the slightest.  One puts women on because you're appealing directly to the target markets.  Women who drink beer want to be seen as pretty and men who drink beer want to believe the activity is directly associated with pretty women. That's normal advertising. 

    But - imagine like i said earlier they put up a woman in a swimsuit, but the swimsuit features swastikas. And the caption is "at bud we support everyone's right to free speech".

    Now - the person watching may believe in free speech but he's still going to be pissed and very likely will say 'i don't support this, and i wont' buy that product". 

  12. 51 minutes ago, Aristides said:

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

    Dude - could you be in denial harder?  This is starting to get sad.

    The stock going down hurts them. That's a very serious problem for them. It should have been going up. So even if it recovers it will take much much longer for it to recover to where it should have been.  That's why they're freaking.

    The revenues have taken a serious hit. It really doesn't matter if it's 2 billion or 3 billion or 10 billion per se - they're losing revenue. In case you were unaware businesses are only profitable when they MAKE money :) and the purpose of advertising is to MAKE money - not to hopefully not lose TOO much money :)

    This is an unmitigated failure for them. And they know darn well that there are so many beer choices that if people switch from their product even for a little while they may get used to the new product and simply not switch back even when they're not angry any more.

    While i appreciate the mental gymnastics - sorry to burst your bubble but this is bad for bud.

  13. 35 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    Wow... Big post... You just stew as long as needed. It's what your good at.

    LOL - did you need me to use smaller words and more pictures for you? :) 

    Only the left would say something that wouldn't take up half a page printed is a "really long read" :) LOLOL

    35 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    Oh imagine that - SOMEHOW a bunch of paid people are coming forth to say this is terrible sure but you should still buy the stock :) I wonder who put them up to that :) ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

    If they weren't worried there would be no stories at all.  And they wouldn't have called trump and begged him to tell conservatives to let them off the hook :)

    They're in full on damage control and they're VERY concerned. Anyone they've ever spent an ad dollar with is going to get a call teling them if they ever want another cent they better spin this positively. 

    I'm sorry that the facts don't suit your personal agenda but as a person on the right of the spectrum I tend to listen to the facts and the science a little more - you keep going with "Muh feels" if you like.  But I bet bud won't :)

    Others will pay attention too. Nobody wants to lose that kind of revenue. Or have their stock take that kind of hit.

    That's just life. Feel free to stick your fingers in your hears and humm if it helps you sleep at night.

  14. Just now, BeaverFever said:

    The Stock blip will bounce back,at the end of the day investors only care about the financial fundamentals of a company

    It'll bounce back to less than what it would have  been.  And investors worry a great deal about businesses that make bad decisions that cost billions of dollars. Meanwhile that revenue loss that's driving the stock crash is gone forever.

    Like i said the first thing that the lefties do when faced with something that collides with their ideology is insist that really nothing happened and it's super small anyway. Sorry - this IS a big deal for the company and investors and they are busting major ass right now trying to mitigate the damage.

    Pretending otherwise kinda just makes you look uninformed and petty.  Billions of dollars lost is a big deal.


    How did this one-time social media promo prevent you from sitting back and enjoying a beer?

    I love how you always try to make it personal :)   - when did -I- say -I- Couldn't enjoy a beer? Did i say that? No? Never? Then why claim i did?

    Oh that's right - you can't address the points i DID make so you HAVE to lie to create something you can argue about :) 
    Cheezy dude.

    In any case what i actually said is that people get fed up when they can't enjoy a beer without thinking about trans issues or other identity politics.  And that's the case - if they want to buy some bud light and sit back and drink it then they now pretty much have to think about trans issues because bud has made that a thing. And that makes people angry and they consider other brands instead.

    7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

    And so what is your advice to companies going forward?

    Identity politics is a losing game for companies to play in the end. Many have found that out. Don't do it. If you make beer then sell beer.

    You can still successfully market to and support communities like the letter people but don't make it a political issue. I mean they have for years successfully, this was just stupid.

    Get woke go broke. Don't do it.  Be honest in your genuine support and don't virtue signal and let people enjoy their products and their lives.


  15. 1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

    I simply do not require NATO to be constrained by the false accusations & conspiracy theories of the KGB


    Nobody cares what you require - you're a nobody who doesn't even have any loyalty to your country and your opinion is worth nothing.

    The reality is that to russia theyv'e increased the threat and that wouldn't have happened without the invasion.

    Anything else is just the blathering of an unpatriotic loser who takes 20 paragraphs to explain his disloyalty every time it's brought up.  Go ahead, there's your cue.

  16. 29 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    And now their stock has rebounded.

    Nope, it's only come about half way back. And it should have been going up the whole time as it was previously

    So - they are still WAY behind. Even when they catch up to where they were they'll be way behind.

    This has been a VERY expensive lesson.

    29 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:


    To assume this was anything more than a blip for a corporation as large as InBev would be foolish.

    To assume a corporation like that can see their value plummet by billions and call it a blip is far more foolish.

    It's not going to bankrupt them but if you're trying to pretend muti billion dollar losses don't concern shareholders and execs - you have much to learn about business.

    29 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    This is evident as they didn't even fire Ms. Mulvaney. She is still their spokesperson and their stock is right back up. 

    their stock isn't back up and in fact they won't be working with her any more. They didn't "hire" her in the first place, they just sent her some stuff. So no - she's not their official 'spokesperson' anymore or the like. That was an error on your part.

    29 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    Funny how so many rightwingers are so concerned for the health of Bud light p_ss water.

    So here's a  common trick of the left wing. And it's not a very good look:

    When something happens that doesn't jive with their echo chamber tribalist ideology, they do the following:

    Insist nothing has happened and whatever has happened is so small it might as well not have occurred.

    Insist that it doesn't mean anything and nobody cares and everybody actually thinks it's great really if asked, but there's absolutely no meaning in what happened at all and if there is some nobody cares about it,


    Conservatives are terrible people for even bringing it up? So petty - why would they even mention it? They're clearly bad people, good people woudln't have even noticed this.

    Yeah - that is ALL pretty much bullshit.

    So here's the facts:

    1 - multi billion dollar loses are a huge deal and bud will be VERY unhappy about this. So much so that THEY ARE NOW CALLING DONALD TRUMP TO BEG WITH CONSERVATIVES TO FORGIVE THEM.  This is a serious loss for them.

    2 - THey care. And it's clear that a lot of people who really aren't conservatives care. Which tells me that it's not really about transgenderism - its' about shoving identity politics down people's throats when you should have been pouring beer down it.

    3 - EVERYONE - not just conservatives but EVERYONE is getting sick of this crap. Even people who agree with transgender issues are sick of having to hear about it breakfast lunch and dinner. People are FED UP of 'woke', of identity politics, and the lefts culture war.  And it IS a big deal, and they are NOT bad people for thinking so and your attempt to cast them as such would just honk them off more and make for a bigger backlash.

    Bud tried to have a 'woke ' moment and paid a severe financial penalty for it. You can bet they'll treat the 'woke agendal' much much more carefully moving forward. And other companies will as well.

  17. 20 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

    If you go back over all the posts where you've replied to certain posters, you'll find that regardless of how correct you are and how much evidence you provide to prove it to them, some of them will just continue gaslighting you. 

    They have no shame, and it's not beneath them to falsely accuse you of anything.

    Your interaction with those people can never be positive. Their goal is always to drag you down to their level and beat you in the mud-slinging contest. 

    You're lending legitimacy and credibility to that poster by pretending that they deserve a reply, and it just encourages them to keep coming back and doing their thing.

    I honestly don't even understand their life. I can't imagine having a goal of going on the internet and slandering people and lying to them all day. The only thing that makes sense to me now is that some of them are bots or paid shills.

    At some point you just have to let toxic people like that go, like Bill Burr did with his religion:


    Yeah, i guess slime and haters are going to slime and hate.

  18. 44 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    Well neither do I too much really so why should anyone else?

    But you do. You're so worried about how people perceive you online that you create fake posts and erase them when you get called on it and pretend you didn't.  That's not the actions of someone who doesn't take themselves seriously. So you clearly do.

    But nobody else does

  19. 2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

    Like I said, we'll see.

    We have already seen. They're freaking out. They are calling trump demanding he speak to conservatives on their behalf to try to stop this. The media reports they're having freak outs in their own executive. They seem to be both denying supporting trans and at the same time saying they support trans in the same breath before shutting up. This has spun WAY out of control for them.

    We can see the answer right now - this isn't some sort of long game, it was a simple little endorsement they did to look a little woke that VERY unexpectedly blew up in their face.  there will be NO hordes of trans people out there rushing to the stores to buy enough beer to cover the losses.  The trans in question doesn't even drink beer.

    2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

    Sometimes you have to go backward a step in order to keep going forward.

    This isn't a case of that :) C'mon dude, even you have to realize you're reaching like hell right now.

    The only positive spin you might get on this is that it's been a learning eperience about the dangers of political messaging on sensitive subjects.

    2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

    I don't really care. I don't own the stock and if don't like their presenter there are lots of other choices.

    Great - i don't drink their stuff either. But we're also probably not their target market.


    3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    And you didn't.

    I know. But you did. And that's the problem.

    3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    Cover up what exactly? You've still never told us what that is and nor has anyone else. I bet your invisible friend knows.

    I've said it many times. You falsely pretended to quote me with words i didn't say and then covered it up when you got called on it.

    Which is beyond pathetic.

  21. 8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    the Russian assertions that their security is threatened by NATO is a bunch of nonsense

    Not to them.  And frankly if they are going to be aggressive and invade other countries it DOES threaten their security.

    8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    lunatic conspiracy theories made up by the KGB in the Kremlin

    Sure bud, sure.  They're all nuts - YOU'RE the only SANE one.

    Finalnd as part of nato is an angry neighbour with a shotgun on his lap. Regardless of their ACTUAL intent, you have to be concerned about it.  And it only happened because he started this war.

    So that's a loss for him in that respect regardless.

  22. 1 minute ago, Aristides said:

    Companies make long term decisions that affect short term stock prices all the time

    So your argument now is that they INTENDED this to be a loss in the short term.

    Their reaction makes it painfully clear that was NOT the case. This was not a 'long term' plan. This was something they thought was simple and cheap - and it backfired.

    Lets not try to pass it off as some sort of example of 3 d chess.

  23. 1 hour ago, Aristides said:

    NATO is a defensive alliance and Finland is quite capable of looking after itself until the cavalry arrives. Permanently basing NATO troops in Finland would be an unnecessary provocation. During the Cold War, Canada used to do exercises involving rapidly moving troops to Europe and fighters to Bodo Norway.

    But why would it be a provocation if it's purely defensive?

    Of course it's not just defensive and 'defense' can be interpreted a lot of ways.

    And there's no need to worry about 'unnecessarily provoking' a foe who's just worn themselves to nothing fighting in ukraine.

    The Russians see it as a serious threat and they know it weakens their position. So - that is a loss for them. It would never have happened if they hadn't just wasted craptonnes of their military strength in ukraine

  • Create New...