Kansas Crimson

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:13 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 5:07 pm Have you made a point? Do you need validation? lefties who were butthurt when the politically elite got called out for ignoring/hiding child sex trafficking are a sad breed

I just figured you'd be the type to say, "you were right."

What are you right about?

Is child sex trafficking a good thing now?

I'm against human trafficking no matter who's connected to it. That's been my point all along. Bringing awareness to that problem is never a bad thing.

Fish is out here arguing what exactly? Playing the my side vs your side battle?

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 10:16 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:13 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 5:07 pm Have you made a point? Do you need validation? lefties who were butthurt when the politically elite got called out for ignoring/hiding child sex trafficking are a sad breed

I just figured you'd be the type to say, "you were right."

What are you right about?

Is child sex trafficking a good thing now?

1

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 12:44 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 12:41 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 11:58 am

Congrats on tying yourself up in your own pretzel logic. Do you even know what point you were trying to make?

It's a movie made to exploit the right's current hysteria level so that rich people can make even more money. Then there is the lower level of parasites that generate social media content to spoon feed the hysterics to the right over and over so they can leech some money off the revenue stream as it flows past them.

That's your interpretation of the motivations for making the movie - completely different from the stated motivations of Tim Ballard and Jim Caviezel, both of whom risked a great deal personally and professionally to create, produce, and release the film. It comes as no surprise to me that evil, corrupt people and organizations would use lies and slander to thwart their cause.

I feel like putting your confidence in the "stated motivations of Tim Ballard and Jim Caviezel" is about as sound logically as saying you were a great free throw shooter in high school and so this carnival game will be a cinch.

2

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:52 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:23 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 6:19 pm You can gloss over the real issue being discussed here - which is decidedly NOT “is child sex trafficking bad?” - but that would just be more silliness.

This thread is literally called "child sex trafficking"

What, in your mind, is the real issue

Who gives a shit what the thread is called?

Again: child sex trafficking is bad. I can’t believe I have to say that again, but there it is. Black and white.

But the issues being discussed - issues that are not so black and white - have to do with (1) the degree to which the movie is actually true (which matters!), (2) the actual motivations behind the people who made and/or profit off the movie and (3) how the movie is being used in the right’s culture wars-centric agenda.

But child sex trafficking is bad! I agree!

3

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 9:28 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 9:14 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 9:04 am

I think "your" means...you? Has nothing to do with the government?

Otherwise this sounds like the keyboard sixth men on the basketball board warning us fans not to assume victory in the 1/16 game.

I think it makes no difference who the subject of the sentence is. The thread has been a series of jabs at the "rubes" who are concerned about their children getting sex trafficked and who don't think the government is doing a sufficient job of addressing the danger.

Of course this just isn’t an accurate portrayal of what’s happening here, in this discussion. You keep going back to the well on this, and it’s dry.

It can be - and very much IS - true at the same time that:

1 - child sex trafficking is very real, and very bad; and

2 - the movie being discussed here is, perhaps (or perhaps not) among other things, an exaggerated, scarifying grift that has very real, and very bad side effects.

4

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 4:15 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 3:24 pm Then why are the lefties on this board and everywhere else acting like a movie that exposes pedophilia and child sex trafficking is controversial???

Because it is?

Let me help.

Take the sentence "A movie that exposes pedophilia and child sex trafficking is controversial."

For that sentence to be TRUE, the "that exposes pedophilia and child sex trafficking" part is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the movie is or is not controversial.

Which it is!

And it is not controversial because Team R says pedophilia is bad and Team D says pedophilia is good. No one in this thread is saying pedophilia is good!

It's controversial because of the motivations of those who made it, the motivations of those who promote it, and the very real, real-life consequences that result from people like you putting this issue in a microwave, heating it up to the surface of the sun, and then gushing the plasma all over the damn place!

5

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:42 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:33 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:28 am
From last July:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3576 ... king-bill/

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) was among the 20 House Republicans who voted on Tuesday against a bill that seeks to combat human trafficking.

Gaetz, who is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice for sex trafficking allegations involving a minor, was among the Republicans who opposed the bill that aims to bolster programs including shelters, mental health care, education and job training for victims of human trafficking.

Gaetz was joined by GOP Reps. Brian Babin (Texas), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Andrew Clyde (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Andy Harris (Md.), Jody Hice (Ga.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Mary Miller (Ill.), Troy Nehls (Texas), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Scott Perry (Pa.), Chip Roy (Texas) and Van Taylor (Texas).

And I feel fairly confident that I can search around through here and find far more examples of you trying to make this a GOP vs. Democrat thing vs. sharing a link to some sort of program or charity that could be supported to help actually fight it. You know, what people who are actually passionate about a cause do.

Whatever. You guys have an amazing ability to take a good thing - an independently funded film that sat on a shelf for five years and is now approaching a billion dollars in gross sales and is bringing attention to a great cause-and rip it apart a million different ways. Congratulations. SMH.

Ok, let's put a pin in this and revisit when word comes out of someone getting themselves killed, or getting someone else killed.

I don't know why it's so controversial to say that it's true at the same time that (1) child sex trafficking is real, and a real problem (and of course it is bad), and (2) responsibly raising awareness of issues is good, and (3) the motives of at least some of the people behind (and profiting from) this movie are highly questionable, and (4) there are real-life consequences from real issues being twisted and distorted for culture war purposes.

To a rational person, all four of these things can be true at the same time.

6

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 2:23 pm Nobody in this thread has said that child sex trafficking is not bad, or not real.

Of course randy and jk have propped up a featherweight straw man who apparently says these things.

But they do that - knowingly - as a distraction from what actually IS a nuanced discussion.

"Is child sex trafficking bad or not bad, and real or not real" has (I hope!) no nuance to be discussed. It IS bad, and it IS real!

But that's not what the discussion of this movie - on this board - is actually about!

As far as I recall, the FIRST mention of this movie on this board was...literally randy whining about liberals not treating this stupid, fictionalized movie as anything less than a holy, unassailably-factual documentary:

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 6:24 pm Unbelievable....

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/ ... ZgfyA&s=19

THAT - how the movie came to be, who is profiting off it, and what the randies of the world are doing with it - is what the discussion is about.

7

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 10:10 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 9:02 am Just brings up a lot of weird questions. How closely was this guy connected to the movie? One of a group of people funding is the closest I could connect him. Not like he was closely tied to it. But why was he helping fund this movie while being a weirdo at the same time?

Was it just an investment?
Guilty conscious?
Was he trying to throw people off his trail?
Make it make sense lol

You have tried to tell us that anyone who says anything negative about this movie is pro child sex trafficking. I and others here have pointed out that there are serious issues with the movie - who is behind it and why, and what people on the right are using it for, and what can and does happen in real life because of fear porn like this.

This piece of data suggests those concerns we have raised - which you have repeatedly minimized and deflected - are quite warranted. I would be surprised if this is the only wart on the movie’s ass.

8

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 11:16 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 10:56 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 10:10 am

You have tried to tell us that anyone who says anything negative about this movie is pro child sex trafficking. I and others here have pointed out that there are serious issues with the movie - who is behind it and why, and what people on the right are using it for, and what can and does happen in real life because of fear porn like this.

This piece of data suggests those concerns we have raised - which you have repeatedly minimized and deflected - are quite warranted. I would be surprised if this is the only wart on the movie’s ass.

No it doesn't. You're just searching for validation.

The movie isn't even the point. The point is the left pretends to care about so many issues, yet child sex trafficking is never one. They almost take the opposite approach of trying to hide the issue and normalize grooming children

I don’t need validation. But following the money is often a good place to unpack motivations. And yes, it does matter if people financing and promoting this fear porn project are themselves abusers.

9

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:23 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:06 pm And you realize that movie got funding from a lot of sources right? Not like this one guy played a huge role in it. Hollywood refused to make forward with the movie if that tells you enough. Hollywood is rumored to be a huge pedo ring. Ask any former child actor

I would encourage you to actually read the primary source material.

This guy - who is an established, comfortably-public promoter of "Sugar Daddy/Sugar Baby" parties - involved himself quite intentionally. In the MOST charitable read of things, the producers failed to do even basic due diligence as to where this money was coming from.

Is it possible that this guy was a one-off, and that no one else involved had intentions and motivations anything less than pure?

Sure, it's possible.

But life experience - and basic reasoning, given the other folks involved - tells me that's highly unlikely.

10

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 1:24 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 1:10 pm https://www.instagram.com/p/CvsN3qnJiZS ... BiNWFlZA==

Good!

(But this doesn't get at the issue you assiduously avoid, which is that (1) whether or not child sex trafficking is bad (it is!) is simply not the same thing as (2) where this movie came from, and why, and from whom, and what the movie is being used for.)

11

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 6:52 pm How could we possibly have known that someone might use religion as means and opportunity for something like this.

To be perfectly clear: all of this rightness wasn't because guessing where this was headed was hard. It's because it was easy.

queue double down in 3…2…

KUTradition wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:02 am queue double down in 3…2…

Guessing this will be my response...

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 1:24 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 1:10 pm https://www.instagram.com/p/CvsN3qnJiZS ... BiNWFlZA==

Good!

(But this doesn't get at the issue you assiduously avoid, which is that (1) whether or not child sex trafficking is bad (it is!) is simply not the same thing as (2) where this movie came from, and why, and from whom, and what the movie is being used for.)

Bingo for everyone who thought this thread would end in a Ballard "Ruse-wife" date rape shower sequence.

Sparko wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 10:00 pm Bingo for everyone who thought this thread would end in a Ballard "Ruse-wife" date rape shower sequence.

So you're pro-trafficking. Got it.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 10:56 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 10:16 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:13 am

I just figured you'd be the type to say, "you were right."

What are you right about?

Is child sex trafficking a good thing now?

1

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 12:44 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 12:41 pm

That's your interpretation of the motivations for making the movie - completely different from the stated motivations of Tim Ballard and Jim Caviezel, both of whom risked a great deal personally and professionally to create, produce, and release the film. It comes as no surprise to me that evil, corrupt people and organizations would use lies and slander to thwart their cause.

I feel like putting your confidence in the "stated motivations of Tim Ballard and Jim Caviezel" is about as sound logically as saying you were a great free throw shooter in high school and so this carnival game will be a cinch.

2

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:52 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:23 pm

This thread is literally called "child sex trafficking"

What, in your mind, is the real issue

Who gives a shit what the thread is called?

Again: child sex trafficking is bad. I can’t believe I have to say that again, but there it is. Black and white.

But the issues being discussed - issues that are not so black and white - have to do with (1) the degree to which the movie is actually true (which matters!), (2) the actual motivations behind the people who made and/or profit off the movie and (3) how the movie is being used in the right’s culture wars-centric agenda.

But child sex trafficking is bad! I agree!

3

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 9:28 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 9:14 am

I think it makes no difference who the subject of the sentence is. The thread has been a series of jabs at the "rubes" who are concerned about their children getting sex trafficked and who don't think the government is doing a sufficient job of addressing the danger.

Of course this just isn’t an accurate portrayal of what’s happening here, in this discussion. You keep going back to the well on this, and it’s dry.

It can be - and very much IS - true at the same time that:

1 - child sex trafficking is very real, and very bad; and

2 - the movie being discussed here is, perhaps (or perhaps not) among other things, an exaggerated, scarifying grift that has very real, and very bad side effects.

4

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 4:15 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 3:24 pm Then why are the lefties on this board and everywhere else acting like a movie that exposes pedophilia and child sex trafficking is controversial???

Because it is?

Let me help.

Take the sentence "A movie that exposes pedophilia and child sex trafficking is controversial."

For that sentence to be TRUE, the "that exposes pedophilia and child sex trafficking" part is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the movie is or is not controversial.

Which it is!

And it is not controversial because Team R says pedophilia is bad and Team D says pedophilia is good. No one in this thread is saying pedophilia is good!

It's controversial because of the motivations of those who made it, the motivations of those who promote it, and the very real, real-life consequences that result from people like you putting this issue in a microwave, heating it up to the surface of the sun, and then gushing the plasma all over the damn place!

5

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:42 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:33 am

Whatever. You guys have an amazing ability to take a good thing - an independently funded film that sat on a shelf for five years and is now approaching a billion dollars in gross sales and is bringing attention to a great cause-and rip it apart a million different ways. Congratulations. SMH.

Ok, let's put a pin in this and revisit when word comes out of someone getting themselves killed, or getting someone else killed.

I don't know why it's so controversial to say that it's true at the same time that (1) child sex trafficking is real, and a real problem (and of course it is bad), and (2) responsibly raising awareness of issues is good, and (3) the motives of at least some of the people behind (and profiting from) this movie are highly questionable, and (4) there are real-life consequences from real issues being twisted and distorted for culture war purposes.

To a rational person, all four of these things can be true at the same time.

6

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 2:23 pm Nobody in this thread has said that child sex trafficking is not bad, or not real.

Of course randy and jk have propped up a featherweight straw man who apparently says these things.

But they do that - knowingly - as a distraction from what actually IS a nuanced discussion.

"Is child sex trafficking bad or not bad, and real or not real" has (I hope!) no nuance to be discussed. It IS bad, and it IS real!

But that's not what the discussion of this movie - on this board - is actually about!

As far as I recall, the FIRST mention of this movie on this board was...literally randy whining about liberals not treating this stupid, fictionalized movie as anything less than a holy, unassailably-factual documentary:

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 6:24 pm Unbelievable....

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/ ... ZgfyA&s=19

THAT - how the movie came to be, who is profiting off it, and what the randies of the world are doing with it - is what the discussion is about.

7

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 10:10 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 9:02 am Just brings up a lot of weird questions. How closely was this guy connected to the movie? One of a group of people funding is the closest I could connect him. Not like he was closely tied to it. But why was he helping fund this movie while being a weirdo at the same time?

Was it just an investment?
Guilty conscious?
Was he trying to throw people off his trail?
Make it make sense lol

You have tried to tell us that anyone who says anything negative about this movie is pro child sex trafficking. I and others here have pointed out that there are serious issues with the movie - who is behind it and why, and what people on the right are using it for, and what can and does happen in real life because of fear porn like this.

This piece of data suggests those concerns we have raised - which you have repeatedly minimized and deflected - are quite warranted. I would be surprised if this is the only wart on the movie’s ass.

8

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 11:16 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 10:56 am

No it doesn't. You're just searching for validation.

The movie isn't even the point. The point is the left pretends to care about so many issues, yet child sex trafficking is never one. They almost take the opposite approach of trying to hide the issue and normalize grooming children

I don’t need validation. But following the money is often a good place to unpack motivations. And yes, it does matter if people financing and promoting this fear porn project are themselves abusers.

9

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:23 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:06 pm And you realize that movie got funding from a lot of sources right? Not like this one guy played a huge role in it. Hollywood refused to make forward with the movie if that tells you enough. Hollywood is rumored to be a huge pedo ring. Ask any former child actor

I would encourage you to actually read the primary source material.

This guy - who is an established, comfortably-public promoter of "Sugar Daddy/Sugar Baby" parties - involved himself quite intentionally. In the MOST charitable read of things, the producers failed to do even basic due diligence as to where this money was coming from.

Is it possible that this guy was a one-off, and that no one else involved had intentions and motivations anything less than pure?

Sure, it's possible.

But life experience - and basic reasoning, given the other folks involved - tells me that's highly unlikely.

10

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 1:24 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 1:10 pm https://www.instagram.com/p/CvsN3qnJiZS ... BiNWFlZA==

Good!

(But this doesn't get at the issue you assiduously avoid, which is that (1) whether or not child sex trafficking is bad (it is!) is simply not the same thing as (2) where this movie came from, and why, and from whom, and what the movie is being used for.)

11

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 6:52 pm How could we possibly have known that someone might use religion as means and opportunity for something like this.

To be perfectly clear: all of this rightness wasn't because guessing where this was headed was hard. It's because it was easy.

Counsellor, I think your closing statement gives us a nice timeline and summary.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:40 am

Sparko wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 10:00 pm Bingo for everyone who thought this thread would end in a Ballard "Ruse-wife" date rape shower sequence.

So you're pro-trafficking. Got it.

Just figured the danger would come from inside the movie house. The ruse wife rape thing was a new low. "How could anyone have known that someone would use religion as a means and opportunity for something like this."

Sparko wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:48 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:40 am

Sparko wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 10:00 pm Bingo for everyone who thought this thread would end in a Ballard "Ruse-wife" date rape shower sequence.

So you're pro-trafficking. Got it.

Just figured the danger would come from inside the movie house. The ruse wife rape thing was a new low. "How could anyone have known that someone would use religion as a means and opportunity for something like this."

Yes. I was taking up our friend's apparent position, which is that to say anything at all that is critical about this movie or its creators/supporters/promoters, means you are pro-trafficking.

And who would be pro-trafficking???

I get that. I was afraid like saying Bloody Mary three times, the man from Salem would reappear

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 4:09 pm

Sparko wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 3:48 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:40 am

So you're pro-trafficking. Got it.

Just figured the danger would come from inside the movie house. The ruse wife rape thing was a new low. "How could anyone have known that someone would use religion as a means and opportunity for something like this."

And who would be pro-trafficking???

Turns out….the anti-traffickers

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 8:38 am Sorry, haters:

Anheuser Busch InBev ABI +2.90% on Thursday reported second-quarter earnings that beat expectations, despite taking a significant hit to its U.S. sales as some drinkers boycotted its Bud Light beer brand.

AB InBev (ticker: BUD) reported underlying earnings of 72 cents a share for the quarter to the end of June, on revenue of $15.12 billion.

Analysts had expected AB InBev to earn 68 cents a share on revenue of $15.38 billion.

Revenue was up 7.2%...

This one sure didn't pan out for you. Anheuser-busch's revenue is still wah down and AB's chief marketing officer has stepped down claiming "those consumers are never coming back" in reference to all the customers who left over the Dylan Mulvaney partnership

https://whiskeyraiders.com/article/bud- ... -mulvaney/

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 5:30 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 8:38 am Sorry, haters:

Anheuser Busch InBev ABI +2.90% on Thursday reported second-quarter earnings that beat expectations, despite taking a significant hit to its U.S. sales as some drinkers boycotted its Bud Light beer brand.

AB InBev (ticker: BUD) reported underlying earnings of 72 cents a share for the quarter to the end of June, on revenue of $15.12 billion.

Analysts had expected AB InBev to earn 68 cents a share on revenue of $15.38 billion.

Revenue was up 7.2%...

This one sure didn't pan out for you. Anheuser-busch's revenue is still wah down and AB's chief marketing officer has stepped down claiming "those consumers are never coming back" in reference to all the customers who left over the Dylan Mulvaney partnership

https://whiskeyraiders.com/article/bud- ... -mulvaney/

"...pan out for" me? Me?

I don't now nor have I ever been an owner of InBev stock. But, based on the due diligence your post motivated me to do, I'm now considering it. One of the basic tenets of value investing, i.e., "buying low and selling high", is to purchase stocks "when there's blood in the streets". And there's no question the hissy fit US bigots have thrown has resulted in a quality stock that was, but apparently won't continue to be, on sale. I've also never been an InBev brand beer drinker, because I prefer beers that taste good.

Your linked article only refers to US sales. InBev, stock symbol BUD, is not a US co. whose business is dependent on domestic US beer sales, it's the largest brewing co. in the world. That means that even when delicate, snowflake, right-wing US bigots like yourself start clutching their pearls because they feel threatened by men wearing women's clothes, it doesn't mean that much in the grand scheme of things to BUD.

In fact, despite US sale declines, shares of Anheuser-Busch InBev BUD have shot up 18% over the last six weeks off strong global results.

Just look how well BUD has increased revenues and earnings per share in both the 2nd and 3rd fiscal quarters of '23:

From Seeking Alpha, Nov 19, 2023 (I'd include a link, but that would give you access to my account, and I don't like you like that.)

...BUD has reported an excellent FQ3'23 earnings call, with revenues of $15.57B (+2.9% QoQ/ +3.1% YoY) and adj EPS of $0.86 (+19.4% QoQ/ +6.1% YoY).

This further builds upon the great results reported in FQ2'23, with revenues of $15.12B (+6.4% QoQ/ +2.2% YoY) and adj EPS of $0.69 (+11.2% QoQ/ -13.8% YoY), implying that the management's strategic pricing actions have more than balanced the moderate decline in its sold volumes.

BUD already reports a notable improvement on a QoQ basis in AB InBev own beer volumes sold to 132.32M hls (+2.7% QoQ/ -3.9% YoY) and non-beer volumes to 18.58M hls (+5.3% QoQ/ +1.3% YoY) globally...

But, you be you and declare yourself a winner, just like your cult leader Trump has even when he lost.

The last 6 weeks. Lol. You omitted a lot of data

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:43 pm The last 6 weeks. Lol. You omitted a lot of data

The boycott of BUD by America's right-wing bigoted snowflakes who are threatened by men wearing women's clothes started in April of 2023. April is the first month of BUD's 2nd fiscal quarter. My post included BUD's 2nd and 3rd quarter revenues and earnings per share. I guess I took for granted that someone with your acumen in subjects as complex as epidemiology, pharmacology, and infectious diseases would have no problem understanding those aspects of BUD's quarterly earnings reports.

My bad.

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:24 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:43 pm The last 6 weeks. Lol. You omitted a lot of data

The boycott of BUD by America's right-wing bigoted snowflakes who are threatened by men wearing women's clothes started in April of 2023. April is the first month of BUD's 2nd fiscal quarter. My post included BUD's 2nd and 3rd quarter revenues and earnings per share. I guess I took for granted that someone with your acumen in subjects as complex as epidemiology, pharmacology, and infectious diseases would have no problem understanding those aspects of BUD's quarterly earnings reports.

My bad.

POTD

9 times out of 10 when randy gives you an I told you so the only thing he is telling us is that he's clueless on the topic he is discussing.
He still hasn't responded to my question/s on the UCONN Know your Phoe thread.

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:43 pm The last 6 weeks. Lol. You omitted a lot of data

BUD shares are up 17% the last 6 months, 5.67% YTD and 5.4% in the last year.