Ever wonder why all major companies promote woke politics?

[Anonymous]

CBT has five members at most, the "Dinosaur poop" Facebook group has more members than that.

 

[cw_]

Thanks for the replies.  However, answering When, Who, and, Why, to my What and Where question isn't really very useful!

 (Don't type CBT three times in a row.)

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the replies.  However, answering When, Who, and, Why, to my What and Where question isn't really very useful!

 (Don't type CBT three times in a row.)

I thought the what and where were answered.

 ac_umm

[DKG]

An executive with Bud Light maker Anheuser-Busch said the boycott against the brand was a "wake-up call" and claimed the light beer will make a comeback.



"It's tough to see the controversial and divisive debates that have been happening in the U.S. in the last couple of weeks involving lots of brands and companies, including and especially Bud Light," Anheuser-Busch's global chief marketing officer, Marcel Marcondes, told the Cannes Lions International Festival, according to a report from AdAge. "It's tough exactly because what we do is all about bringing people together."





Elaborating, Marcondes said the backlash was a "wake-up call" for marketers like himself to be "very humble" amid controversy and during "times like this."

[Lokmar]

An executive with Bud Light maker Anheuser-Busch said the boycott against the brand was a "wake-up call" and claimed the light beer will make a comeback.



"It's tough to see the controversial and divisive debates that have been happening in the U.S. in the last couple of weeks involving lots of brands and companies, including and especially Bud Light," Anheuser-Busch's global chief marketing officer, Marcel Marcondes, told the Cannes Lions International Festival, according to a report from AdAge. "It's tough exactly because what we do is all about bringing people together."





Elaborating, Marcondes said the backlash was a "wake-up call" for marketers like himself to be "very humble" amid controversy and during "times like this."

This isnt unlike the controversy created when Smith & Wesson got onboard with gun control and even started putting internal trigger locks on their revolvers, commonly called "The Hillary Hole". S&W was owned by an English or some other Eurotrashian company at the time. Well, it took 2 more sales of the business and 20+ years before people "got over" that bullshit. I still wont buy a S&W revolver with a fukin lock on it.



So, Bud Light might make a comeback.......in another fucking generation.

[Melson Gibson]

This isnt unlike the controversy created when Smith & Wesson got onboard with gun control and even started putting internal trigger locks on their revolvers, commonly called "The Hillary Hole". S&W was owned by an English or some other Eurotrashian company at the time. Well, it took 2 more sales of the business and 20+ years before people "got over" that bullshit. I still wont buy a S&W revolver with a fukin lock on it.



So, Bud Light might make a comeback.......in another fucking generation.

S&W was pushed into a corner and didn't really have much of a choice.  As the owner of a S&W Hillary Hole'd revolver (.357 Magnum Model 66), I studied up a bit on this.  In fact, that's not the only changes that were made.  I could also argue that doing away with the hammer mounted firing pin was the first change on a revolver that most of us would be familiar with, whether we know guns or not, but that's a completely separate change for separate reasons.



So the biggest purchaser of S&W revolvers used to be police forces.  Cops in many parts of the world historically packed a .38/.357 revolver.  This meant a lot of sales.  Then semi-auto's started replacing them...  Typically Glock's.  Now S&W was in trouble financially, having lost all of those supply contracts.  You are now given two choices:  Your business fails (or at least the revolver portion of that business fails), or the government gives you a bit of undisclosed 'help' to keep you afloat, but with one caveat:  You need to incorporate an internal lock.



And they did.  At least they don't scribe a warning onto the barrel like my Ruger .357 Mag had...

[Adolf Oliver Bush]

An executive with Bud Light maker Anheuser-Busch said the boycott against the brand was a "wake-up call" and claimed the light beer will make a comeback.



"It's tough to see the controversial and divisive debates that have been happening in the U.S. in the last couple of weeks involving lots of brands and companies, including and especially Bud Light," Anheuser-Busch's global chief marketing officer, Marcel Marcondes, told the Cannes Lions International Festival, according to a report from AdAge. "It's tough exactly because what we do is all about bringing people together."





Elaborating, Marcondes said the backlash was a "wake-up call" for marketers like himself to be "very humble" amid controversy and during "times like this."

He's a bullshit artist, no marketer worth their salt would torch their support base purely to go after a smaller segment of the market. Yet that is effectively what Bud Light did, we even have the admission of the troon-feting yahoo that she wanted to shed the "frat boy" image for the LGBT market. Well, the troon market, the LGB were only ever supposed to follow along, while the "frat boys" were supposed to simply shutup and accept their new status as Anheuser Busch's "dirty secret".



Now I don't fall into any of the categories mentioned here, nor have I so much as knocked off the top of a Bud Light. But I have previously enjoyed Hoegaarden, another one of AB's beers. Got totally trashed on it in fact and unlike too many other beers I could mention, I never experienced a hangover from it.



I refuse to buy it again... ever. I am not interested in supporting a company like AB and I am more than capable of making my own choices without reference to what "the market" decides. You could all turn around tomorrow and say "Anheuser Busch has learned their lesson", I'd still not give a fuck and would still refuse to indulge in a product whose parent company espouses policies that I disagree with on a personal level. My choice and I make no excuse to anyone for making it.



There is one thing that occurs to me though; with so many companies on the ESG bandwagon, I can see a need for an easily accessible app that enumerates their ESG scores. I'd be surprised if nobody had come up with one this far, as I'm sure it would be universally promoted by those who yet wish to reward the wokest of businesses as well as myself who is looking for the least.



Any ideas?

[Lokmar]

This isnt unlike the controversy created when Smith & Wesson got onboard with gun control and even started putting internal trigger locks on their revolvers, commonly called "The Hillary Hole". S&W was owned by an English or some other Eurotrashian company at the time. Well, it took 2 more sales of the business and 20+ years before people "got over" that bullshit. I still wont buy a S&W revolver with a fukin lock on it.



So, Bud Light might make a comeback.......in another fucking generation.

S&W was pushed into a corner and didn't really have much of a choice.  As the owner of a S&W Hillary Hole'd revolver (.357 Magnum Model 66), I studied up a bit on this.  In fact, that's not the only changes that were made.  I could also argue that doing away with the hammer mounted firing pin was the first change on a revolver that most of us would be familiar with, whether we know guns or not, but that's a completely separate change for separate reasons.



So the biggest purchaser of S&W revolvers used to be police forces.  Cops in many parts of the world historically packed a .38/.357 revolver.  This meant a lot of sales.  Then semi-auto's started replacing them...  Typically Glock's.  Now S&W was in trouble financially, having lost all of those supply contracts.  You are now given two choices:  Your business fails (or at least the revolver portion of that business fails), or the government gives you a bit of undisclosed 'help' to keep you afloat, but with one caveat:  You need to incorporate an internal lock.



And they did.  At least they don't scribe a warning onto the barrel like my Ruger .357 Mag had...

This article sums it up as I remember it. Smith sucked the teet, the other gun mfgs. told nanny gub to GFY.

https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/">https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and ... rnal-lock/">https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/



Revolver safeties did not come about due to government regulation but as a way to market a revolver which would safely carry 6 rounds. Old pistols used to be carried with 5 so an empty chamber was lined up with the dropped hammer. Several safety designs were used over the years and ultimately, the current transfer bar style was adopted at least by Colt and Ruger as I remember. S&W might use them as well.



Smith didnt have to comply but instead rolled over on the revolver lock. The Bush Admin even told the stupid fucks they didnt have to comply and they did anyway!!! Today, they STILL dont have to continue to fuck up their guns with the lock but instead choose to continue to do so. My 4 Colt Revolvers, all made in the last 5 years, dont have these devices. Ruger doesnt have them either. In fact, there isnt a single revolver of any brand I can find at Scheels that uses this device.



S&W wound up losing MORE money by complying. They made a stupid bet and won a stupid prize.



I do own a few M&P 2.0's now. The 9 doesnt even have a thump safety on it AND it holds more than 10 rounds. This in and of itself proves they dont have to comply with the clinton regulations.

[Melson Gibson]

This article sums it up as I remember it. Smith sucked the teet, the other gun mfgs. told nanny gub to GFY.

https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/">https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and ... rnal-lock/">https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/



Revolver safeties did not come about due to government regulation but as a way to market a revolver which would safely carry 6 rounds. Old pistols used to be carried with 5 so an empty chamber was lined up with the dropped hammer. Several safety designs were used over the years and ultimately, the current transfer bar style was adopted at least by Colt and Ruger as I remember. S&W might use them as well.



Smith didnt have to comply but instead rolled over on the revolver lock. The Bush Admin even told the stupid fucks they didnt have to comply and they did anyway!!! Today, they STILL dont have to continue to fuck up their guns with the lock but instead choose to continue to do so. My 4 Colt Revolvers, all made in the last 5 years, dont have these devices. Ruger doesnt have them either. In fact, there isnt a single revolver of any brand I can find at Scheels that uses this device.



S&W wound up losing MORE money by complying. They made a stupid bet and won a stupid prize.



I do own a few M&P 2.0's now. The 9 doesnt even have a thump safety on it AND it holds more than 10 rounds. This in and of itself proves they dont have to comply with the clinton regulations.

They didn't have to add the internal lock, but they were incentivized to do so.  I do believe they may have seen the error in doing so, as their J-Frames now don't come with the lock.



Realistically I do prefer the older pinned models, but being in Canada there wasn't always a good selection of those (barrels have to be over 4" long here, unless one is Grandfathered in which I'm not).  Didn't really want a huge .44 Mag with a 6" barrel at that time.



I guess that's all moot now too, as unless another government reverses the handgun freeze, I'm stuck with the revolver and pistol that I have.  I can shoot them at the range, but I can neither sell them nor buy another one.

[Lokmar]

This article sums it up as I remember it. Smith sucked the teet, the other gun mfgs. told nanny gub to GFY.

https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/">https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and ... rnal-lock/">https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/



Revolver safeties did not come about due to government regulation but as a way to market a revolver which would safely carry 6 rounds. Old pistols used to be carried with 5 so an empty chamber was lined up with the dropped hammer. Several safety designs were used over the years and ultimately, the current transfer bar style was adopted at least by Colt and Ruger as I remember. S&W might use them as well.



Smith didnt have to comply but instead rolled over on the revolver lock. The Bush Admin even told the stupid fucks they didnt have to comply and they did anyway!!! Today, they STILL dont have to continue to fuck up their guns with the lock but instead choose to continue to do so. My 4 Colt Revolvers, all made in the last 5 years, dont have these devices. Ruger doesnt have them either. In fact, there isnt a single revolver of any brand I can find at Scheels that uses this device.



S&W wound up losing MORE money by complying. They made a stupid bet and won a stupid prize.



I do own a few M&P 2.0's now. The 9 doesnt even have a thump safety on it AND it holds more than 10 rounds. This in and of itself proves they dont have to comply with the clinton regulations.

They didn't have to add the internal lock, but they were incentivized to do so.  I do believe they may have seen the error in doing so, as their J-Frames now don't come with the lock.



Realistically I do prefer the older pinned models, but being in Canada there wasn't always a good selection of those (barrels have to be over 4" long here, unless one is Grandfathered in which I'm not).  Didn't really want a huge .44 Mag with a 6" barrel at that time.



I guess that's all moot now too, as unless another government reverses the handgun freeze, I'm stuck with the revolver and pistol that I have.  I can shoot them at the range, but I can neither sell them nor buy another one.

On a side note, I highly recommend the new Python. Its 4.25" long for Canada. It shoots 38's like they're nothing and 357's arent bad. Even my 3" Python handles 357 mags reasonably well once I put Hoague Grips on it.

[Melson Gibson]

On a side note, I highly recommend the new Python. Its 4.25" long for Canada. It shoots 38's like they're nothing and 357's arent bad. Even my 3" Python handles 357 mags reasonably well once I put Hoague Grips on it.

Yep.  A couple of manufacturers went with the 4.25" barrels (4.16" is the actual minimum required here) more recently simply because of our silly rules here, and our idiot in charge Trudeau freezes handgun sales so nobody can even buy those anymore.