Before the Dominion settlement, Fox stock price was $31 and today it is $29 (6% drop). We compare that to Disney - was $100 and now it is $84 (16% drop); Sinclair was $20 and now is $12 (40% drop); Paramount was $23 and is now $14 (-39%).

It is actually laughable how they are going to claim damages. In reality, I hope that they win. It will lead to a precedent of shareholder lawsuits over the braindead lib companies continuing to do business in blue cities while be robbed blind as well as those that destroy value by embracing woke nonsense. The funniest bit - if you wondered who owned Fox News - it is the Oregon and New York City pension funds. Oh the humanity with that.

"Lindell's advertising alone made up about 6% of FOX's revenue
#8 | POSTED BY TWINPAC"

I don't think you understand the difference between Fox and Fox News. Best you let the adults handle this one Sparky.

"Oh grow up Claudio.
#10 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR"

Do facts scare you?

"Owned?!?
Only if you're using Republican Math.
#15 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

It is the definition of a shareholder -------. Stick to screwing up people's taxes at H&R Block because you clearly know jack ---- about investing.

"Majority shareholder, at best.
#17 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

ALL shareholders -------. Buying stock is not a donation, it is owning a fraction of a company.

"I'm sure RobinHood keeps telling you that as you round up each purchase.
#20 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

You have not embarrassed yourself enough with your last moronic post yet -------? You clearly don't know what a share of stock. Probably explains why you never could afford that double-wide you have been eying for the last 30 years.

"Owner" is enough to control directions and decisions."

"Your post intimated control of directions and decisions.
#24 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

No, it didn't. Words matter and I stated exactly what I meant - NYC and OR pensions were owners of Fox.
This is just your latest attempt to not sound like a moronic ------- but this fails just like your prior attempts because - at the end of the day - you are a moronic -------.

"What I don't get is you suggesting they were "owning", i.e. controlling, the company.
#26 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

In what world does owning = controlling? Owning = possessing, which a stockholder 100% does. Just stop at this point - it is hard to believe but you are managing to make Lefties look even dumber than they are.

"'ve got to ask what was the uber progressive city of New York doing investing in a Cable News Network that habitually ---- on their good name?
#29 | POSTED BY TOR"

That is the exact point I made above but -------- like Danforth don't understand what owning shares in a company means. He seems to think there would only be a conflict if these liberal --------- actually control the company - because again - he is a moron.

"Oh I understand your mommy told you your one share of McDonalds means you own the company,"

Yes, that is something my mother would say BECAUSE IT IS TRUE. As pointed out to you above, that is EXACTLY was a share of stock is - it is proportionate OWNERSHIP of the company. This gives you a claim on a share of the profits AS AN OWNER.

I don't get how you continue to step on your own dick on this point and this you look like anything other than ridiculous.

"But thanks for admitting your original post means less than a fart in a windstorm.
#33 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

It only read like that IF it is read by a moronic ------- that does not understand stock ownership. Even TOR - a dull knife by all measures - understands this point. Congrats, you are not dumber than TOR.

"But of course, it's neither Oregon or NYC making those calls;"

You don't understand how pension funds work so you should just stop now. The pension funds CAN AND DO place restrictions on what can be held by the funds they hire to actually do the investments. Perhaps this is why you do not you understand the ESG issue - these funds forbid investment in companies not conforming to Liberal ESG standards because again - THEY - make the the decision on what companies are acceptable - and they were a-okay with Fox, which is the summation of the comment - which you would have understood from the start were you not a moronic ------- that does not understand how stocks works.

"it's the fiduciary investment companies running those specific retirement funds. Hell, for all you know, the investment companies could hail from some red s-hole.
#34 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Seems you heard a new word that you think makes you sound smart - but, you just sound like even more of a moronic ------- when you use it incorrectly.

"The Danforth alias seems to be quite aware of the ramifications of owning shares in a company.
#36 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER"

Really? Seems he does not understand this makes you an owner of the company - which is the most basic concept of a stock.

"Who appointed your current alias, of all aliases, to be the judge of the sharpness of kinves here?
#37 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER"

By virtue of the fact that I am the only one on this website with an IQ above room temperature, I am appointed.

"But if you owned one share of McDonalds, would you tell people you "owned" McDonalds?
#41 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Yes, I would because it is 100% true and accurate - and only a moronic ------- would interpret that as me claiming to own 100% of McDonalds or having majority control over the company.

People that understand stocks, which obviously excludes you, understand a shareholder IS an owner and has proportionate claim on company profits and control via voting only.

As to your retarded Packers talking point - it is EQUALLY as wrong. Yes, literally EVERYONE that bought a share of the Packers' stock considers themselves AN OWNER. And they do this despite knowing 100% that they have NO CONTROL over the team - yet - they are still OWNERS. Thus, only a moronic ------- would interpret a Packers shareholder stating that they own the Packers as claiming that they own 100% of the team or exercise majority control over the team.

You have lost this argument - own it.

"Yes, I know. I was a Trustee of a multi-billion dollar pension and health fund."

If this was true, which is highly doubtful, that pension fund should be immediately sued for violating their fiduciary duty (notice that word used correctly here) by appointing someone as a trustee that does not understand how stocks work.

""Can" doesn't mean they always do. In fact, they usually don't, except when they believe they must.#45 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

No ---- -------. In this case NYC and OR - the most deep blue --------- of the deep blue --------- that constantly claim Fox News is evil - were - da da daaaa - OWNERS of FOX. I am not going to explain this concept to you again - your mental ability is clearly not up the level of understanding it. Maybe you can ask TOR to tutor you.

"Then you should probably add me as one of the Fox investors....sorry, OWNERS. One of the stakeholders is the Vanguard 500.
#47 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

It is a true statement IF you own Vanguard 500 - which is doubtful as you clearly are broke. Your biggest investment is probably the gas in your car.

"Yes, you would have an ownership share in McDonald's."

So, by definition AN OWNER. Thank you for once again, proving my point unless you want to argue that having and ownership share does not mean you own anything.

"But, if you owned one share of McDonald's, you would own a part of McDonald's."

Yeah - that is how stocks work -------. Read up on the topic.

"You would not own all of McDonald's, as your current alias' comment seems to imply.
#51 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER"

By virtue of it being PUBLICLY ------- TRADED - no single person owns 100% of any listed stock. Only a complete ------- moron - which now includes both you and Danforth - would EVER interpret that comment - ABOUT A PUBLICLY ------- TRADED company as implying owning ALL of the company. Given you have the history of Danforth already being destroyed on this topic, I am going to place you behind both TOR and him in IQ ranking - I assume you are around 85.

"If that is so clear, what evidence you you have?
#53 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER"

1.) a degree in interpretive dance
2.) a demonstrated IQ below room temperature
3.) repeated incorrect statements on basic financial topics in which he claims to have had a career

Yeah, he is full of ---- and a brokie.

"That's why they call them shares. The people that own shares are called shareholders. Very simple concept.
#63 | POSTED BY REDIAL"

Go explain that to Danforth. He still doesn't understand what a share of stock is. He apparently thinks it is just a piece of paper and does not represent ownership of anything. Not surprising from a guy that did not understand the concept of market cap either.

"The comment appears to indicate some prior interaction with you.
But under what current alias?
#76 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER"

I think your time would be much better spent doing some self-reflection - specifically about why you believe a guy like Danforth who claims to be a financial expert but does not understand the concept of stock ownership or the concept of market cap when comparing companies. That ------- actually talked about 'over priced' stocks compared to each other based solely on the stock price thinking that alone was the value of the company. He had to be told he needed to multiply that by the share count to do a meaningful comparison. Literally, freshman year concepts here - but, maybe they didn't have time to teach that during his interpretive dance class schedule.

"You have me confused with some other -------.
#81 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Well, at least now you are admitting you are a -------, just not THAT -------. But, like most of what you post on here, that is also a lie. You are THAT -------.

"Again, I've literally never had that discussion in my life.
Do I live in your head rent-free?
#87 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Sure you didn't -------. Every time we talk, I kick your teeth in until you try to move the goalposts and then I kick your teeth in some more - this thread, every thread where we engage. I think I am the one living rent free in your head. Otherwise, you probably would stick to topics where you have a punchers' chance of winning. Instead, you shoot your mouth off on finance related topics and you continually look like a moronic -------.

"1.) a degree in interpretive dance"
And two pensions"

I don't consider securing a prime highway off-ramp begging spot as a pension, but to eat their own. Maybe you can utilize that interpretive dance degree to work as a sign spinner and actually be productive for once in your life. The exercise may even make the wife not gag at the thought of your naked body.

"2.) a demonstrated IQ below room temperature"
Doubtful to the folks who skipped me a grade"

You can't skip a stone much less a grade. Don't make us laugh.

"3.) repeated incorrect statements on basic financial topics in which he claims to have had a career"
Aren't you the guy
#89 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "