On 12/04/2016 03:56 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
You say that as though it's the same situation - did you get too many extra doses of fluoride as a tot?
Irrelevant
- Those last 4 words make all the difference. That's the point Shawne,
No E
Kelloggs decided to get political by making a big public statement of "pulling ads from Breitbart" whilst providing precisely ZERO facts in support of their position.
There is no obligation that they advertise with Breitbart. Or, for that matter, that they even advertise at all. (See No-Ad sunscreen, which as its name implies hasn't been advertised, and has been sold most of the time I've been alive and is still out there. It's actually pretty good sunscreen too. I guess you'd boycott them too, as they don't advertise on Breitbart either?)
And of course you say that's not a political action, and is the same as these other supposed companys who did not make such public statements.
Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. So, they quit advertising on Breitbart. I don't blame them; their shareholders would throw a shitfit if they lost customers by continuing to run their ads in spite of known customer dissatisfaction with what is being paid for by those ads, and the lost profit that would result from lost customers had they simply maintained the status quo. And yeah, 1 + 1 = 2 (see Lou Bega - A Little Bit of Mambo, track 9) -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com