On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 04:18:56AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
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
Actually not irrelevant, but entirely apropos given your demonstrated challenge in holding to a line of reasoning (preferably based on fact). " As of February 2015, there are 43 studies associating fluoride exposure with reduced IQ in children. To see these studies, click here. http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/ The researchers issued their warning after reviewing dozens of studies from the past two decades that have linked elevated fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children. "
From here: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/iq-facts/
- 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.
Again, see about fluoride above, since again you are responding with an irrelevancy - are YOU able to present a fact in support of your implied assertion that Breitbart is suggesting that Kellogs has an "obligation that they advertise with Breitbart"? When I put it that way, you might even see what I'm saying: that your assertion is not only baseless, and almost impossible to ever be proven (because no self respecting media organisation would ever say such a thing except in jest, of course), but that to top it all off, you are once again completely off the point. Your "assertion of a negative" ("no obligation") simply bypasses any meaningful discussion. Thus MY assertion that you are either willfully speaking at crossed purposes, which would imply bad faith on your part, or that you lack the IQ to realise what comes out of your own keyboard. I have yet to look into the existence of any therapies to counter the negative IQ effects of infact fluoride exposure (most everyone in the West today, due to almost universal municipal water fluoridation). So try coming back with something resembling logic, and ideally backed by a fact. Seriously. Good luck buddy, I do feel for you, Zenaan
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
-- Save America - www.DavidDuke.com