Stupidity at its optimum...

I think boycotts are perfectly fair and have zip to do with the free speech of the boycotted, it's free speech on the part of the boycotter. You boycott anyone you like. Boycott the NFL, boycott Facebook, boycott the WaPo, boycott Grandma's cookies, whatever. Your right as a citizen to decide what product you spend money on. Corporations are legally persons, they rightly or wrongly per the Supreme Court have the same rights.

As usual you're so stupid you missed the important point... 11/129 is insignificant and hardly worthy of any headline... except for leftist idiots.

So I hereby boycott bitrex... as too stupid to be worthy of any further derision >:-} ...Jim Thompson

What happened to the NFL boycott? As if there weren't a hundred good reasons to boycott the NF prior to 2017...

Did you really expect Shorty to get it?

It's fun to poke with sticks.

The stupidity is all Jim Thompson's. He counted the number of advertisers w ho bailed without asking how much advertising was involved.

does suggests that some the advertisers who did pull out were some of the t op advertisers on the program.

The news media hasn't posted any actual dollar numbers, and to that extent we are all fact-deprived, but Jim has been dumb enough to fixate on the nu mber of advertisers involved while ignoring their financial influence.

"Hill Street Blues" didn't have particularly high viewer numbers when it fi rst started screening, and the network thought about pulling it, but the au dience that did watch it turned out to be very well-off, and the advertiser s forced the network to keep it on the air.

Fox News isn't aiming at that demographic, but it hurts when they lose even more of it.

Oh really ;

But but but the Hillary WON by 3 out or 139 ! Isn't THAT significant you old fuddy duddy conservative pig ?

LOLOLOLOL

It's sort of a rule that the legislation that's passed in the US that's the most flagrantly unconstitutional often has broad Congressional and popular support, across party lines.

Another one is this one:

Which essentially only Rand Paul and like one other Senator voted against and objected to passing on Constitutional grounds; as written it sure seems to trample on the Constitution by not making a clear enough distinction between the people it's intended to punish and the people it's intended to protect, the First Amendment applies to everyone yes even "bad" people like sex workers the majority of whom are not trafficked and don't operate under duress.

But put phrases like "sex trafficking" and "exploited children" in the pitch and it's kind of a fait accompli that it's passed ASAP.

Check this out :

After you take the test they show you how the average Joe did and how politicians did. Would you like to take a guess on those results ?

I got slightly over 75% right, but I'm only a Canadian.

John