Kellogg boycott?
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:54:48 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 6, 4:15 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Strong enough for you ? ;-)

Just because all of us humans are fallible doesn't mean there
shouldn't be consequences to actions, or that to believe consequences
are good is hypocritical. If I do wrong things I expect that there
will be consequences (and I've had them in my life). Our society today
seems to want to beg out of any consequences for their actions.

If the South Carolina (?) authorities want to pursue it, that's a different
matter. I'd say they have at least a pretty good case. If there is a statute
against what he did, and I'd suspect greatly that there is, he's guilty by his
own admission. And

Just
last week I helped some store workers stop a couple of kids stealing.
The one kid kept saying "here's your stuff back, man, just let me go,
I'm just a stupid kid". He kept repeating "I'm just a stupid kid".
He'd obviously been through this before, and fully expected to walk
away with no consequences. The kids were old enough to be driving, so
they we're plenty old enough, they knew exactly what they were doing.

Um, are you suggesting that Phelps shoplifted the pot?

IAC, first, theft is malum in se and smoking pot is malum prohibitum, (or, if
you prefer, smoking pot is, in and of itself, a "victimless crime") so it is
more contrasting than comparative, but second and most importantly, Kellogg has
no role in or responsibility for any part of the legal system, and is certainly
not a legislative body. Kellogg as a commercial enterprise, entered into a
contract with another commercial enterprise, Phelps is a spokesperson, and then,
those in charge of that aspect of Kellogg's business made a choice based upon,
whether solely or partially, hypocrisy. They are, apparently based upon the
fact that Phelps and.or "his people" have made no mention of breaching of any
contract, perfectly free to do so. And I am free to think them, and Kellogg, a
bunch of hypocritical pussies. And you are free to eat Wheaties until they are
leaking out of your ****ing ears.

If they keep experiencing "no consequences", in two years they'll
graduate to houses, and convenience stores, and pretty soon will be
either killed or in prison.

And if Phelps is caught stealing, I'd hope he would be prosecuted. And whether
he is prosecuted or not, a sponsor dropping him after such an incident would be
a whole different matter.

Sometimes "getting caught" is the best thing that can happen to us.
There's been times in my own life that's been true.

Well, silly, quit shoplifting pot...

Jon.
PS: As I've said before, if y'all want to work to legalize marijuana,
that's your right, but for now at least understand the current cost
behind a toke:
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11637160
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_116225...e=most_emailed
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...k/6251540.html

I only went to the first link, but I would take the risk and presume that you
not accusing Phelps of murdering anyone...

I will also presume that what you attempted to show is that the drug trade is
not, in practice, a "victimless crime." I agree. But again, that is not what
is at issue in this case, and I'd offer that Kellogg didn't cut Phelps loose
because of the outrage/indignation that what he did potentially played some
miniscule part in whatever other crimes might have occurred amongst the
"handlers" of the pot from which that which Phelps smoked might have come.

TC,
R