Kraft Bows To Customer Pressure, Ditches Ties With Conservative Lobbying Group

Consumers put enough of a lean on Kraft Foods that it’s giving up its relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative lobbying group that has backed voter ID and “stand your ground” laws. Coca-Cola also recently split with the group.

The Chicago Tribune cites a statement from Kraft that said it “made the decision not to renew” its expiring ALEC membership. It didn’t go into more detail about why it’s taken this course of action, just that it has “limited resources” and besides, it only talked to ALEC “about economic growth and development, transportation and tax policy.”

Coca-Cola announced it had “elected to discontinue its membership” in ALEC’s Private Enterprise Board after a boycott started by advocacy group Color of Change. Coca-Cola’s reason was ALEC’s support of “discriminatory food and beverage taxes,” and not “issues that have no direct bearing on our business.”

Of course, neither company will admit that consumer pressure was the catalyst. But whatever the excuse, that’s what we call breaking up.

Kraft drops membership in conservative group amid protest [Chicago Tribune]


Edit Your Comment

  1. TheMansfieldMauler says:

    Kraft Bows To Customer Pressure

    So…no snarky/sarcastic comments from anyone about how terrible the free market is?

    • Naked-Gord-Program says:

      Only works when we’re able to find out about it. How many other ways are the major corps secretly funding these ultra right wing orgs and individuals?

      Funny how you never hear about these mufti-national corporations secretly working with a far left org like the Black Panthers or the old Weather Underground.

    • Snoofin says:

      Why cant people just mind their own damn business and stop worrying about what other people are doing and forcing their beliefs onto other people and companies. Unless a person or company does something that directly affects you or your family leave your own damn nose out of it

      • Naked-Gord-Program says:

        Because it’s our own damned business when a company we financially support by buying their products enable these right wing fascists.

        Even with pulling out of those piece of filth org I’m less likely to buy something from Kraft or Coke in the future.

        • Snoofin says:

          The problem is by boycotting companies or forcing your opinion on other people youre trying to force them to do something that they do not want to do just because YOU feel a certain way. In my mind that makes you more scummy than they are!

          • Auron says:

            How is boycotting a company scummy? You are making a choice whether or not to support a specific company, based on what you know about them and/or their products and/or their labor practices. In your world, I am scummy for not buying Nike or Apple products because I disapprove of their labor practices. Would it be scummy if I didn’t buy from Nike or Apple because I can’t afford or don’t want their products?

            • Snoofin says:

              Yes, that DOES make you scummy. If you like the quality of an Apple or Nike product then you should buy it based on the quality and price of the product. What they do with the money after you give it to them is NONE of your business

              • Kuri says:

                So using borderline slave labor is none of our business.


              • SuperSnackTime says:

                you literally have no idea how a (truly) free market is supposed to operate, do you? you got that “my conservative idea of a sort of but not really” free market theory working hard right now.

              • Kate says:

                Wow Snoofin, so you would do business with terrorists who were planning to destroy your city because you like the product they make.

                That’s more than a little insane.

          • DFManno says:

            IOW, once I do business with a particular company, I can never, ever change companies, because I’d be trying to force them to do something that they do not want to do just because I feel a certain way?

            Drop dead.

          • YouDidWhatNow? says:

            …what? Choosing to not do business with a particular company…for any reason…is scummy? So I don’t get to choose who I do and do not do business with? Who does then? You? Who the f&ck do you think YOU are?

            • Snoofin says:

              If you regularly did business with a company and are satisfied with their products and then decide you no longer want to support them just because they did something not affecting the quality of the product that you dont like, then yes you are scummy because youre trying to punish them because you dont like something they did outside of providing you with a product you like.

              • Carlos Spicy Weiner says:

                What if the company donated money to the KKK? Would you feel it’s irrelevant because it has no bearing on the quality of the product?

                • Naked-Gord-Program says:

                  That’s the point of a free market. The customer can decide to buy, or not buy, any product we want based on whatever reason we want.

                  We need further disclosures for how companies operate. We need companies to take a stand and be open in their support for progressive or conservative agendas (or none at all) so the end customer can decide what to support.

                  I’m glad this came out so I can avoid Coke and Kraft in the future if this is what they believe in.

              • YouDidWhatNow? says:

                You are out of your mind. I can only hope that’s the stupidest f%cking thing you’ve ever said. Because that is one of the stupidest f%cking things ever said in the history of stupid f%cking things ever said.

          • kc2idf says:

            I fired my barber for making a racist remark. Is that scummy?

        • Plasmafox says:

          Because the second amendment and election reform are “facism”

      • Cornflakes says:

        Since the Citizens United decision, companies can now donate unlimited funds (without resorting to backend channels) to sponsor legislation/candidates/whatever they want. Since corporations can now vote, supporting a corporation means that you are supporting their political positions as well.

        More than ever, you are voting with your wallet when you go shopping. Understanding who and what you are supporting politically when you shop is now just practicing the virtue of being an educated voter.

        • Cornflakes says:

          Since corporations can now vote

          I meant directly influence elections, but hey, my point still stands.

        • Anna Kossua says:

          Cornflakes – Re: Citizens United decision

          A scary scenario was made yesterday by Thom Hartmann on RT. He’s a Democrat, but this is something that could equally affect either side. He says it gives corporations a stranglehold over Congress.

          It used to be lobbyists/corporations would donate to a campaign, or would offer a member of Congress a highly-paid position in their company once the member leaves office, all in return for voting favorably to whatever the coporation wanted. To varying degrees of success, you could “buy” a politician.

          But now, it’s turned around: The lobbyist says “vote the way we want, or we’ll throw unlimited funds at your competitor’s election campaign. We will ruin you.” Hartmann said “it used to be a carrot dangled from a stick. Now it’s hitting them with a stick, and fear of the stick keeps politicians in line.”

          Hartmann gave an example, albeit this I think happened before the CU decision. In Oregon, there was a guy running for some office that was seen as a joke. Dude believed low-level radiation was good for us, and had the “brilliant” scheme of mixing in radioactive waste with home insulation. Lobbyists wanted Non-Joke guy to vote their way. He refused, and they poured tons of money into Joke guy’s campaign. It didn’t work, though, Joke guy lost the election.

    • regis-s says:

      So the free market gets it right once in a while? Big deal! I doubt many people would argue it doesn’t.

      Unlike you that seems to think it’s always right. Except when it isn’t. Then you claim it isn’t really a free market but a managed one.

  2. Guppy06 says:

    Not mentioned in this summary is that ALEC has come under intense scrutiny because of its involvement in getting Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law on the books.

    • drjayphd says:

      First sentence: “Consumers put enough of a lean on Kraft Foods that it’s giving up its relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative lobbying group that has backed voter ID and “stand your ground” laws.

      They may have put that in there after your comment, but either way, it’s there now.

  3. Emperor Norton I says:

    Tony Vernon, the new boss of Kraft Foods is making a number of changes, now that he’s out from under Irene Rosenfeld’s thumb. And she really pissed off over some of them!
    I’m sure this is another one of his changes.
    Just the other day, Vernon said that employees at Northfield HQ can now wear jeans to work all the time. Previously, only the Tech Center & Glenview employees were allowed jeans at all times. Northfield [NFLD] were allowed them on Fridays in the summer.
    This one really pissed off Irene.

    And they’re going to stick with the ridiculous Mondalez name for the snack company, previously known as Snackco.

    Email from Mary Beth West to all employees:

    “Q. The name raised concerns in some parts of the world. What are we doing about that?
    The focus group testing that I mentioned earlier, included Russian. Those sessions surfaced the possible mispronunciation that then sounds like an offensive slang phrase in Russian. But we also heard from others in Russia and many Slavic countries who didn’t interpret it in an offensive way. So, the potential for mispronunciation was considered to be low risk.

    From employees’ comments, however, we learned that it clearly is an issue. And that tells me our due diligence could have been better … and we’re making improvements.

    We also heard that a literal translation in Chinese had a negative meaning.

    We appreciate everyone’s honesty … and passion on the topic. We all want to be proud of our new snacks company and have a part in making it successful. Thanks to the people who spoke up, we’re taking action.

    We‚Äôre working in close partnership with our teams in Russia and China. The Russian team is taking the lead in finding a solution that keeps the spirit of ‚Äúdelicious world,‚Äù with a translation in the Cyrillic alphabet ‚Äì also called transliteration — that eliminates possible mispronunciation. Similarly, our team in China is working on the right local expression of the name in Chinese characters that will capture the essence of delicious world and also eliminates unintended meaning. We‚Äôll do this same exercise with our local teams in countries that use other alphabets, to make sure our new name captures the meaning we‚Äôve intended.

    In addition, as we continue to develop the logo, we will take the opportunity to emphasize the two distinct thoughts we want to convey in Mondelēz – delicious and world. You’ll see that as part of the identity guidelines. And we’ll continue to help people learn how to pronounce it, so it becomes second nature once people get used to it.

    As we begin the transition to the new name and logo, we‚Äôll continue to have local involvement by each of our regions and the BRIC countries ‚Äì Brazil, Russia, India and China ‚Äì to make sure we have the people engaged who will be responsible for implementing all the ways we‚Äôll use our new name in their markets, in their business and with their teams.”

  4. newfenoix says:

    No more Kraft products in my home….

  5. rlmiller007 says:

    As this would relate to the boy who was killed, that guy needs to go to prison. As it relates to me standing my ground on my own property, I have no problem with it. Voter ID is a no brainer. It keep illegals from voting. Something that Democrats count on to win.

    • mospeada says:

      No, that guy needs to have the JUSTICE system work the way it is supposed to and the FACTS as they are known decide whatever happens to him. Not some mob mentality that is stirred up by a biased media who edits audio clips and obscures evidence in video because what is there doesn’t fit their narrative.

      • Tim says:

        I agree completely. Therefore, he should have been arrested at the scene and the police should have immediately investigated it like they would any other homicide. If their investigation found that what Zimmerman did was legal, fine, let him go.

        But the only reason why this because a national issue, in my opinion, is because the police so readily accepted Zimmerman’s defense with almost no investigation. How often are police criticized for arresting someone who commits a homicide, only to release him after a thorough investigation found it to be a self-defense situation? Rarely.

        • Republicrat says:

          Zimmerman was brought in for questioning immediately after the incident. Since Martin was dead (couldn’t tell his side of the story) and no witnesses said anything to the contrary, there was insufficient probable cause for an arrest.

          That’s how it is supposed to work. If you disagree with the way the case was handled, then blame the SYG laws that put the burden of proof on the state to prove that the shooter wasn’t shooting in self-defense.

          • pgr says:

            Take your head out from your ass and wake up! The guy is a cold blooded murderer and bigot! If he wasn’t white(ish) and his dad a retired judge and mom a state court employee and he lived in a state with normal people instead of down south he would be on trial for murder and sent away for life as he deserves.

            This is why the Republicans are such low life liars. They will do anything, say anything and stand for anything that helps them gain power over us regular people. The 1% ers are sitting back comfortably in their mansions laughing at all you naive supporters knowing full well how they can control you by just saying what your small, bigoted, self-centered minds want to hear.

            Go listen to Fix news, Rush Druggy and Sarah Douchbag it’s all you are capable of understanding because panders love each other!

          • Lt. Coke says:

            They did a blood alcohol/drug test on the victim. They did not give one to Zimmerman. That alone is reason enough to fire anyone involved with the case. There was no investigation – there was a light pat on the back for getting rid of one of “them” and an admonishment to be a little more secretive next time.

            Whether or not Zimmerman murdered the victim isn’t for the public to decide – honestly, with the case being as mishandled as it is, I’m not even sure it deserves to go to trial. The police station, however, needs to be investigated. Everyone involved with the case needs to be fired, and the ones in charge of them need retraining. The station should be turned over to state/federal control until they can be trusted to do their jobs.

            Bureaucrats get stronger punishment for filing paper incorrectly than what these people will get. A racist killer is going to cheerfully get away, and the only thing that needs to happen is..for the media to shut about it? Suck a bag of dicks.

          • Anna Kossua says:

            Republicrat – But there was a witness, of sorts… Zimmerman himself. When he called 911, they told him not to follow Martin. He did anyway, and Martin is now dead. That’s polar opposite of the story of Martin accosting him.

    • Snoofin says:

      I agree. Im sick of hearing the excuse that voter ID laws discriminate against poor, elderly, and minorities. I thought it was already a law that every citizen is supposed to have a government ID so that you can be identified if you are found dead or arrested. Also every state offers a free state ID to those who need it, just go to one of the DMV satellite offices and fill out the damn form. I think it’s 5 bucks for one in PA and if you are truly indigent they waive the fee.

      • e065702 says:

        Snoofin, among the many mistakes in your short posting you contradict yourself and get basic facts wrong.

        In the future it would probably be best if you stuck to posting on less fact based blogs like say for example.

      • RandomHookup says:

        There’s no law requiring you to possess a government issued ID. Yes, it does tend to hurt the elderly and the poor, because many of these IDs cost more than $5 — in Mass. the ID is $25 and much more for a drivers license.

        If you live in a nursing home and are able to walk to your polling station, you might not have any ID anymore because it expired and you aren’t going anywhere (at least not on earth). Does grandma have to make a special trip just to get ID to vote? What about the city kid who just turned 18 and doesn’t need a driver’s license? Many of these laws won’t allow student IDs, so that makes it that much harder. Heck, some suggested rules are tougher than the documents you need to provide to prove you can work in the US or get on an airplane.

        Has there really been a wave of people trying to vote illegally? My guess is that most people here illegally go nowhere near the polls because of concern of getting caught.

      • incident_man says:

        Sorry, many states require a birth certificate to get or renew ID and some elderly folks, who are citizens and have had LEGAL ID for years now face the prospect of not being able to renew their ID because of this stupid requirement. Moreover, some of these elderly citizens’ doctors never had the forethought to apply for a birth certificate when they were born or it wasn’t required to do so and their states’ vital records departments, consequently, find it next to impossible to requisition the proper documentation for these folks. Requiring birth certificates/nationalisation papers for those who were born elsewhere is totally understandable, but these so-called “voter ID” laws do nothing but serve to alienate legitimate voters and force the outcome of elections in a particular way, potentially causing more republican or conservative candidates to win races they would otherwise more than likely lose.

    • Plasmafox says:

      It’s a STAND YOUR GROUND law, not CHASE DOWN SOMEONE YOU HATE AND MURDER THEM law. The “stand your ground” law NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED in reporting about that incident because the guy’s actions had nothing to do with it. Trayvon was not in the act of committing a violent felony nor was he acting in a threatening manner nor was there any reason to believe either of those things. It had nothing, nothing, nothing to do with stand your ground.

      • tooluser says:

        So prove your accusation then.

        You can’t, because you don’t know the facts.

        Which makes you an idiot for using ALL CAPS.

        • eccsame says:

          We do know that Zimmerman’s lawyer has stated publicly that, if arrested, they will not use “stand your ground” as a defense

      • cspschofield says:

        OK, hold it. IF Zimmerman’s version of events (was returning to his car, kid confronted him and punched him, knocking him to the ground, etc) is true, then although Zimmerman may be an idiot, he shot in self defense.

        IF Zimmerman is lying (and why not? Everybody else in this circus is.) then he went looking for trouble, found it, and deserves to fry.

        Neither case should involve the Stand Your Ground law; if you are on the ground with somebody standing over you you are not required to get up and run away before you try to defend yourself even where there is not Stand Your Ground law.

        But the only thing we know FOR SURE is that the Media are lying their heads off to make Zimmerman look like a slavering bully. He may BE one, but the Media’s tricks prove exactly nothing about Zimmerman.

      • farker22 says:

        not to mention zimmerman is a ex judges son who prevously got left off the charge of assault on an officer.

    • SenorAnderson says:

      Do you actually think non-citizens are voting? If so, do you any evidence?

    • Actionable Mango says:

      I don’t understand what Zimmerman has to do with Kraft and ALEC?

  6. mospeada says:

    Aw man, I thought the boycott was for Alec Baldwin, I was totally behind that since, you know, he’s a douche and all.

    As for the Kraft/Coke drop-out, I’m not saying they didn’t drop ALEC support due to the boycott, but who even knew there was a boycott before today when the press started proclaiming it? It’s almost like they dropped support and then the dreaded boycott came. Weird.

  7. jojo319 says:

    I always wonder if actual customers pressure these companies, or if they equate media pressure with customer pressure.

  8. jojo319 says:

    I just don’t buy the arguments against requiring an I.D. to vote. I’ve had an I.D. since I was 16 years old. You need it to live in society these days. What is the hard part about getting one??

    • drjayphd says:

      Let’s say you’re elderly, have voted for decades but don’t have a driver’s license. You’ve just never needed one, and you can’t get to the DMV to get a state ID due to lack of transportation, hours being cut back due to budget issues, lack of funds, etc. Thanks to these laws, you’ve just been disenfranchised.

      College student going to school in a different state? Your school ID might not be a valid ID, and the state might not even accept any form of ID you’d have. (Por ejemplo, I didn’t have a driver’s license until sophomore year of college, which was 2000.) That’s the more likely population that’d be disenfranchised, even though they can legally vote. And no, it’s no coincidence that the people that would likely be shut out thanks to these laws would likely vote Democratic. History’s shown that Republicans fare better when fewer people are allowed to vote, and combining voter ID laws with other laws that restrict access to polls (dumping same-day registration, shutting down voter registration drives with ridiculous requirements, etc.) only serves to tilt the playing field to the right.

      • jojo319 says:

        So should there by anything to prevent someone who is not eligible to vote from voting in your opinion?

        • Republicrat says:

          Both sides are technically correct. Voter ID laws put a larger burden on the voter to get their documentation in order. It is a big burden on the demographic that the OP describes. However, the other side of the coin is that it makes it a lot easier for voter fraud to occur.

          Is there a fair medium – perhaps allocating funds to help these people get the documentation they require?

          • Snowblind says:

            We could, but a poll tax is forbidden. The same law that prevents charging for an ID to vote keeps you from funding those same ID’s through a tax.

            Those laws that provide free ID’s generally do so for some other service. You have to have an ID to get public assistance in most cases, so they often provide an ID.

        • RandomHookup says:

          Fear. If you aren’t a citizen (and especially if you are here illegally), why jeopardize your happy little life doing something that over half of Americans don’t bother with? The one-at-a-time fraud is really hard to pull off (you need someone to memorize someone else’s ID or register well enough in advance). You’re more likely to see someone manipulate people who are already registered or play games at the counting side — especially because you need big numbers to swing most elections.

          If you have to require an ID process, require it at registration. Almost no one ever loses their citizenship and it’s a complicated process to check for felonies, especially across state lines. I believe the motor-voter laws and quick registration laws make that harder, but, it would be the only place in the process where time isn’t as much of an issue.

        • SenorAnderson says:

          Voter registration.

      • Sunrisecarole says:

        Most elderly have a Medicare card. That should suffice as ID.

        • RandomHookup says:

          Many of the proposed ID laws required photo ID. Medicare cards don’t have photos.

          Here are Georgia’s requirements:

          Georgia driver’s license, even if expired
          ID card issued by the state of Georgia or the federal government
          Free voter ID card issued by the state or county
          U.S. passport
          Valid employee ID card containing a photograph from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority or other entity of this state
          Valid U.S. military identification card
          Valid tribal photo ID

          Notice that no student ID is included, The I-9 form used to show eligibility to work in the US, allows school ID and other records to establish ID.

          • babyruthless says:

            Crazy thing: in Texas, the bill allowed your concealed-carry gun permit, but not your student ID. I can’t imagine how the Republicans in the state house thought this would pass a smell test.

    • Mit Long says:

      When I was in college, the address on my ID was not that of my dorm room, so I had to have someone vouch for me day of as I didn’t have a utility bill.

    • humphrmi says:

      So, based entirely on your own experience, everyone should have no problem getting ID? Are you pretty sure about that?

      It boils down to the 24th amendment. Unless the taxpayers of your state want to pay for everyone to get a state ID for free, you’re unlikely to get around it.

      • tooluser says:

        So again: What’s so hard about getting an ID? Legitimate people get one and use it all the time, for all kinds of things. Please explain.

        • humphrmi says:

          Read the 24th amendment. It’ll do you a little good to understand a miniscule part of your democracy.

          • v1ctorsag3 says:

            The 24th amendment states that US citizens have a right to vote. This same amendment could imply that citizenship should be verified before a person can participate.

            • humphrmi says:

              Read the part about poll taxes, and then think about requiring voters to buy an ID in order to vote.

              • v1ctorsag3 says:

                I’m not proposing a solution to the problem. I’m pointing out that the way the amendment is written implies there should be some form of citizenship verification before a person can vote.

                Since it’s specifically “The right of citizens of the United States” and all…

    • Kuri says:

      Fake IDs. They exist and can be plentiful.

  9. jacobs cows says:

    Chalk up another one for political correctness.

    • kc2idf says:

      So, I’m going to assume you are conservative. I realize this may be incorrect, but I really, really doubt it.

      Now suppose you found out that an organization you have been buying goods from regularly was supporting abortion clinics, donating to gun control efforts, backing environmental groups and donating to Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.

      What would you do?

      How about the conservative groups who threatened to boycott JCPenney only because they chose a spokeswoman who is openly gay? That’s the same strategy, applied the same way, for the same reason, just by your side. Still political correctness?

      • jacobs cows says:

        I buy or use services based on the quality of such,not on an a political agenda.It is not right for these companys or me to be bullied on your agendas.

        • kc2idf says:

          It is your right to do that. It is everyone’s right to choose on their own what products or services they will buy. It does not matter what those criteria are. It is also the right of everyone to convey to the provider what criteria they are using to choose.

          If you, personally, choose not to participate in boycotts, (and, let me be honest: I don’t, either), that’s your business. For those that wish to, I don’t see a problem.

          However, when a company that sells a predominantly non-political product (everybody eats, so foodstuffs are potentially such a product), and still decide to get involved in politics (and I understand why Kraft and Coca-Cola did it, but it doesn’t really matter what the reason is), they are playing with fire. They could get burned.

          One must be very careful not to piss off one’s customers, lest the free market serve its purpose and teach one a lesson they might regret.

          • jacobs cows says:

            The company needs to provide a high quality item.Period.I do boycott all foodstuffs from China,especially for my dog.I try not to buy anything made in China.The Communist Chinese have no respect for any consumers,including their own.To worry whether Kraft or any other company leans left or right is nonsensical.

  10. jacobs cows says:

    Chalk up another one for political correctness.

  11. Press1forDialTone says:

    Is it possible they had already given them the amount of money
    they intended to to further ALEC’s efforts and just hadn’t “detached”
    yet. “Give then detach” is becoming more popular and lets the company
    look like they “did the right thing” when in fact the money has already
    changed hands and their mutual interests have been served.

  12. arcticJKL says:

    I have no problem with people boycotting a company. I have no problem with a company changing something because of the boycott. What I do have a problem with is companies changing things to shut up the professional rabble rousers who complain about things.

    Now about the issues here,
    Tax people to pay for a state ID if you must, but I hate the fact that I could show up to vote one day and the polling attendants can say, “no you already voted once today.” Make voters show ID and dip their thumb in that purple ink.

    You should be able to use lethal force to defend yourself or your family if you feel your lives are in danger,no matter where you are. You should no be allowed to chase after people and harass them without a reasonable suspicion. (This goes for Walmart employees and people in Florida both.)

  13. ancientone567 says:

    What is wrong with the stand your ground law? I don’t want to have to run every time I am faced down by some punk.

    • Auron says:

      Have you not heard about the Trayvon Martin shooting? Trayvon was minding his own business, walking home from a convenience store. Mr. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch person, began following him. He then called police stating that Martin was acting suspicious. ZImmerman was told by the police to not engage him. The incident ended with Zimmerman getting into a confrontation with Martin, ending with Martin’s death. I can understand how the SYG law would come into effect had Martin engaged Zimmerman first, but since Zimmerman decided to insert himself into the situation, the SYG shouldn’t apply.

      • ancientone567 says:

        I heard the story. Stand your ground does not mean chase the kid which is what he did.

        • SenorAnderson says:

          If he violated the law why isn’t he being prosecuted?

          • ancientone567 says:

            No idea, but that does not make the stand your ground law bad does it. The 911 operator told him not to go after the kid and he did just that. That is NOT stand your ground.

        • Southern says:

          Actually, according to the 911 tapes, the guy DID stop following Treyvor when he was told to by the 911 operator, and returned to his truck. Supposedly Treyvor then came up behind HIM and threw the first punch.

          All of this supposedly corroborated by a eyewitness who allegedly saw Treyvor on top of Zimmerman, bashing his head into the sidewalk.

          According to police, when they arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head, and the back of his sweater was wet.

          Do I know that’s what happened? Hell no. What I *do* know:

          The media has been twisting this story to hell and back. They’ve doctored the 911 tapes. They’ve showed 6 year old photos of Treyvor (when in actuality the “kid” was 6’3″ and Zimmerman is 5’9″). They’ve doctored the photos they HAVE shown to lighten his skin (what, lighter skin makes for more sympathy? No idea why that would be.)

          This story is all about race, and the court of public opinion, nothing else.

          You hardly ever read about black on white crime in the papers or in the news, probably because whites don’t have an Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson or an ACLU to raise hell whenever it happens. Why aren’t these guys up in Chicago trying to stop all the murders up there right now (Chicago is supposedly 3x more deadly than ANY OTHER CITY IN THE USA right now, but the majority of it is black-on-black crime).

          Oh, that’s right. They don’t get their name in the news that way.

          Or maybe they’re afraid of getting shot at.

          Any story they’re in, I immediately distrust.

          • Kate says:

            I watched the tape of the Zimmerman being taken into the police station. There wasn’t a scratch on him and he wasn’t bleeding from the nose.

      • tooluser says:

        You have not repeated the facts of the case, but merely created your own story of what happened.

  14. tooluser says:

    Alec Baldwin is okay and you should not be dissing him like this.

  15. Clyde Barrow says:

    The problem that i have with the “stand your ground” laws is that it is truly archaic and subjective. Who is to say that someone won’t shoot me ‘just because’. It’s all based on knee-jerk reaction and an emotional response on the moment. It’s not based on objective evidence. 99% of the population is not trained to be objective, be attentive, and understand the true meaning of fright and response. This entire law is based on ego and the wild west days. I could walk down a street and a guy could shoot me dead all because he thinks I am a threat.

    • cspschofield says:

      Well, the “Duty to retreat” laws that the Stand Your Ground laws replace was just as arbitrary, and put all the onus on the person attacked. People decided that they’s had enough of that, so we have a DIFFERENT kind of unfairness now.

      Besides; if Zimmerman confronted the kid, Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply. If Zimmerman is telling the truth (he didn’t find the kid when he went looking, the kid confronted him when he was on the way back to his car and knocked him to the ground) then Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply. Stand Your Ground is part of the Media narrative of this case, which (it is increasingly clear) has little of nothing to do with the facts, whatever they may be, except possibly by accident.

    • jacobs cows says:

      I am not going to just stand there and gather evidence,while someone is threatening my life or my family’s.I will defend myself first and then if I have broken any laws,I will pay the consequences.

  16. bread angel says:

    First, Coke and the processed cheese from Kraft are not good for your health.

    Second. I have the right to purchase any goods for my own reasons. If a company gets involved with partisan politics, they do so at their own risk and should understand that there is no way they are going to win.

    Third. I have chosen not to purchase any products of advertisers on Rush Limbaugh and Fox TV. Or to travel to the states of Florida, Arizona or Texas.

    Fourth, Isn’t America a great company.

    • RandomHookup says:

      Isn’t America a great company.

      Freudian slip?

    • floridavet says:

      Thank you for staying out of Florida

    • AndroidHumanoid says:

      No, please do come to Texas. Get a job, and watch all your taxes drained into your bleeding heart fund. Lots of illegals, anchor babies, and welfare recipients to make up feel warm and fuzzy inside!

  17. No Fat Chicks says:

    Personally, I wish all consumer based companies would STAY OUT of left/right wars. Why would you want to sell a product that some of your customers object too? I refuse to buy Pepsi products for many years because they give TONS of money to anti-gun lobbyist.

    If you are selling a product to the public, stay out of political issues.

    • energynotsaved says:


      If regular folks want to support a cause or a view, fine.

      But corporations need to stop supporting all these issues and politics.

  18. maruawe says:

    Both of these laws are good for home owners that want to protect their homes and to vote as an American citizen and not have Dead people and illegal aliens voting in an election….
    People that equate “stand your ground ” with the case in Florida are just hearing the radicals spouting off to news media that eat it up and spread propaganda to feed the masses..
    Let the police do their work ,gather the evidence, present it to the district attorney and figure out if the law was broken…..
    People have been spouting off and with the demonstrations across the country have formed opinions that may not match the evidence at the scene….You have to ask yourself if the nationalities were reversed would we have the same type of news coverage.. THINK.

  19. prizgrizbiz says:

    A victory for burglars and voter fraud perps all over the US!!

  20. mopman64 says:

    Yes to hell with having voters have to show a photo id. I mean how would all the dead people, mexicans and blacks be able to vote one, two or even more times for the dems with a photo id.

    No wonder why this country is going into a garbage pit.

    • drjayphd says:

      Yeah, no wonder the country’s going to hell… people are seriously giving people like you a platform. It’s entirely possible more people vote for Democrats than Republicans. Besides, ask the now-former Indiana Secretary of State about voter fraud.

  21. gregchang says:

    So which companies still support not having my right to vote diluting by voter fraud?

    • drjayphd says:

      The ones that DIDN’T vote to the now-former Indiana Secretary of State, Charlie White, or Indiana governor Mitch Daniels. OH SNAP

      (takes victory lap)

  22. NotLeftist says:

    When conservatives “put enough of a lean” on corporations that they drop left-wing causes, the liberals are all up in arms and “OMFG CENSORSHIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!” or other leftist nonsense. Why is it right when it goes the other way? Either it’s always right or always wrong.

    • RandomHookup says:

      Companies need to be aware that their actions are subject to scrutiny from customers, employees, stockholders and others. You’ll get criticism from both sides … you just have to figure out which is the more damaging position.

  23. floridavet says:

    No Kraft products in my home, don’t drink Coke or Pepsi. Yep, this here eeko-nomic terrorism is really hurtin’ me bad!

  24. tundey says:

    This, like with all the advertisers who pulled out of Rush and are now getting back in, is just temporary. You can be sure Kraft, Coke and all the other big companies will get back in bed with ALEC. And why not? It’s very profitable for them. How else can you get to affect legislators from multiple states?

  25. DragonThermo says:

    I agree! It is completely unreasonable to have to prove you are who you claim to be when you go vote! I mean, if we are expected to “vote early and vote often”, we can’t be using our REAL names, y’know. If I say I am “John Smith” and there is a “John Smith” on your list, it is reasonable for you to believe me. And if you see my “twin brother”, “Jim Smith”, you can believe that he is telling the truth.

    I agree that it is completely reasonable to make it illegal for us to defend ourselves if we are attacked by hoodie-wearing thugs. We should be required to run away and get shot in the back by hoodie-wearing thugs before we are allowed to defend ourselves.

    People who think that we should have to prove we are who we claim we are to prevent rampant voter fraud, who also think that we have the right to defend ourselves and our property from thugs, are the WORST kind of people.

    I mean, without rampant voter fraud, Democrats might not get elected!

  26. MCerberus says:

    Detaching from the particular politics at ALEC, it is the consumer’s right to stop purchasing from any entity for any reason, and a smart company will want to know why and stop it. If the consumers stop buying because they don’t agree with politics the company has associated with, they need to figure out the disconnect with the ones paying the bills.

    Personally, Kraft products are not part of my household, but not for the politics. They cannot compete with store brands any more in price or quality, so why should I pay extra for a block of cheese that is tasteless? (It should be noted, that locally most store brands are associated with Prairie Farms, which has a decent reputation around here)