RECENT  POSTS:  » GOP pollster Luntz to Heritage Foundation's Anderson: 'Gay marriage is harmless' » Read: Federal court judge rules against Colorado's discriminatory marriage ban » You guys, will you please pipe down so Sen. Rubio can dismantle your deserved freedoms? » 'Mask is coming off' LGBTs, says man who vowed to export and/or criminalize LGBTs » Exxon, infamous holdout on fair and decent employment protections, could be running out of options » Oregon baker who refused same-sex wedding cake bakes for 'ex-gay' org » PFOX rebrands; into group play, seemingly » Audio: Listen to this ADF spinmeister and his anti-gay spin » Report: US District judge won't deny justice to gay Coloradans; might delay it, though » AFA to POTUS: End your 'love affair with homosexuality,' give anti-gay Christians entitlement instead  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

09/10/2008

AFA still bitching about Golden Arches; Golden Arches still yawning

by Jeremy Hooper

Here are actual comments that have been left on a One News Now story regarding the American Family Association's McDonald's boycott:

Picture 1-196

Threats and negativity to which we only have to say:

Picture 2-179

How's that McMuffin-shunning going for ya, "pro-family" peeps?

*The One News Now story: Mickey D's offers employees pro-homosexual training [ONN]

*Proof of how ineffective this boycott is: McDonald's same-store sales rise 8.5 pct in August [AP via Forbes]
McDonald's Corp. [Yahoo! Finance]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Yeah I continued my anti-boycott support last night. Once a month is how I'm defeating the religious knuckleheads.

Posted by: John Ozed | Sep 10, 2008 9:35:41 AM

Ford has scored a 100% on the HRC Corporate Equality List 5 years in a row. Did this person ever think of that market conditions could be the reason that Ford's profits went down. If corporations’ minimum wage employees quit, they just hire more. As for the one share guy, this may increase mailing of Annual Reports but that is already figured out in the price. I guess they missed these simple business basics.

Posted by: Christian | Sep 10, 2008 10:34:09 AM

Awww JH come on I want hat tip for that.... I sent it to you.

Posted by: LOrion | Sep 10, 2008 2:06:14 PM

LOrion: Around 25 people sent me yesterday's AP story about McDonald's being up in August. But even without the emails, I (a) check McDonald's stock every day, so I was already aware of the climb; and (b) Get these stories delivered to me via several different RSS feeds.

If you want me to acknowledge that you emailed me about it, then here you go: "Everyone, LOrion emailed me about it."

But please don't imply that I'm intentionally ignoring your input. The information stream is not always that straightforward.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 10, 2008 2:17:52 PM

Purchasing one share of stock in hopes that the cost of annual report distribution will destroy the company is funny. First, MCD has a fiscal yearend in March, if I remember correctly, so they would need to hold the stock until at least then to get an annual report.

And, the NYSE has loosened their reporting requirements regarding distribution of annual reports (and all other filings as well). The shareholders now will be able to view the report online, but will not automatically receive one in the mail. They will still be able to request a hardcopy of the report, but they will need to go to McDonald's website and specifically request it.

The fact that the company no longer has to send a hardcopy to every stockholder would probably much more than compensate for the few thousand of the bigots who demand a copy with their one share of stock.

MCD also is under no obligation to provide any mailed hardcopies of any other filings to anyone, even if they request one. So any of those expenses are eliminated as well.

The accounting "expense" is also ignorance. All of the tracking of distributions are completely automated. And, if the cost of mailing a $0.20 check to a single share shareholder did affect their bottom line, then the distribution would be $0.1995 instead. The million share shareholders would bear the negligible cost.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Sep 10, 2008 6:14:50 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails