Do you shop at Walmart?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Proud Walmart shopper.

right, who couldn't use an extra $2500 a year!!!!

 

[Pogo]

I find it incredible that a topic called "Do You Shop At Walmart" would elicit over 1,000 responses.

I personally don't give a shit where anybody shops or doesn't shop.

My family happens to like Wal Mart because of their PRICES. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't give a shit if Walmart pays high wages or low wages. I have never seen a Walmart employee chained to the cash register or handcuffed to a shopping cart.

I could care less if Walmart has forced some of their competitors to close their doors. That's all a part of the free enterprise system, supply and demand, and competition.

I don't care when Walmart stores open, when they close, where they build their stores, what sort of tax breaks they get for creating thousands of jobs every year, etc.

For those of you who don't shop at Walmart, good for you. If you can afford to pay higher prices somewhere else because you have a hard spot for Walmart, I JUST DON'T CARE.

Go to Target. Go to Meijers. Go to K-Mart. Go to Sears. Go to Kroger and Piggly Wiggly and Fry's and Smith's and Albertson's and any other supermarket you want to. Go to the many regional retailers around the country.

If it makes you feel better, and helps you sleep better at night, and makes you all warm and fuzzy because you are "making a stand" or "supporting the slaves who work at Wal Mart", then GOOD FOR YOU!

While you are wasting your time and your money bitching about Walmart, I'll be going there on almost a daily basis, paying less money, finding great bargains, and loading up our family van with SAVINGS.

Would that the shills in this thread had your healthy laissez-faire attitude. Thank you. Actually you're the first poster I've seen who's secure enough to allow dissent from the Mal-Wart party line.

On the end point I would just note, (a) it costs nothing to criticize Mal-Wart; and (b) the number on the cash register receipt is not the whole story of one's consumerism. If it is to you, then it's a no-brainer -- enjoy. For me it's a bit deeper but different strokes.

I might just add a random thought about that register receipt though, which is that while you're stuffing your van with savings, I'm paying even less on a lot of stuff via eBay. And I don't even need a van.

 

[Pogo]

Ah yes, the old "we're only doing what the public wants" canard. Right on time. Like the existence of the SUV

Question, since you are a leftist; blessed with a low, double-digit IQ; can you explain why Walmart pays employees to be at work when the public obviously doesn't want to shop? Don't they lose money? Or is it that since they are evil, they don't care if they lose money so long as they can make the employees suffer?

I mean we KNOW that it isn't that your just a greedy union hack who doesn't give a fuck about Walmart employees and just wants to expand the power of the union by coercing Walmart to join; right?

Answer: since you're no deeper than swinging the ad hominem club right out of the chute, no, I doubt I can explain anything that would sink in. Why should I waste my time?

(Foxfyre -- see ^^ what I mean? Pattern?)

 

[TruthSeeker56]

I find it incredible that a topic called "Do You Shop At Walmart" would elicit over 1,000 responses.

I personally don't give a shit where anybody shops or doesn't shop.

My family happens to like Wal Mart because of their PRICES. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't give a shit if Walmart pays high wages or low wages. I have never seen a Walmart employee chained to the cash register or handcuffed to a shopping cart.

I could care less if Walmart has forced some of their competitors to close their doors. That's all a part of the free enterprise system, supply and demand, and competition.

I don't care when Walmart stores open, when they close, where they build their stores, what sort of tax breaks they get for creating thousands of jobs every year, etc.

For those of you who don't shop at Walmart, good for you. If you can afford to pay higher prices somewhere else because you have a hard spot for Walmart, I JUST DON'T CARE.

Go to Target. Go to Meijers. Go to K-Mart. Go to Sears. Go to Kroger and Piggly Wiggly and Fry's and Smith's and Albertson's and any other supermarket you want to. Go to the many regional retailers around the country.

If it makes you feel better, and helps you sleep better at night, and makes you all warm and fuzzy because you are "making a stand" or "supporting the slaves who work at Wal Mart", then GOOD FOR YOU!

While you are wasting your time and your money bitching about Walmart, I'll be going there on almost a daily basis, paying less money, finding great bargains, and loading up our family van with SAVINGS.

Would that the shills in this thread had your healthy laissez-faire attitude. Thank you. Actually you're the first poster I've seen who's secure enough to allow dissent from the Mal-Wart party line.

On the end point I would just note, (a) it costs nothing to criticize Mal-Wart; and (b) the number on the cash register receipt is not the whole story of one's consumerism. If it is to you, then it's a no-brainer -- enjoy. For me it's a bit deeper but different strokes.

I might just add a random thought about that register receipt though, which is that while you're stuffing your van with savings, I'm paying even less on a lot of stuff via eBay. And I don't even need a van.

I buy and sell on e-Bay ALL THE TIME. It's what I do to supplement my retirement income. So there is NOTHING about e-Bay that you can tell me, that I don't already know. I love e-Bay, and I also shop on many other internet websites. My wife likes to shop on Amazon.

However, as I'm sure you know, there are some things you just can't or shouldn't buy on the internet, especially on e-Bay or even Amazon. Things like food and expensive electronics and many "consumables".

I have to wonder why nobody talks about the wages that Target pays, or the employee benefit packages at K-Mart and hundreds of other national retailers.

Walmart is no different than other discount retailers. They get the spotlight pointed at them because they are the biggest and most successful retailer in the world. They didn't become the biggest by accident.

RESPONSIBLE "average" people, with bills to pay and families to feed, put their agendas on the back burner and do their best to make their dollars stretch as far as they can. That's why Walmart is the biggest discount retailer.

Let's face it, NOBODY makes a really good living in the retail sector, unless they are in upper management or they own a successful retail business of their own.

It all comes down to people trying to impose their beliefs on everybody else, and in the process, infringing on EVERYBODY'S right to choose and their right to free will.

If you don't like Walmart, don't shop there.
If you don't like firearms, don't buy one.
If you don't like SUVs or other "gas guzzlers", go buy a hybrid or a Nissan Leaf.
If you believe that fast food restaurants serve unhealthy food, don't eat there.
If you don't like people who are good at earning money, then figure out what you need to do to become good at making money.
If you don't have a good health care plan, then find better a better health care plan.
And the list goes on....................

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah yes, the old "we're only doing what the public wants" canard. Right on time. Like the existence of the SUV

Question, since you are a leftist; blessed with a low, double-digit IQ; can you explain why Walmart pays employees to be at work when the public obviously doesn't want to shop? Don't they lose money? Or is it that since they are evil, they don't care if they lose money so long as they can make the employees suffer?

I mean we KNOW that it isn't that your just a greedy union hack who doesn't give a fuck about Walmart employees and just wants to expand the power of the union by coercing Walmart to join; right?

Answer: since you're no deeper than swinging the ad hominem club right out of the chute, no, I doubt I can explain anything that would sink in. Why should I waste my time?

(Foxfyre -- see ^^ what I mean? Pattern?)

Some members do post more ad hominem than others and many of these have no argument at all. Sort of like those who put words in people's mouths and accuse them of saying what they didn't say, meaning what they didn't mean, and demanding what they didn't demand. All of which you have done to me through most of this discussion; however, you have not been particularly unpleasant in the process so oh well.

Others post more ad hominem than others but also offer a reasoned and coherant argument or make a valid point. Those I can work with.

One of the components of this discussion is to ferret out the motive for what appears to be a well organized and orchestrated attempt to hurt Walmart. I think most of us agree that Walmart is targeted because it is the largest and most successful, but why mess with that? It is having some minimal effect as witnessed by those who dig for ANYTHING they can validly accuse or criticize Walmart with and who studiously ignore any positives in the Walmart story.

And it is a given that any huge corporation, or even most small businesses, are going to have some missteps and there will be something to criticize.

But why attack Walmart? Could it be, as Uncensored perhaps indelicately suggested, be to force them to unionize? To force them to conform to whatever social agenda that do-gooders or busy bodies wish to foist upon them? To increase the power and influence and ability of government to effect social change and demand more of the liberal agenda? (I say liberal agenda because no true conservative has any problem with Walmart being Walmart whether or not they choose to shop there.)

 

[JustTheFacts]

Question, since you are a leftist; blessed with a low, double-digit IQ; can you explain why Walmart pays employees to be at work when the public obviously doesn't want to shop? Don't they lose money? Or is it that since they are evil, they don't care if they lose money so long as they can make the employees suffer?

I mean we KNOW that it isn't that your just a greedy union hack who doesn't give a fuck about Walmart employees and just wants to expand the power of the union by coercing Walmart to join; right?

Answer: since you're no deeper than swinging the ad hominem club right out of the chute, no, I doubt I can explain anything that would sink in. Why should I waste my time?

(Foxfyre -- see ^^ what I mean? Pattern?)

Some members do post more ad hominem than others and many of these have no argument at all. Sort of like those who put words in people's mouths and accuse them of saying what they didn't say, meaning what they didn't mean, and demanding what they didn't demand. All of which you have done to me through most of this discussion; however, you have not been particularly unpleasant in the process so oh well.

Others post more ad hominem than others but also offer a reasoned and coherant argument or make a valid point. Those I can work with.

One of the components of this discussion is to ferret out the motive for what appears to be a well organized and orchestrated attempt to hurt Walmart. I think most of us agree that Walmart is targeted because it is the largest and most successful, but why mess with that? It is having some minimal effect as witnessed by those who dig for ANYTHING they can validly accuse or criticize Walmart with and who studiously ignore any positives in the Walmart story.

And it is a given that any huge corporation, or even most small businesses, are going to have some missteps and there will be something to criticize.

But why attack Walmart? Could it be, as Uncensored perhaps indelicately suggested, be to force them to unionize? To force them to conform to whatever social agenda that do-gooders or busy bodies wish to foist upon them? To increase the power and influence and ability of government to effect social change and demand more of the liberal agenda? (I say liberal agenda because no true conservative has any problem with Walmart being Walmart whether or not they choose to shop there.)

That is of course exactly the reason. If Wal Mart was a good little employer and hired union employees they would be celebrated.

 

[Foxfyre]

Answer: since you're no deeper than swinging the ad hominem club right out of the chute, no, I doubt I can explain anything that would sink in. Why should I waste my time?

(Foxfyre -- see ^^ what I mean? Pattern?)

Some members do post more ad hominem than others and many of these have no argument at all. Sort of like those who put words in people's mouths and accuse them of saying what they didn't say, meaning what they didn't mean, and demanding what they didn't demand. All of which you have done to me through most of this discussion; however, you have not been particularly unpleasant in the process so oh well.

Others post more ad hominem than others but also offer a reasoned and coherant argument or make a valid point. Those I can work with.

One of the components of this discussion is to ferret out the motive for what appears to be a well organized and orchestrated attempt to hurt Walmart. I think most of us agree that Walmart is targeted because it is the largest and most successful, but why mess with that? It is having some minimal effect as witnessed by those who dig for ANYTHING they can validly accuse or criticize Walmart with and who studiously ignore any positives in the Walmart story.

And it is a given that any huge corporation, or even most small businesses, are going to have some missteps and there will be something to criticize.

But why attack Walmart? Could it be, as Uncensored perhaps indelicately suggested, be to force them to unionize? To force them to conform to whatever social agenda that do-gooders or busy bodies wish to foist upon them? To increase the power and influence and ability of government to effect social change and demand more of the liberal agenda? (I say liberal agenda because no true conservative has any problem with Walmart being Walmart whether or not they choose to shop there.)

That is of course exactly the reason. If Wal Mart was a good little employer and hired union employees they would be celebrated.

I think you're probably right. And those condemning Walmart as evil because of whatever would instead be defending them or excusing them for those same 'crimes'.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Some members do post more ad hominem than others and many of these have no argument at all. Sort of like those who put words in people's mouths and accuse them of saying what they didn't say, meaning what they didn't mean, and demanding what they didn't demand. All of which you have done to me through most of this discussion; however, you have not been particularly unpleasant in the process so oh well.

Others post more ad hominem than others but also offer a reasoned and coherant argument or make a valid point. Those I can work with.

One of the components of this discussion is to ferret out the motive for what appears to be a well organized and orchestrated attempt to hurt Walmart. I think most of us agree that Walmart is targeted because it is the largest and most successful, but why mess with that? It is having some minimal effect as witnessed by those who dig for ANYTHING they can validly accuse or criticize Walmart with and who studiously ignore any positives in the Walmart story.

And it is a given that any huge corporation, or even most small businesses, are going to have some missteps and there will be something to criticize.

But why attack Walmart? Could it be, as Uncensored perhaps indelicately suggested, be to force them to unionize? To force them to conform to whatever social agenda that do-gooders or busy bodies wish to foist upon them? To increase the power and influence and ability of government to effect social change and demand more of the liberal agenda? (I say liberal agenda because no true conservative has any problem with Walmart being Walmart whether or not they choose to shop there.)

That is of course exactly the reason. If Wal Mart was a good little employer and hired union employees they would be celebrated.

I think you're probably right. And those condemning Walmart as evil because of whatever would instead be defending them or excusing them for those same 'crimes'.

In other news, I just ran to Wal Mart and picked a few things up, including some really delicious looking avocados which were probably picked by an 8 year old Ecuadorian girl who is paid a nickel a day to pick them, I paid twenty nine cents apiece for them.

The only thing better than avocados is inexpensive avocados.

 

[Pogo]

Some members do post more ad hominem than others and many of these have no argument at all. Sort of like those who put words in people's mouths and accuse them of saying what they didn't say, meaning what they didn't mean, and demanding what they didn't demand. All of which you have done to me through most of this discussion; however, you have not been particularly unpleasant in the process so oh well.

Others post more ad hominem than others but also offer a reasoned and coherant argument or make a valid point. Those I can work with.

One of the components of this discussion is to ferret out the motive for what appears to be a well organized and orchestrated attempt to hurt Walmart. I think most of us agree that Walmart is targeted because it is the largest and most successful, but why mess with that? It is having some minimal effect as witnessed by those who dig for ANYTHING they can validly accuse or criticize Walmart with and who studiously ignore any positives in the Walmart story.

And it is a given that any huge corporation, or even most small businesses, are going to have some missteps and there will be something to criticize.

But why attack Walmart? Could it be, as Uncensored perhaps indelicately suggested, be to force them to unionize? To force them to conform to whatever social agenda that do-gooders or busy bodies wish to foist upon them? To increase the power and influence and ability of government to effect social change and demand more of the liberal agenda? (I say liberal agenda because no true conservative has any problem with Walmart being Walmart whether or not they choose to shop there.)

That is of course exactly the reason. If Wal Mart was a good little employer and hired union employees they would be celebrated.

I think you're probably right. And those condemning Walmart as evil because of whatever would instead be defending them or excusing them for those same 'crimes'.

There you go again. Cajun Injectors must be on sale at Mal-Wart?

Start with the paragraph "Could it be..." and tell me why that is not exactly what you just described about "saying what they didn't say". No, ferreting out the motive unilaterally is not part of a rational discussion; it's constructing a strawman. Nobody but Special Ed (a Mal-Wart shopper) claimed anybody wanted to "ban" Wal-Mart. Nobody but you W-M shoppers came up with the idea of "banning", "controlling", "restricting" or what have you. If we did, bring it on with a quote.

Choosing the answer "no" to the poll question (and explaining why) is not "attacking" Wal-Mart. We do have the choice-- it is a yes/no question. That means you have to accept those answers at variance with your own. Just as those of us on the 'no' side accept yours.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I just ran to Wal Mart and picked a few things up, including some really delicious looking avocados which were probably picked by an 8 year old Ecuadorian girl

1)Child labor is fine as long as there is no better alternative for the child.

2) Of course the solution to poverty is capitalism, but it spreads slowly if at all because brain dead liberals oppose it.

3) So, libturds are responsible for all the child labor in the world.

 

[Pogo]

In other news, I just ran to Wal Mart and picked a few things up, including some really delicious looking avocados which were probably picked by an 8 year old Ecuadorian girl who is paid a nickel a day to pick them, I paid twenty nine cents apiece for them.

The only thing better than avocados is inexpensive avocados.

That's more eloquent than I could have put it.
No further explanation should be needed. You could actually use this justification for either a yes or no answer.

It does remind me of an eternal linguistic question -- where the hell is Ecuadoria?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In other news, I just ran to Wal Mart and picked a few things up, including some really delicious looking avocados which were probably picked by an 8 year old Ecuadorian girl who is paid a nickel a day to pick them, I paid twenty nine cents apiece for them.

The only thing better than avocados is inexpensive avocados.

That's more eloquent than I could have put it.
No further explanation should be needed. You could actually use this justification for either a yes or no answer.

It does remind me of an eternal linguistic question -- where the hell is Ecuadoria?

substance free because a liberal will lack the IQ for substance

 

[Mr Natural]

I just ran to Wal Mart and picked a few things up, including some really delicious looking avocados which were probably picked by an 8 year old Ecuadorian girl

1)Child labor is fine as long as there is no better alternative for the child.

2) Of course the solution to poverty is capitalism, but it spreads slowly if at all because brain dead liberals oppose it.

3) So, libturds are responsible for all the child labor in the world.

Yeah, the cheap labor conservatives are just innocent dupes in the whole matter.

 

[Pogo]

In other news, I just ran to Wal Mart and picked a few things up, including some really delicious looking avocados which were probably picked by an 8 year old Ecuadorian girl who is paid a nickel a day to pick them, I paid twenty nine cents apiece for them.

The only thing better than avocados is inexpensive avocados.

That's more eloquent than I could have put it.
No further explanation should be needed. You could actually use this justification for either a yes or no answer.

It does remind me of an eternal linguistic question -- where the hell is Ecuadoria?

substance free because a liberal will lack the IQ for substance

.....aaaand we're right back to "ad hominem, subtract credibilium".
Posterium sans cranium; ergo bullshitium. Resemblium record brokenium.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's more eloquent than I could have put it.
No further explanation should be needed. You could actually use this justification for either a yes or no answer.

It does remind me of an eternal linguistic question -- where the hell is Ecuadoria?

substance free because a liberal will lack the IQ for substance

.....aaaand we're right back to "ad hominem, subtract credibilium".
Posterium sans cranium; ergo bullshitium. Resemblium record brokenium.

substance free because a liberal will lack the IQ for substance


1)Child labor is fine as long as there is no better alternative for the child.

2) Of course the solution to poverty is capitalism, but it spreads slowly if at all because brain dead liberals oppose it.

3) So, libturds are responsible for all the child labor in the world.

 

[JustTheFacts]

In other news, I just ran to Wal Mart and picked a few things up, including some really delicious looking avocados which were probably picked by an 8 year old Ecuadorian girl who is paid a nickel a day to pick them, I paid twenty nine cents apiece for them.

The only thing better than avocados is inexpensive avocados.

That's more eloquent than I could have put it.
No further explanation should be needed. You could actually use this justification for either a yes or no answer.

It does remind me of an eternal linguistic question -- where the hell is Ecuadoria?

a huge supplier of avocados to the US . LOL

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I just ran to Wal Mart and picked a few things up, including some really delicious looking avocados which were probably picked by an 8 year old Ecuadorian girl

1)Child labor is fine as long as there is no better alternative for the child.

2) Of course the solution to poverty is capitalism, but it spreads slowly if at all because brain dead liberals oppose it.

3) So, libturds are responsible for all the child labor in the world.

Yeah, the cheap labor conservatives are just innocent dupes in the whole matter.

if dupes you would not be so afraid to explain why. What does your fear tell you about the liberal IQ and character.

 

[Pogo]

In other news, I just ran to Wal Mart and picked a few things up, including some really delicious looking avocados which were probably picked by an 8 year old Ecuadorian girl who is paid a nickel a day to pick them, I paid twenty nine cents apiece for them.

The only thing better than avocados is inexpensive avocados.

That's more eloquent than I could have put it.
No further explanation should be needed. You could actually use this justification for either a yes or no answer.

It does remind me of an eternal linguistic question -- where the hell is Ecuadoria?

a huge supplier of avocados to the US . LOL

No, that's Ecuador. Read more carefully. I don't do typos.

 

[Dragonlady]

I think you're probably right. And those condemning Walmart as evil because of whatever would instead be defending them or excusing them for those same 'crimes'.

I don't think so. All of Walmart's business practices are sketchy and destructive.

They come into small towns and cut prices well below what the local businesses can afford to charge, forcing many of them out of business. That's a loss of jobs, and taxes to the local community. In some cases, the local business area looses so many small stores, few people go to the business area and all local businesses suffer. This process is repeated so often, it's called "cratering". In the end, only Walmart remains.

It also happens for suppliers. Walmart constantly pressures them to reduce their prices and because of their enormous purchasing power, the suppliers are required to do so. Often the best way to reduce costs is to manufacture offshore, so American jobs are lost so Walmart can give consumers those cheap, cheap prices.

I make a point of buying goods manufactured in 1st world countries. I don't buy stuff that's made in China. I think ethics matter. Just because a thing is legal, doesn't make it right. I value my friends and neighbours more than I value the money I can save shopping at Walmart.

I don't like unions and I have little use for them. But I have less use for a company which promotes employment practices which keep it's employees dependent on food stamps and Medicaid, and forces it's suppliers to ship jobs overseas in an effort to pad it's profits.

I hold no grudges against the people who choose to shop there. I am surprised at the animosity of those who choose to shop at Walmart have for those of us who don't. As for the $2500 a year Eddie crows about saving, I've seen figures that say that every taxpayer in America subsidizes Walmart to the tune of $2,400 a year, so at least Eddie is getting the taxes he put into the place back.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They come into small towns and cut prices well below what the local businesses can afford to charge, forcing many of them out of business. That's a loss of jobs, and taxes to the local community.

a simple stupid soviet liberal lie. They save a town tons of money with lower prices. Everyone then has more money to stimulate the local economy.

Imagine the pure ignorance in saying that lower prices are bad?? Would we be better off if cars were more and more expensive so fewer and fewer could afford them? Should we pass a low saying that you cant undercut your competition??

The pure ignorance of liberals is hard to imagine!!