Do you shop at Walmart?

[thanatos144]

Because Target pays living wages and doesn't ask its workers to depend on government subsidies. Because Target isn't under investigation in numerous countries for unfair trade practices. Because Target didn't declare it's dividends before December 31st in order for it's largest shareholders to avoid paying $180 million in taxes on dividends after January 1st.

So in other words it is cause you believe the propaganda about Wal-Mart....So it is just stupidity that makes you ignorantly go out of the way to avoid Wal-Mart like it has the clap. Well you go right ahead and shop target that pays their employees around the same. I like Target but I wont avoid a better price at Wal-Mart so I can be a self righteous ignoramus.

 

[Papawx3]

Yes, I shop at Walmart. But I think the bigger question should be "What do you buy at Walmart?"
There are things I buy at Walmart such as groceries, household goods, etc., but there are a number of things that I will never (again) buy there. That includes hand tools, garden/yard equipment and clothing.

 

[wavingrl]

Yes, I shop at Walmart. But I think the bigger question should be "What do you buy at Walmart?"
There are things I buy at Walmart such as groceries, household goods, etc., but there are a number of things that I will never (again) buy there. That includes hand tools, garden/yard equipment and clothing.

I feel much the same.

For me it really comes down to the location of the store. I live in a suburb of a large city and there are other options.

My friend lives in a small town and the Walmart has clearly been a positive addition to that town. fwiw.

 

[Pogo]

Because Target pays living wages and doesn't ask its workers to depend on government subsidies. Because Target isn't under investigation in numerous countries for unfair trade practices. Because Target didn't declare it's dividends before December 31st in order for it's largest shareholders to avoid paying $180 million in taxes on dividends after January 1st.

So in other words it is cause you believe the propaganda about Wal-Mart....So it is just stupidity that makes you ignorantly go out of the way to avoid Wal-Mart like it has the clap. Well you go right ahead and shop target that pays their employees around the same. I like Target but I wont avoid a better price at Wal-Mart so I can be a self righteous ignoramus.

If at this point ^^ anyone's less than clear on who the control freaks are (or in the poster's prhaseology, "fascists"), then you're just drowning in denial.

I could say "shills" but this is well beyond.

 

[Bleipriester]

No! I can´t.
When Walmart came to Germany, they told us grinning that they are going to overtake us with their price war which they would win due to their huge capital stock. Ten years later, in 2006, they sold their last chain stores in Germany

 

[JimH52]

Of couse we shop there.

 

[Foxfyre]

But you know, reasonable people who don't feel compelled to make EVERYTHING into some kind of moral issue or political statement, can probably agree that the Walmart format is not going to be everybody's cup of tea. That is why Targets and Kmarts and Sears and Penneys and other big chain stores are able to compete more or less competently against Walmart marketing strategies. On the other hand many people DO like to shop at Walmart which is why it is the amazing success story that it is.

Defending Walmart's right to be Walmart is no more demanding or coercing anybody to shop there than is preferring a Ford product to a Chevy product a demand that everybody buy Fords. I dislike tattoos and would not get one on a bet, but that doesn't suggest that I think nobody should ever get one or that I don't love a whole lot of people who have a whole lot of tattoos. In a capitalistic society, variety really can be the spice of life and allows for all manner of personal preferences in most things.

I think those who are defending Walmart in this thread are doing so because they see the criticisms as unwarranted or unfair. Or they see a more sinister agenda at work that would dismantle or take Walmart down for somebody else's purposes. And in a free society the latter is not acceptable.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Or they see a more sinister agenda at work that would dismantle or take Walmart down for somebody else's purposes. And in a free society the latter is not acceptable.

Yes indeed!! Where does it stop?. Certainly Home Depot would be next and then really any big business that ate up small businesses which all big businesses do.

Liberals take their positions not having the IQ to know how capitalism works.

 

[Foxfyre]

Or they see a more sinister agenda at work that would dismantle or take Walmart down for somebody else's purposes. And in a free society the latter is not acceptable.

Yes indeed!! Where does it stop?. Certainly Home Depot would be next and then really any big business that ate up small businesses which all big businesses do.

Liberals take their positions not having the IQ to know how capitalism works.

But you see, I don't think all liberals don't understand how capitalism works. I have liberal friends running successful businesses who seem to have a very good grasp of that.

And all big businesses don't eat up small businesses. As has been cited in this thread numerous times now, the small town Walmart often keeps enough shoppers at home so that other businesses benefit. When you have at least some economic base in your small community, the community can thrive. But if most of the shoppers drive off to the nearest city to do most of their shopping, the small town will shrink and often simply dries up. It is in Walmart's interest that the people have reason to stay home. If enough people vacate the area, then the Walmart too will also close up shop and leave.

Small businesses who attempt to compete straight up with Walmart probably won't succeed. The businessman who looks for and recognizes a need for a certain product or service at a price people are willing to pay will always succeed.

BUT. . . .what is at work is a different kind of agenda. One that looks to force Walmart to conform to some kind of preconceived notion about justice, compassion, humanity etc. etc. etc. This agenda seeks to convince us that Walmart is evil, hateful, and treats its employees badly, much moreso than any of its competition.

And it is that lie that several of us in this thread are opposing whether or not we personally would shop at Walmart.

 

[Pogo]

But you know, reasonable people who don't feel compelled to make EVERYTHING into some kind of moral issue or political statement, can probably agree that the Walmart format is not going to be everybody's cup of tea. That is why Targets and Kmarts and Sears and Penneys and other big chain stores are able to compete more or less competently against Walmart marketing strategies. On the other hand many people DO like to shop at Walmart which is why it is the amazing success story that it is.

Defending Walmart's right to be Walmart is no more demanding or coercing anybody to shop there than is preferring a Ford product to a Chevy product a demand that everybody buy Fords. I dislike tattoos and would not get one on a bet, but that doesn't suggest that I think nobody should ever get one or that I don't love a whole lot of people who have a whole lot of tattoos. In a capitalistic society, variety really can be the spice of life and allows for all manner of personal preferences in most things.

I think those who are defending Walmart in this thread are doing so because they see the criticisms as unwarranted or unfair. Or they see a more sinister agenda at work that would dismantle or take Walmart down for somebody else's purposes. And in a free society the latter is not acceptable.

So... some ethereal agenda that you assume is in the heads of other people is unacceptable, while "Joe Stalin" and putting words in their mouth about "banning" the store and "stick in his asshole", "******* retard" "to [sic] ******* stupid", "stupidity that makes you ignorantly..." and "self righteous ignoramus", all of which is actually on the record--- amounts to a series of rational points?

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Foxfyre]

But you know, reasonable people who don't feel compelled to make EVERYTHING into some kind of moral issue or political statement, can probably agree that the Walmart format is not going to be everybody's cup of tea. That is why Targets and Kmarts and Sears and Penneys and other big chain stores are able to compete more or less competently against Walmart marketing strategies. On the other hand many people DO like to shop at Walmart which is why it is the amazing success story that it is.

Defending Walmart's right to be Walmart is no more demanding or coercing anybody to shop there than is preferring a Ford product to a Chevy product a demand that everybody buy Fords. I dislike tattoos and would not get one on a bet, but that doesn't suggest that I think nobody should ever get one or that I don't love a whole lot of people who have a whole lot of tattoos. In a capitalistic society, variety really can be the spice of life and allows for all manner of personal preferences in most things.

I think those who are defending Walmart in this thread are doing so because they see the criticisms as unwarranted or unfair. Or they see a more sinister agenda at work that would dismantle or take Walmart down for somebody else's purposes. And in a free society the latter is not acceptable.

So... you're actually suggesting that painting people as "Joe Stalin" and putting words in their mouth about "banning" the store is a valid argument, excused away by what you think their motive is in making that strawman, huh?

You're actually suggesting that this assumed agenda (and it is an assumption since nobody articulated it) of the attackees is "unacceptable", while at the same time a very real, on-the-record verbal diarrhea of "stick in his asshole", "******* retard" "to [sic] ******* stupid", "stupidity that makes you ignorantly..." and "self righteous ignoramus", amounts to a rational point?

No-- that is unacceptable. And for the same rhetorical turd-flinger to then self-righteously toss the turd-label of "fascism" on those he just attacked to bang them into line with his rigid agenda is the height of hypocrisy. Admit that, or explain exactly why you're defending it. The imaginary versus the real, and you're going with the imaginary? Re-read the beginning of your own post here; the one you just spun around in a U-turn. And pick a position therein.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Eliminationists-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982"]Here's a book you can't buy at Wal-Mart[/ame]. But you can see its effect visited here. For free.

No dear. I haven't made any comparisons to Joe Stalin on this thread and for somebody to use that for emphasis is no skin off my nose. It doesn't apply to me and I can pretty much ignore excessive speech used presumably for emphasis. We have to make allowances for the limited vocabulary of some too.

Using terms such as Nazi or Facism or Stalinism or other ridiculous analogies for either those who defend Walmart or those who attack it, is simply the only ammunition some have to make their argument. I can be pretty tolerant about things like that given the educational and intellectual limitations of some. And some otherwise very bright people are so used to using such terms that it becomes as natural to them as dropping the F bomb or terms such as turd-label or pick your uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

You don't like the way I started my last post? Well there isn't anything I can do about that, and I know it is annoying to those who don't share my point of view--I have been accused of being self righteous, self aggrandizing, intellectually dishonest, self-proclaimed morally superior, etc. etc. etc. etc. purely because I refuse to engage in the mud slinging type of rhetoric common on message boards. I accept that others like mud slinging methods of argument. I simply don't.

And I also try hard not to accept the invitations for food fights that the personal insults generally try to evoke. I accept that some really engage in that for sport. It isn't sport for me so I try not to do it.

And I will defend my opening statement in that post because I honestly do believe many who defend or attack Walmart do so out of their political convictions or some kind of moral statement. I honestly don't CARE what anybody's motivations are re that. I DO care that the real skinny on the issue be presented so that those who WANT the truth have access to it.

 

[Pogo]

But you know, reasonable people who don't feel compelled to make EVERYTHING into some kind of moral issue or political statement, can probably agree that the Walmart format is not going to be everybody's cup of tea. That is why Targets and Kmarts and Sears and Penneys and other big chain stores are able to compete more or less competently against Walmart marketing strategies. On the other hand many people DO like to shop at Walmart which is why it is the amazing success story that it is.

Defending Walmart's right to be Walmart is no more demanding or coercing anybody to shop there than is preferring a Ford product to a Chevy product a demand that everybody buy Fords. I dislike tattoos and would not get one on a bet, but that doesn't suggest that I think nobody should ever get one or that I don't love a whole lot of people who have a whole lot of tattoos. In a capitalistic society, variety really can be the spice of life and allows for all manner of personal preferences in most things.

I think those who are defending Walmart in this thread are doing so because they see the criticisms as unwarranted or unfair. Or they see a more sinister agenda at work that would dismantle or take Walmart down for somebody else's purposes. And in a free society the latter is not acceptable.

So... you're actually suggesting that painting people as "Joe Stalin" and putting words in their mouth about "banning" the store is a valid argument, excused away by what you think their motive is in making that strawman, huh?

You're actually suggesting that this assumed agenda (and it is an assumption since nobody articulated it) of the attackees is "unacceptable", while at the same time a very real, on-the-record verbal diarrhea of "stick in his asshole", "******* retard" "to [sic] ******* stupid", "stupidity that makes you ignorantly..." and "self righteous ignoramus", amounts to a rational point?

No-- that is unacceptable. And for the same rhetorical turd-flinger to then self-righteously toss the turd-label of "fascism" on those he just attacked to bang them into line with his rigid agenda is the height of hypocrisy. Admit that, or explain exactly why you're defending it. The imaginary versus the real, and you're going with the imaginary? Re-read the beginning of your own post here; the one you just spun around in a U-turn. And pick a position therein.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Eliminationists-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982"]Here's a book you can't buy at Wal-Mart[/ame]. But you can see its effect visited here. For free.

No dear. I haven't made any comparisons to Joe Stalin on this thread and for somebody to use that for emphasis is no skin off my nose. It doesn't apply to me and I can pretty much ignore excessive speech used presumably for emphasis. We have to make allowances for the limited vocabulary of some too.

Using terms such as Nazi or Facism or Stalinism or other ridiculous analogies for either those who defend Walmart or those who attack it, is simply the only ammunition some have to make their argument. I can be pretty tolerant about things like that given the educational and intellectual limitations of some. And some otherwise very bright people are so used to using such terms that it becomes as natural to them as dropping the F bomb or terms such as turd-label or pick your uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

You don't like the way I started my last post? Well there isn't anything I can do about that, and I know it is annoying to those who don't share my point of view--I have been accused of being self righteous, self aggrandizing, intellectually dishonest, self-proclaimed morally superior, etc. etc. etc. etc. purely because I refuse to engage in the mud slinging type of rhetoric common on message boards. I accept that others like mud slinging methods of argument. I simply don't.

And I also try hard not to accept the invitations for food fights that the personal insults generally try to evoke. I accept that some really engage in that for sport. It isn't sport for me so I try not to do it.

And I will defend my opening statement in that post because I honestly do believe many who defend or attack Walmart do so out of their political convictions or some kind of moral statement. I honestly don't CARE what anybody's motivations are re that. I DO care that the real skinny on the issue be presented so that those who WANT the truth have access to it.

Not at all, it's just the opposite-- I do like the way you started that post; it's the way you took it to a complete 180 that has me flummoxed. You actually picked an imaginary agenda, one that you assumed and imagined into the heads of some "side", and used that to excuse away the "fascism" jazz, which is not at all imaginary. Or to put it another way "we were asking for it".

Pfft.

 

[Foxfyre]

So... you're actually suggesting that painting people as "Joe Stalin" and putting words in their mouth about "banning" the store is a valid argument, excused away by what you think their motive is in making that strawman, huh?

You're actually suggesting that this assumed agenda (and it is an assumption since nobody articulated it) of the attackees is "unacceptable", while at the same time a very real, on-the-record verbal diarrhea of "stick in his asshole", "******* retard" "to [sic] ******* stupid", "stupidity that makes you ignorantly..." and "self righteous ignoramus", amounts to a rational point?

No-- that is unacceptable. And for the same rhetorical turd-flinger to then self-righteously toss the turd-label of "fascism" on those he just attacked to bang them into line with his rigid agenda is the height of hypocrisy. Admit that, or explain exactly why you're defending it. The imaginary versus the real, and you're going with the imaginary? Re-read the beginning of your own post here; the one you just spun around in a U-turn. And pick a position therein.

Here's a book you can't buy at Wal-Mart. But you can see its effect visited here. For free.

No dear. I haven't made any comparisons to Joe Stalin on this thread and for somebody to use that for emphasis is no skin off my nose. It doesn't apply to me and I can pretty much ignore excessive speech used presumably for emphasis. We have to make allowances for the limited vocabulary of some too.

Using terms such as Nazi or Facism or Stalinism or other ridiculous analogies for either those who defend Walmart or those who attack it, is simply the only ammunition some have to make their argument. I can be pretty tolerant about things like that given the educational and intellectual limitations of some. And some otherwise very bright people are so used to using such terms that it becomes as natural to them as dropping the F bomb or terms such as turd-label or pick your uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

You don't like the way I started my last post? Well there isn't anything I can do about that, and I know it is annoying to those who don't share my point of view--I have been accused of being self righteous, self aggrandizing, intellectually dishonest, self-proclaimed morally superior, etc. etc. etc. etc. purely because I refuse to engage in the mud slinging type of rhetoric common on message boards. I accept that others like mud slinging methods of argument. I simply don't.

And I also try hard not to accept the invitations for food fights that the personal insults generally try to evoke. I accept that some really engage in that for sport. It isn't sport for me so I try not to do it.

And I will defend my opening statement in that post because I honestly do believe many who defend or attack Walmart do so out of their political convictions or some kind of moral statement. I honestly don't CARE what anybody's motivations are re that. I DO care that the real skinny on the issue be presented so that those who WANT the truth have access to it.

Not at all, it's just the opposite-- I do like the way you started that post; it's the way you took it to a complete 180 that has me flummoxed. You actually picked an imaginary agenda, one that you assumed and imagined into the heads of some "side", and used that to excuse away the "fascism" jazz, which is not at all imaginary. Or to put it another way "we were asking for it".

Pfft.

LOL. Well we're probably speaking past each other because we seem to be communicating in different languages here.

I thought I was being quite consistent in my point of view, because I do have one pretty well engraved in granite on this particular subject, but if I left another impression through poor communication skills, I apologize.

In a nutshell, I do believe those who demonize Walmart do so out of a preconceived political agenda that has been assigned to them and they have embraced, whether or not they fully understand it. . . . or. . . .

They hold some kind of specific moral opinion about the ethics and morality of Walmart.

And I have problems with opposition to Walmart on such grounds because I believe the opposition to be in error or dishonest. I have done my best to explain why. I have long abhored the practice of demonizing or hurting others purely because those others don't conform to a particular political or moral dictate.

I have no problem with anybody who chooses not to shop at Walmart for whatever reason.

 

[Dragonlady]

BUT. . . .what is at work is a different kind of agenda. One that looks to force Walmart to conform to some kind of preconceived notion about justice, compassion, humanity etc. etc. etc. This agenda seeks to convince us that Walmart is evil, hateful, and treats its employees badly, much moreso than any of its competition.

And it is that lie that several of us in this thread are opposing whether or not we personally would shop at Walmart.

The idea that Walmart is subsidizing its profits by encouraging its employees to obtain government assistance and deliberating keeping hours and pay low enough that employees qualify for Medicaid and food stamps is not "propaganda". I don't think the government should be subsidzing salaries for the No. 2 company on the Fortune 500 list.

You want to cut "entitlements" well here is where you start.

 

[Foxfyre]

BUT. . . .what is at work is a different kind of agenda. One that looks to force Walmart to conform to some kind of preconceived notion about justice, compassion, humanity etc. etc. etc. This agenda seeks to convince us that Walmart is evil, hateful, and treats its employees badly, much moreso than any of its competition.

And it is that lie that several of us in this thread are opposing whether or not we personally would shop at Walmart.

The idea that Walmart is subsidizing its profits by encouraging its employees to obtain government assistance and deliberating keeping hours and pay low enough that employees qualify for Medicaid and food stamps is not "propaganda". I don't think the government should be subsidzing salaries for the No. 2 company on the Fortune 500 list.

You want to cut "entitlements" well here is where you start.

Do you know that for a fact? Do you have any source to verify it that is not part of the propaganda machine? Again I KNOW people who have worked for Walmart and I KNOW people who now work for Walmart and I haven't heard that kind of story from any one of them. And if Walmart is so evil in that regard, why are the Mom and Pop stores or Target or Kmart who pay their entry level people just as little or less than Walmart less evil?

And you have government agencies running national ads encouraging people to sign up for food stamps and other federal assistance programs. Are they also evil? If the Walmart HR might let folks know where the freebies are, would that somehow be unethical or immoral or illegal?

It is NOT evil to point people to government programs. If it is, then perhaps we should look to see if it is the government programs that are evil rather than the people who advise us that they exist?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because Target pays living wages and doesn't ask its workers to depend on government subsidies. Because Target isn't under investigation in numerous countries for unfair trade practices. Because Target didn't declare it's dividends before December 31st in order for it's largest shareholders to avoid paying $180 million in taxes on dividends after January 1st.

Okay, again, please don't take this as any sort of actual interest in where you shop or an attempt to "force" you to shop somewhere as though you and what you do makes any frigging difference to anyone on Earth, because you don't. This is just idle observation.

You're a ******* idiot, and I cannot imagine anyone being more gullible than you without having to be locked up for her own protection.

I have no idea where you got your information, but according to Payscale.com - just for example - Target and WalMart actually pay about the same for their regular rank-and-file employees. It's only when you get up into "eeeevil" management that Target salaries suddenly become significantly higher than WalMart's.

As for "under investigation in numerous countries", try two, both cases of which were for their prices being "too low", and both of which have already been settled, one in WalMart's favor, the other against. Unsurprisingly, it was Germany that decided that low prices were very, very bad, and WalMart simply shrugged, sold all their German stores, and left them to pay way too much for everything, the way you seem to like to do.

My mind is frankly boggling at anyone trying to claim moral superiority for exclusively doing business with people who aren't very good at it, but if it somehow makes you feel good about yourself to be proud of your stupidity, well . . . at least you're playing to your strengths.

 

[JustTheFacts]

But you know, reasonable people who don't feel compelled to make EVERYTHING into some kind of moral issue or political statement, can probably agree that the Walmart format is not going to be everybody's cup of tea. That is why Targets and Kmarts and Sears and Penneys and other big chain stores are able to compete more or less competently against Walmart marketing strategies. On the other hand many people DO like to shop at Walmart which is why it is the amazing success story that it is.

Defending Walmart's right to be Walmart is no more demanding or coercing anybody to shop there than is preferring a Ford product to a Chevy product a demand that everybody buy Fords. I dislike tattoos and would not get one on a bet, but that doesn't suggest that I think nobody should ever get one or that I don't love a whole lot of people who have a whole lot of tattoos. In a capitalistic society, variety really can be the spice of life and allows for all manner of personal preferences in most things.

I think those who are defending Walmart in this thread are doing so because they see the criticisms as unwarranted or unfair. Or they see a more sinister agenda at work that would dismantle or take Walmart down for somebody else's purposes. And in a free society the latter is not acceptable.

So... you're actually suggesting that painting people as "Joe Stalin" and putting words in their mouth about "banning" the store is a valid argument, excused away by what you think their motive is in making that strawman, huh?

You're actually suggesting that this assumed agenda (and it is an assumption since nobody articulated it) of the attackees is "unacceptable", while at the same time a very real, on-the-record verbal diarrhea of "stick in his asshole", "******* retard" "to [sic] ******* stupid", "stupidity that makes you ignorantly..." and "self righteous ignoramus", amounts to a rational point?

No-- that is unacceptable. And for the same rhetorical turd-flinger to then self-righteously toss the turd-label of "fascism" on those he just attacked to bang them into line with his rigid agenda is the height of hypocrisy. Admit that, or explain exactly why you're defending it. The imaginary versus the real, and you're going with the imaginary? Re-read the beginning of your own post here; the one you just spun around in a U-turn. And pick a position therein.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Eliminationists-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982"]Here's a book you can't buy at Wal-Mart[/ame]. But you can see its effect visited here. For free.

No dear. I haven't made any comparisons to Joe Stalin on this thread and for somebody to use that for emphasis is no skin off my nose. It doesn't apply to me and I can pretty much ignore excessive speech used presumably for emphasis. We have to make allowances for the limited vocabulary of some too.

Using terms such as Nazi or Facism or Stalinism or other ridiculous analogies for either those who defend Walmart or those who attack it, is simply the only ammunition some have to make their argument. I can be pretty tolerant about things like that given the educational and intellectual limitations of some. And some otherwise very bright people are so used to using such terms that it becomes as natural to them as dropping the F bomb or terms such as turd-label or pick your uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

You don't like the way I started my last post? Well there isn't anything I can do about that, and I know it is annoying to those who don't share my point of view--I have been accused of being self righteous, self aggrandizing, intellectually dishonest, self-proclaimed morally superior, etc. etc. etc. etc. purely because I refuse to engage in the mud slinging type of rhetoric common on message boards. I accept that others like mud slinging methods of argument. I simply don't.

And I also try hard not to accept the invitations for food fights that the personal insults generally try to evoke. I accept that some really engage in that for sport. It isn't sport for me so I try not to do it.

And I will defend my opening statement in that post because I honestly do believe many who defend or attack Walmart do so out of their political convictions or some kind of moral statement. I honestly don't CARE what anybody's motivations are re that. I DO care that the real skinny on the issue be presented so that those who WANT the truth have access to it.

perhaps the hot trend to hate Wal Mart can be traced to one thing. Wal Marts standing up to labor unions and refusing to let them take hold inside of Wal Mart Inc.

I 100% believe that is the case.

 

[Pogo]

LOL. Well we're probably speaking past each other because we seem to be communicating in different languages here.

I thought I was being quite consistent in my point of view, because I do have one pretty well engraved in granite on this particular subject, but if I left another impression through poor communication skills, I apologize.

In a nutshell, I do believe those who demonize Walmart do so out of a preconceived political agenda that has been assigned to them and they have embraced, whether or not they fully understand it. . . . or. . . .

They hold some kind of specific moral opinion about the ethics and morality of Walmart.

And I have problems with opposition to Walmart on such grounds because I believe the opposition to be in error or dishonest. I have done my best to explain why. I have long abhored the practice of demonizing or hurting others purely because those others don't conform to a particular political or moral dictate.

I have no problem with anybody who chooses not to shop at Walmart for whatever reason.

Well, your last line directly contradicts what came before it, whether you choose to see it or not:
"And I have problems with..."
"I have no problem with..."
These are opposite things. Either you have a problem with, or you don't. You can't just shift gears mid-post.

Here's what I'm observing about the rhetorical dynamic -- forget about the "fascists" crap...

We enter a poll asking "Do you shop at Wal-Mart?", which is a yes/no question...

Those that answer 'yes' merely do so, we go on to the next post, life goes on...

Those that answer 'no' are each pounced on by any number of Wal-Mart shills, peppering them with, so far:
"This is why they loved Stalin so much!!"...
"the Liberals can ban Walmart"...
"You're a ******* idiot, and I cannot imagine anyone being more gullible than you without having to be locked up for her own protection"...
"stick in his asshole"...
"******* retard"...
"to [sic] ******* stupid"...
"stupidity that makes you ignorantly..."
"self righteous ignoramus"....
-- as well as your own more reasoned, less shrill objections to the crime of opting out.
And none of which is visited upon those who answer the poll in the affirmative. Answer "yes", you're free to go. Answer "no", all hell breaks loose.

See your own pattern yet?

Now I ask you --- WHO are the ones with the obsessed fixation here? Which one of us is lashing out from the poverty of their own insecurities?

Defence rests.

 

[JustTheFacts]

LOL. Well we're probably speaking past each other because we seem to be communicating in different languages here.

I thought I was being quite consistent in my point of view, because I do have one pretty well engraved in granite on this particular subject, but if I left another impression through poor communication skills, I apologize.

In a nutshell, I do believe those who demonize Walmart do so out of a preconceived political agenda that has been assigned to them and they have embraced, whether or not they fully understand it. . . . or. . . .

They hold some kind of specific moral opinion about the ethics and morality of Walmart.

And I have problems with opposition to Walmart on such grounds because I believe the opposition to be in error or dishonest. I have done my best to explain why. I have long abhored the practice of demonizing or hurting others purely because those others don't conform to a particular political or moral dictate.

I have no problem with anybody who chooses not to shop at Walmart for whatever reason.

Well, your last line directly contradicts what came before it, whether you choose to see it or not:
"And I have problems with..."
"I have no problem with..."
These are opposite things. Either you have a problem with, or you don't. You can't just shift gears mid-post.

Here's what I'm observing about the rhetorical dynamic -- forget about the "fascists" crap...

We enter a poll asking "Do you shop at Wal-Mart?", which is a yes/no question...

Those that answer 'yes' merely do so, we go on to the next post, life goes on...

Those that answer 'no' are each pounced on by any number of Wal-Mart shills, peppering them with, so far:
"This is why they loved Stalin so much!!"...
"the Liberals can ban Walmart"...
"You're a ******* idiot, and I cannot imagine anyone being more gullible than you without having to be locked up for her own protection"...
"stick in his asshole"...
"******* retard"...
"to [sic] ******* stupid"...
"stupidity that makes you ignorantly..."
"self righteous ignoramus"....
-- as well as your own more reasoned, less shrill objections to the crime of opting out.
And none of which is visited upon those who answer the poll in the affirmative. Answer "yes", you're free to go. Answer "no", all hell breaks loose.

See your own pattern yet?

Now I ask you --- WHO are the ones with the obsessed fixation here? Which one of us is lashing out from the poverty of their own insecurities?

Defence rests.

I'm not going to revisit 70 pages to find specific examples, but what you claim isn't true. Those who don't like Wal Mart who are posting in this thread have certainly done their share of name calling and such towards those who do.

Yet another example of what I posted in another thread, a thread that strangely not one person has posted in, everyone wants to pretend like "their side" is perfect and "the other side" is a bunch of name calling babies who just want to argue.

Anyone with even an ounce of honesty should feel compelled to acknowledge that that type of bullshit comes from BOTH sides.

 

[Pogo]

LOL. Well we're probably speaking past each other because we seem to be communicating in different languages here.

I thought I was being quite consistent in my point of view, because I do have one pretty well engraved in granite on this particular subject, but if I left another impression through poor communication skills, I apologize.

In a nutshell, I do believe those who demonize Walmart do so out of a preconceived political agenda that has been assigned to them and they have embraced, whether or not they fully understand it. . . . or. . . .

They hold some kind of specific moral opinion about the ethics and morality of Walmart.

And I have problems with opposition to Walmart on such grounds because I believe the opposition to be in error or dishonest. I have done my best to explain why. I have long abhored the practice of demonizing or hurting others purely because those others don't conform to a particular political or moral dictate.

I have no problem with anybody who chooses not to shop at Walmart for whatever reason.

Well, your last line directly contradicts what came before it, whether you choose to see it or not:
"And I have problems with..."
"I have no problem with..."
These are opposite things. Either you have a problem with, or you don't. You can't just shift gears mid-post.

Here's what I'm observing about the rhetorical dynamic -- forget about the "fascists" crap...

We enter a poll asking "Do you shop at Wal-Mart?", which is a yes/no question...

Those that answer 'yes' merely do so, we go on to the next post, life goes on...

Those that answer 'no' are each pounced on by any number of Wal-Mart shills, peppering them with, so far:
"This is why they loved Stalin so much!!"...
"the Liberals can ban Walmart"...
"You're a ******* idiot, and I cannot imagine anyone being more gullible than you without having to be locked up for her own protection"...
"stick in his asshole"...
"******* retard"...
"to [sic] ******* stupid"...
"stupidity that makes you ignorantly..."
"self righteous ignoramus"....
-- as well as your own more reasoned, less shrill objections to the crime of opting out.
And none of which is visited upon those who answer the poll in the affirmative. Answer "yes", you're free to go. Answer "no", all hell breaks loose.

See your own pattern yet?

Now I ask you --- WHO are the ones with the obsessed fixation here? Which one of us is lashing out from the poverty of their own insecurities?

Defence rests.

I'm not going to revisit 70 pages to find specific examples, but what you claim isn't true.

?

I only took these from the point where I walked in. And from that point at least, it certainly is true.

So let me get this straight ... I list specific examples verbatim, but you don't have to do that. And then you want "honesty".

Not buying it; your denial is naught but gainsaying. That's not refutation. Do your homework and wake me when you actually find some. The point stands.