The Real Reason Libs Hate Wal Mart

[red states rule]

Now we know the real reason libs hate Wal Mart. Their customers vote for Republicans and voted for Pres Bush

Zogby finds that while 85 percent of frequent Wal-Mart shoppers voted for President Bush's reelection in 2004 (and 88 percent of people who never shop there voted for Sen. John Kerry), Wal-Mart voters have turned on the president dramatically. In a poll taken earlier this month, they gave Bush a 35 percent approval rating — compared to a 45 percent positive rating from born-again Christians, 49 percent from NASCAR fans, and 54 percent from self-identified conservatives


http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=4139

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Now we know the real reason libs hate Wal Mart. Their customers vote for Republicans and voted for Pres Bush

Zogby finds that while 85 percent of frequent Wal-Mart shoppers voted for President Bush's reelection in 2004 (and 88 percent of people who never shop there voted for Sen. John Kerry), Wal-Mart voters have turned on the president dramatically. In a poll taken earlier this month, they gave Bush a 35 percent approval rating — compared to a 45 percent positive rating from born-again Christians, 49 percent from NASCAR fans, and 54 percent from self-identified conservatives


http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=4139

They empower our largest global advesary, China. We should stop trading with china.

 

[red states rule]

They empower our largest global advesary, China. We should stop trading with china.

The free market should decide if we stop trading with China.

Have you seen how many SUV's are in a Wal Mart parking lot?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The free market should decide if we stop trading with China.

Have you seen how many SUV's are in a Wal Mart parking lot?

Absolutely not. Business should only take place between us and trading partners with similar individual freedom based morality. China is a totalitarian nation that will reduce it's citizens rights as far as it has to to win a trade war. We cannot compete with that, unless we emulate their inhumanity.

There is strong precedent for restricting trade at the national level to achieve favorable outcomes of all kinds.

Defeating the USSR, getting rid of Apartheid is S. Africa, stopping the trade in ivory.

Business always has and should be confined to certain moral parameters.

Domesticaly drugs are illegal, child prostitution is illegal... should we just let the market decide on these issues as well?

 

[red states rule]

Absolutely not. Business should only take place between us and trading partners with similar individual freedom based morality. China is a totalitarian nation that will reduce it's citizens rights as far as it has to to win a trade war. We cannot compete with that, unless we emulate their inhumanity.

There is strong precedent for restricting trade at the national level to achieve favorable outcomes of all kinds.

Defeating the USSR, getting rid of Apartheid is S. Africa, stopping the trade in ivory.

Business always has and should be confined to certain moral parameters.

Domesticaly drugs are illegal, child prostitution is illegal... should we just let the market decide on these issues as well?

Signs of freedom are showing up in China. Free market and capitalism will make in the government in China change

Whenever you put limits on business you make the situation worse.

We are geting off topic here, if you want to dicuss the "morals" of business start a thread

This is why Wal Mart customers vote Republican and why libs hate Wal Mart

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Signs of freedom are showing up in China. Free market and capitalism will make in the government in China change

It's not more free. That's simply a lie. There is no evidence trading with totalitarians will force them to give their people more freedoms.

Whenever you put limits on business you make the situation worse.

No. If we quit empowering the totalitarians by purchasing their stuff, we will bring them to their knees.

We are geting off topic here, if you want to dicuss the "morals" of business start a thread

Im giving another perspective on walmart hatred. It's totally on topic. Maybe you don't like your neocon lies being exposed. Tough.

 

[red states rule]

It's not more free. That's simply a lie. There is no evidence trading with totalitarians will force them to give their people more freedoms.

No. If we quit empowering the totalitarians by purchasing their stuff, we will bring them to their knees.



Im giving another perspective on walmart hatred. It's totally on topic. Maybe you don't like your neocon lies being exposed. Tough.

No liobs hate to have their mindles hate exposed for what it is

Wal Mart is the best thing that has happened for the working people

Now that we know the working folks vote Republican (and for Pres Bush) libs really have thier shorts in a knot

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No liobs hate to have their mindles hate exposed for what it is

Walmart is simply the vanguard in the elimination of the american working class. That's a valid concern, not mindless hatred.

Wal Mart is the best thing that has happened for the working people

Sometimes it seems that way, but we must be mindful of the direction of things, and not be lulled into complicity with evil by material things.

 

[red states rule]

Walmart is simply the vanguard in the elimination of the american working class. That's a valid concern, not mindless hatred.

Sometimes it seems that way, but we must be mindful of the direction of things, and not be lulled into complicity with evil by material things.

Libs CLAIM they care about working people.

They take 30% of their income in taxes

They tax a gallon of gas at 5 times the rate of profit made by oil companies

They want to put Wal Mart out of business. Thereby putting millions of working people out of work and takeing away the one place where working people get what they want and need at a fair price

Libs do not like a free market or level playing field. They lose everytime

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Libs CLAIM they care about working people.

They take 30% of their income in taxes

They tax a gallon of gas at 5 times the rate of profit made by oil companies

They want to put Wal Mart out of business. Thereby putting millions of working people out of work and takeing away the one place where working people get what they want and need at a fair price

Libs do not like a free market or level playing field. They lose everytime

Yet they have some good points about fair trade. How does anyone compete with nations who use slave child prison labor?

 

[red states rule]

Yet they have some good points about fair trade. How does anyone compete with nations who use slave child prison labor?

Slave labor? My how libs throw crap around when they have to justify their hate

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Slave labor? My how libs throw crap around when they have to justify their hate

You're in denial. Don't you think throwing around the word "hate" is the best way to show you've lost an argument? I do.

http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/China.htm


Millions of young Chinese men can find neither money nor love because many of the relatively few available single women are being beaten and raped while producing products for the USA, Canada and other world markets in death camps called laogai.

chinese sweat shops

Or they “voluntarily” work backbreaking hours in what amount to slave labor camps, where the National Labor Committee for Human Rights has documented 98-hour workweeks in factories over 100°F, a ban on talking during work hours, 24-hour surveillance, and compulsory unpaid overtime.

Top wages are 10 cents an hour.

Average pay in China’s “Special Economic Zones” is three cents an hour.

Other workers are paid just 36 cents for more than a month’s work—making just 8/100th of a cent an hour.

At the Qin Shi factory, thousands of women work 98 hours a week making Kathie Lee handbags that retail for $8.76 at Wal-Mart. They are paid less than $22 a week. In air thick with dust and chemical solvents, workers handle toxic glues without gloves alongside machines that roar like express trains. The whole production line must often remain at work unpaid for an extra three to four hours, until the inhuman daily quotas are met.

 

[red states rule]

Tell Me, Why Do Liberals Hate Wal-Mart?
Written by Jim Sparkman
Monday, May 29, 2006


What if you had to name the liberal’s Number One cause, their defining issue? Wouldn’t you guess it would be concern for those who struggle to survive on a very low wage.

Generally, liberals are like wild animals in making remarkably consistent noises. What is difficult, however, is to understand the reasoning and the logic behind those noises. Take, for example, the current liberal attack on Wal-Mart.

If “the poor” among us are the main focus of liberal policies one would assume that any group producing low priced goods targeted to the poorer segment would be a liberal hero. The lower income group of our society shop at Wal-Mart for just that reason. But, if you get your information from the liberal media, you would believe the reverse. You would see Wal-Mart as a giant evil preying on the poor.

A recent Sunday Book Review in the San Francisco Chronicle covers an anti-Wal-Mart book by Charles Fishman which draws the headline, “The store that ate the world,” and these comments from the Chron reviewer:

……….the key factors in a new kind, and extent, of destruction.

These factors cause the various manifestations of the Wal-Mart effect, which is the subject of Fishman's book. The first factor is the company's single operating principle, administered absolutely, without exception: always low prices. It is not only Wal-Mart's slogan but also its one commandment, its ultimate morality, trumping all other considerations.

The second factor is Wal-Mart's unprecedented size. "For most of this decade, Wal-Mart has been both the largest company in the world, and the largest company in the history of the world," Fishman writes. Wal-Mart is America's largest private employer -- as well as the world's. And its stated goal is to be twice its current size by 2010.

But what of the future? Fishman defines a few of Wal-Mart's vulnerabilities: It can't compete on quality or service, or on presentation and the shopping experience (even Target beats it there), or on employee retention and long-term community relations (Costco is far superior on those). Essentially, when it's not competing on price, it can't compete. Still, impoverishing Americans isn't exactly a blueprint for a thriving consumer economy. Perhaps that's why Wal-Mart is increasingly looking to markets overseas.

Mr. Fishman is either a socialist of the highest order, or he has less business knowledge than the Chron’s David Lazarus. Let’s examine the crimes that Mr. Fishman’s blames on Wal-Mart: (a) always striving for low prices to the consumer, and (b) of being too successful in their business. Yes, Mr. Fishman wants us to be indignant at Wal-Mart over the crime of being successful?

Surely there must be a smidgeon of logic somewhere behind all this liberal bluster. The first place to look is at the liberal’s dominance by their union base. Unable to convince the employees of Wal-Mart that they need to unionize, union leaders have turned to their political slaves on the left for help. The result is that the liberals, and the liberal media, dutifully attack the poor man’s shopping friend, Wal-Mart. The unions cannot defeat Wal-Mart within the NLRB rules, so they call in their political cards and send their liberal lackeys out to attack the company.

Secondly, a big part of the liberal base hates corporate America. So, they attack Wal-Mart because they are such a successful American corporation. The libs see Wal-Mart as spreading its business tentacles around the world buying products and selling goods. To the leftist liberals, this is just more American imperialism done in the name of business.

Inspired by the union attack, we read that Wal-Mart pays such low wages that society has to make up the gap by providing basic services at tax-payer expense.

Who is the ultimate judge of the adequacy of the Wal-Mart package? Wouldn’t it be the employees themselves? If the existing employees were unhappy wouldn’t they quickly join a union? Apparently that group is happy with the Wal-mart package. As for new employees, more than 11,000 people applied for the 400 positions available at the new Wal-Mart store in Oakland. Presumably, this massive number of applications means that these jobs would represent an improvement over what they now enjoy. These people want these jobs because they see it as a chance to better themselves. Switching to employment by Wal-Mart would obviously reduce any need they have for additional help from the taxpayer, not increase it as the liberals charge.

Now do you see what I mean by “fuzzy liberal logic”? They care about “poor people,” but do not want them to be able to work at Wal-Mart for better wages than they now enjoy, not do they want them to be able to buy low priced goods at the stores.

The development of liberal logic does not include the use of the human thought process. For proof of that, just check out what the San Francisco Chron’s Mark Morford concludes about Wal-Mart in his closing paragraph:

I do not shop at Wal-Mart. I may never, ever shop at Wal-Mart, given their notoriously horrible labor practices and their brutal business tactics and their effortless murder of all love and hope and joy from the retail experience. They are the George Bushes of the retail world -- drunk with power, cheaply made and full of crap. Not to mention that vaguely nauseating feeling, when you walk through their (or almost any) big-box store, that your soul is being slowly coated in rat saliva.

Morford is Chron journalism at its best of the very worst. Or, is it the worst of the worst. Whichever, he is so typical of the vacuity of the liberal thought process.

If one does not like the policies of Wal-Mart, he is perfectly free not to work there, not to shop there, or not to sell them goods for resale. If Wal-Mart is so bad, stay away! Who wants to feel like they are being covered in rat saliva? Besides, one real advantage of shopping at Wal-Mart is that you won’t run into Mark Morford.

Like I said the noises made by liberals are remarkably consistent. It’s the lack of logic behind those noises that makes it all so hard to figure.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=21465&catcode=13

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There's no doubt the lowe prices are nice, but we should not become dependant on slave labor nations. It's immoral, like child prostitution and dealing crack. The market has no morality unless you make it have one, which is what we should do in the case of china.

 

[red states rule]

There's no doubt the lowe prices are nice, but we should not become dependant on slave labor nations. It's immoral, like child prostitution and dealing crack. The market has no morality unless you make it have one, which is what we should do in the case of china.

Then why do libs love Target but hate Wal Mart?

On Target
So what's the big difference between Target and Wal-Mart? We welcome one to a prime corner of Downtown Crossing but cold-shoulder the other.
By Thomas M. Keane Jr. |

As soon as rumors floated that Federated Department Stores would be shuttering Filene's in Downtown Crossing, dismayed Boston officials started thinking about who next would occupy the magnificent 1912 Beaux-Arts building. Two names quickly surfaced: Wal-Mart and Target.

This summer, Wal-Mart signaled it might be interested. The reaction was swift and negative. At a Labor Day breakfast, politicians ranging from the mayor to city councilors to members of Congress vowed to thwart the company. Rich Rogers, executive secretary-treasurer of the Greater Boston Labor Council, told the Globe at the time that the 90,000-member group would "do everything in its power to stop Wal-Mart from moving into Downtown Crossing." Wal-Mart backed off.

And Target? Then and now, "people are thrilled with Target," says Randi Lathrop, the Boston Redevelopment Authority's deputy director of community planning.

Community groups organize against Wal-Mart, bloggers rail against it, and major unions - including the nation's two top teachers unions - have urged consumers to boycott it. The Arkansas-based chain, the nation's largest retailer, is routinely vilified for destroying mom-and-pop businesses, underpaying employees, resisting efforts to unionize, and selling foreign-made goods. Target, on the other hand, seems beloved. It's an anomaly that puzzles many - Target, they argue, also undermines local businesses, shuns unions, squeezes employees and suppliers, and buys from overseas.

"For some reason, the same stigma doesn't attach to Target," says Suzanne Mulvee, a real estate economist with Boston-based Property & Portfolio Research. A case in point is the Washington, D.C.-based Wal-Mart Watch, one of numerous anti-Wal-Mart groups. Spokesman Nu Wexler acknowledges Target's business practices differ little from those of Wal-Mart, but when asked why there is no Target Watch, he has no ready answer. "Wal-Mart," he lamely offers up, "is the bigger target."

It certainly is: six times Target's size (still not shabby, however, Target is the country's fifth-biggest retailer). Yet Boston's snubbing of Wal-Mart had nothing to do with annual sales figures. It had, instead, to do with politics and culture and stereotypes, easily (albeit badly) summed up in a poem I penned:

Wal-Mart is red,
Target is blue,
One so downscale,
The other so cool.

Let us review the stereotypes. Wal-Mart evokes conservative red state; Target, liberal blue state. Wal-Mart is overalls, guns, and purged lyrics; Target is high thread counts, "Tar-zhay," and Michael Graves designs. Wal-Mart is for people who can't afford full retail; Target is for those who can, but would just as soon pay less.

Reality is less simple. In June, for instance, Black Enterprise magazine named Wal-Mart one of the 30 best companies for diversity.

Wal-Mart, founded in 1962 by Sam Walton, was based on a simple business proposition: low prices for the masses. The idea propelled the company to sales of $285.2 billion last year. Target, meanwhile, was the outgrowth of the Minneapolis-based Dayton department stores, and its first location also opened in 1962. To compete against the fast-growing Wal-Mart, however, price wasn't enough. So Target went after customers Wal-Mart ignored - the middle and even the upper class. And to get them to walk in the door, it gave them something Wal-Mart didn't have: style.

The way that difference has evolved explains why so many demonize Wal-Mart and praise Target. Target fits the culture and politics of the land of Kerry and Kennedy, making its business strategy - at least for the Northeast - perhaps more brilliant than its founders ever realized. Not only does its mix of price and cachet attract customers, it also keeps the opposition at bay.

Foolishly so, of course - low wages and meager benefits should be equally objectionable whatever an employer's cultural hues. And it leads to strange sorts of political blindness. Wal-Mart, for example, isn't to blame for the much-lamented collapse of full-price retailers such as Filene's and Jordan Marsh. Its customers were never theirs to begin with. Target is a different story, however. By making discount shopping acceptable to the fashionistas, Target made obsolete the traditional department store. Should the firm eventually settle in Filene's old downtown digs, ironically enough, it will be not unlike the fox who ate the chickens and then moved into their coop.

Thomas Keane is a partner in a private equity fund and former Boston city councilor. E-mail him at [email protected].

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's amazing watching a mind slam shut in real time.

 

[red states rule]

It's amazing watching a mind slam shut in real time.

There may be some hope for you. Try reading this........


The latest liberal crusade is against the Wal-Mart stores.

A big headline on a long article in the New York Times asks "Can't A Retail Behemoth Pay More?"

Of course they can pay more. The New York Times could pay its own employees more. We could all pay more for whatever we buy or rent. Don't tell me you couldn't have paid a dime more for this newspaper. But why should any of us pay more than we have to?

According to the New York Times, there is a book "by a group of scholars" due to be published this fall, arguing that Wal-Mart has an "obligation" to "treat its employees better."

This can hardly be called news. Nothing is easier than to find a group of academics -- "scholars" if you agree with them -- to advocate virtually anything on any subject. Nor is this notion of an "obligation" new.

For decades, there has been lofty talk about the "social responsibility" of businesses or about a "social contract" between the generations when it comes to Social Security. Do you remember signing any such contract? I don't.

What all this pious talk amounts to is that when third parties want somebody else to pay for something, they simply call it a "social responsibility," an "obligation" or a "social contract."

So long as we keep buying this kind of stuff, they will keep selling it.

In order to make such demands look like more than just the arbitrary notions of busybodies -- which they are -- some of these busybodies refer to the official poverty level, as if it were something objective, rather than what it is in fact, simply an arbitrary line based on the notions of government bureaucrats.

According to the New York Times, Wal-Mart's average employee earns an income that is above the poverty line for a family of three but below the poverty line for a family of four. What are we supposed to conclude from this?

The fashionable notion of "a living wage" is a wage that will support a family of four. And, sure enough, the New York Times finds a Wal-Mart employee who complains that he is not making "a living wage."

How is he living, if he is not making a living wage?

Should people be paid according to what they "need" instead of according to what their work is worth? Should they decide how big a family they want and then put the cost of paying to support that family on somebody else?

If their work is not worth enough to pay for what they want, is it up to others to make up the difference, rather than up to them to upgrade their skills in order to earn what they want?

Are they supposed to be subsidized by Wal-Mart's customers through higher prices or subsidized by Wal-Mart's stockholders through lower earnings? After all, much of the stock in even a rich company is often owned by pension funds belonging to teachers, policemen and others who are far from rich.

Why should other people have to retire on less money, in order that Wal-Mart employees can be paid what the New York Times wants them paid, instead of what their labor is worth in the marketplace? After all, they wouldn't be working for Wal-Mart if someone else valued their labor more.

Nor are they confined to Wal-Mart for life. For many, entry-level jobs are a stepping-stone, whether within a given company or as experience that gets them a better job with another company.

Think about it: What the busybodies are saying is that third parties like themselves -- who are paying nothing to anybody -- should be determining how much somebody else should be paying those who work for them.

It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce poverty and most of the intelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding out what actions and policies increase the national wealth.

They certainly don't feel any "obligation" to learn economics, out of a sense of "social responsibility," much less because of any "social contract" requiring them to know what they are talking about before spouting off with self-righteous rhetoric.


Thomas Sowell is the prolific author of books such as Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Applied Economics.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There may be some hope for you. Try reading this........


The latest liberal crusade is against the Wal-Mart stores.

A big headline on a long article in the New York Times asks "Can't A Retail Behemoth Pay More?"

Of course they can pay more. The New York Times could pay its own employees more. We could all pay more for whatever we buy or rent. Don't tell me you couldn't have paid a dime more for this newspaper. But why should any of us pay more than we have to?

According to the New York Times, there is a book "by a group of scholars" due to be published this fall, arguing that Wal-Mart has an "obligation" to "treat its employees better."

This can hardly be called news. Nothing is easier than to find a group of academics -- "scholars" if you agree with them -- to advocate virtually anything on any subject. Nor is this notion of an "obligation" new.

For decades, there has been lofty talk about the "social responsibility" of businesses or about a "social contract" between the generations when it comes to Social Security. Do you remember signing any such contract? I don't.

What all this pious talk amounts to is that when third parties want somebody else to pay for something, they simply call it a "social responsibility," an "obligation" or a "social contract."

So long as we keep buying this kind of stuff, they will keep selling it.

In order to make such demands look like more than just the arbitrary notions of busybodies -- which they are -- some of these busybodies refer to the official poverty level, as if it were something objective, rather than what it is in fact, simply an arbitrary line based on the notions of government bureaucrats.

According to the New York Times, Wal-Mart's average employee earns an income that is above the poverty line for a family of three but below the poverty line for a family of four. What are we supposed to conclude from this?

The fashionable notion of "a living wage" is a wage that will support a family of four. And, sure enough, the New York Times finds a Wal-Mart employee who complains that he is not making "a living wage."

How is he living, if he is not making a living wage?

Should people be paid according to what they "need" instead of according to what their work is worth? Should they decide how big a family they want and then put the cost of paying to support that family on somebody else?

If their work is not worth enough to pay for what they want, is it up to others to make up the difference, rather than up to them to upgrade their skills in order to earn what they want?

Are they supposed to be subsidized by Wal-Mart's customers through higher prices or subsidized by Wal-Mart's stockholders through lower earnings? After all, much of the stock in even a rich company is often owned by pension funds belonging to teachers, policemen and others who are far from rich.

Why should other people have to retire on less money, in order that Wal-Mart employees can be paid what the New York Times wants them paid, instead of what their labor is worth in the marketplace? After all, they wouldn't be working for Wal-Mart if someone else valued their labor more.

Nor are they confined to Wal-Mart for life. For many, entry-level jobs are a stepping-stone, whether within a given company or as experience that gets them a better job with another company.

Think about it: What the busybodies are saying is that third parties like themselves -- who are paying nothing to anybody -- should be determining how much somebody else should be paying those who work for them.

It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce poverty and most of the intelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding out what actions and policies increase the national wealth.

They certainly don't feel any "obligation" to learn economics, out of a sense of "social responsibility," much less because of any "social contract" requiring them to know what they are talking about before spouting off with self-righteous rhetoric.


Thomas Sowell is the prolific author of books such as Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Applied Economics.

You seem to be a lost cause, however. You can keep posting articles, it doesn't make our empowerment of the totalitarian chinese wise or moral.

 

[red states rule]

One of the first things a libs does when losing is to dismiss their opponent.

When a lib does not have any facts to back up their rantings they withdraw.

Much like the libs Iraq plan - they cut and run

 

[rtwngAvngr]

One of the first things a libs does when losing is to dismiss their opponent.

When a lib does not have any facts to back up their rantings they withdraw.

Much like the libs Iraq plan - they cut and run

That may be true of libs, but you're dealing with me.

You're the one who started throwing up articles when you realized you had completely lost this argument.