Attention Walmart Shoppers.....

[stjohn]

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
But what almost no one outside the world of Wal-Mart and its 21,000 suppliers knows is the high cost of those low prices. Wal-Mart has the power to squeeze profit-killing concessions from vendors. To survive in the face of its pricing demands, makers of everything from bras to bicycles to blue jeans have had to lay off employees and close U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing products from overseas.

OK, so the problem I see here is that Walmart has marketed itself as part of "real America" and people who shop at Walmart are "true Americans", while war protesters and others are "Anti-American". Am I the only one who sees the fallacy here?

True patriots shop at their local mom and pop stores.

[gopman]

Wal Mart doesn't do anything illegal. It uses low markups. It doesn't use predatory pricing. That's the American way. If you have a good business, you will succeed. And again, no one ever called protesters anti-american.

[Catch 22]

There have been studies done that show for every 100 jobs created by walmart another 150 are destroyed.

[gopman]

I'd like to see those studies. Any findings of those sort are extremely hard to qualify because there are so many variables in the economy that it is almost impossible to take them all into account. I would assert that there would be more jobs in Mom and Pop stores, but the loss of efficiency would cause jobs to be pruned in other industries. All tolled, the money saved by Wal Mart goes somewhere, and that creates jobs. I believe that those studies are probably true, but they are not complete and therefore do not provide an accurate picture.

[Blueangel]

Walmart is a dirty word in the U.K..
They started the supermarket wars 15years ago over here.
From a manufacturing point of view, I saw standards drop consistantly until British regulatory authorities stepped in and imposed new regulations and codes of practice.

At least now, consumers can rest assured that the product they are buying is safer than it was 10-15years ago.

[Catch 22]

the money saved by Wal Mart goes somewhere Yes back into walmart.

[gopman]

So if you spend less money on groceries and clothes, you have no option other than to buy more groceries and clothes? That's not accurate- The money people save by shopping at Wal Mart goes into vacations and cars and other things, thereby creating jobs in those industries.

[Blueangel]

I'm more than a little concerned on how some of Walmart's policies will impact on other industries now that it is spreading it's influence in the U.K.

My local Asda store has just expanded to become a massive Walmart superstore.
This particular branch of Asda has always been one of the stores who's cd sales were submitted to assertain the U.K.'s record chart.
The problem now is, I'm aware that Walmart has a reputation for refusing to stock music by certain artists in the States.
I'm wondering if the same will happen over here and how/if it will affect chart positions and music sales?

[jnewbyjr]

Another round of WalMart bashing. Can't people ever get over the fact that someone has figured out a way to do things more economically. Good thing some figured it out or we'd still be using 8-track tapes, typewriters, Edsels and who knows what else. But I guess that wouldn't be all bad. On the other hand, we'd wouldn't have to listen or read some of this mindless bladder that gets strewn out by some liberals that don't have a clue.

I suppose all the worlds evils are attributed to Wal-Mart.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Catch 22
There have been studies done that show for every 100 jobs created by walmart another 150 are destroyed.




You my friend do not have a clue and I mean that with the highest level of respect. Wal-Mart is America's largest employer and in fact employees more people than many town have workers.:mad: Read, know your facts. Wal-Mart employees people who otherwise would not have a job. This is a good thing. Yet, people choose to make fun of the fact::confused: I'll never understand it.


Wal-Mart is a profit organization. The goal is to make money and Wal-Mart seems to do it very well. Why hate them for doing so?

[jnewbyjr]

Couldn't say it any better. Nothing wrong with a profit unless your a liberal who thinks they are entitles to all the worlds wealth.

[Catch 22]

look guys Wal-Mart depresses wages worldwide, censors everything in sight ,violently beats down unions, utilizes sweatshops, and destroys jobs. I could go on forever but this editorial says it all.

http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2002-05-08/news.html

[jnewbyjr]

I wouldn't believe everything you read. Half of what you said is great news. Unions are another word for incompentent leeches trying to force views on the masses and quite frankly; Censoring is also their right. Government can't tell them what to sell and what not to sell. That would be censorship!

I've found that most people throwing the word censor around really mean to say "Let me trample on your rights, beliefs and traditions under the guise of 1st amendment protection". If they choose to not sell something, that's not censorship - that's their right under the constitution of the United States. Being forced to do so c ould be called Socialism for starters. I woul dhave used the word Communisim, but that has just about been wiped out as well.

If destroying jobs means putting dying businesses out of their misery, you could be right on that point as well.

[gopman]

"this editorial says it all."

Since when is that a credible source?

Wal Mart helps the economy by being more efficient than anyone else and letting people spend their money on other things.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Catch 22
look guys Wal-Mart depresses wages worldwide, censors everything in sight ,violently beats down unions, utilizes sweatshops, and destroys jobs. I could go on forever but this editorial says it all.

http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2002-05-08/news.html


Again not the facts. Are Wal-Marts anti union? Yep! So, are most non-union companies, not just Wal-Mart. If you want to talk the pros & cons of unions, it should not involve Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has proved time and time again unions are not needed.

If you want to talk wages, you once again will lose. Wal-Mart rewards from with-in and pays very well for proformance and tenure. As stated they are not union, so you will not recieve undue pay just for showing up. Research my friend and don't choose to believe the first thing you read. Just as one bad president can't account for all Americans, one bad story can't bring down the Wal-Mart name. Meaning: Wal-Mart has had some bad management make some bad mistakes, but over all the company is true to it's beliefs and it's share holders and that's all you can ask.

I wish you luck in your research and wisdom to know the truth:angel:

If you ever want to hear my thoughts on unions being the down fall of the world economy, just let me know.

[stjohn]

Typical right wing bull*****. Let's screw everybody else so I can get my 99 cent pack of condoms. You people are pathetic and deserve the world you have created.

[Dave]

Originally posted by stjohn
Typical right wing bull*****. Let's screw everybody else so I can get my 99 cent pack of condoms. You people are pathetic and deserve the world you have created.

Thanks, now I'm right wing. Others seem to think I'm to far left, but thanks for clearing that up.

Your paying .99cents? Not at Wal-Mart. Maybe at your local gas station in the mens room, but not Wal-Mart. Go ahead ask me how I know.

[gopman]

How does saving money "screw everybody?" They're not setting predatory prices, and they're paying their employees well.

[dove]

I enjoyed certain aspects about walmart, until a fellow poster on that "other forum" enlightened me to one disgusting fact.

Walmart hires low wage workers and takes out life insurance policies on them, naming walmart as the beneficiary. I had wondered about the surge of elderly "greeters" at the door, but silly me, I figured they were retirees who.....hmmm...got fulfillment at working at walmart in their golden years?

http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_action/walmart.html

[gopman]

So what if they buy life ensurance on their employees? That doesn't hurt anyone. It just protects them in case their employees die. How many people do you know work at walmart until their death? Not many, but they don't want to take a risk.

[dove]

without their employee's knowledge? not a life insurance policy that helps the family at all, but financially benefits walmart if a 5.50 an hour employee tanks? doesnt sound ethical at all to me.

[gopman]

Why not? They're protecting their interests. It doesn't hurt or help the employees either way. It's just spin by corporation haters.

[Dave]

Originally posted by dove
I enjoyed certain aspects about walmart, until a fellow poster on that "other forum" enlightened me to one disgusting fact.

Walmart hires low wage workers and takes out life insurance policies on them, naming walmart as the beneficiary. I had wondered about the surge of elderly "greeters" at the door, but silly me, I figured they were retirees who.....hmmm...got fulfillment at working at walmart in their golden years?

http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_action/walmart.html


I don't even know how to respond to such ignorance.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr
I wouldn't believe everything you read. Half of what you said is great news. Unions are another word for incompentent leeches trying to force views on the masses and quite frankly; Censoring is also their right. Government can't tell them what to sell and what not to sell. That would be censorship!

I've found that most people throwing the word censor around really mean to say "Let me trample on your rights, beliefs and traditions under the guise of 1st amendment protection". If they choose to not sell something, that's not censorship - that's their right under the constitution of the United States. Being forced to do so c ould be called Socialism for starters. I woul dhave used the word Communisim, but that has just about been wiped out as well.

If destroying jobs means putting dying businesses out of their misery, you could be right on that point as well.
I believe there exists a word for your political opinion and it is called "fascism".

[gopman]

Being a successful business (WalMart) is fascism? I wouldn't be so quick to throw around that term.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
Being a successful business (WalMart) is fascism? I wouldn't be so quick to throw around that term.
I didn't call Walmart fascist but jnewbyjr, I don't know how on earth you could misinterpret me here. Calling unions leeches is typical for far left and far right. And we know this character is not far left so that narrows it down a bit. Claiming censoring is okay is also typical of fascism. he also runs around accusing people immediately of socialist and communist viewpoints. If he wants to throw around terms quickly, so can I. Plus he extremely simplifies things and twists them around. :rolleyes:

[jnewbyjr]

I think better put would be that anyone that disagrees with you is far left or far right. But on the other hand, being in the middle is a pretty gutless position, probably can't make up their minds, so I'll choose going to the right.

If being far-right means:
Standing up for Constitutional values
Allowing Freedom Of Religion to remain free
ETc. Etc.

Then I guess I am what I am.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr
I think better put would be that anyone that disagrees with you is far left or far right. But on the other hand, being in the middle is a pretty gutless position, probably can't make up their minds, so I'll choose going to the right.
No, I explained your viewpoints on unions, your outlashes to other people immediately shelling "socialist" and "communist" and your approval of censorship speak for themselves. And I'm hardly in the middle but on the left, as even gopman will be willing to testify.

[jnewbyjr]

Facts are facts, for someone to deny the fact that Socialism is rearing it's ugly head has their head in the sand. I will admit the communist remark may have been off the mark.

Now for the educational process, Censorship is when the government is telling me what I can't and can read, write etc. Similair to Nazi Germany. When a free business decides they want to not carry something on their racks - that is perfectly legal and above all - moral. I will admit, some might call that censorship, but in that sense - God Bless Them - it's their right.

[Simon666]

They have the right to refuse to sell those products they have a problem with, but having the industry edit the products of artists often without the artists knowledge or more important, the 'buyer's knowledge' , they are limiting the freedoms of both the consumer and the artist.

[jnewbyjr]

I would still say that is the industries choice. The artist can go elsewhere to have it displayed or distributed. If the artist can't find anyone willing to distribute their product - that's called free enterprise and maybe he/she should consider a new line of work.

But to say their is a legal obligation to distribute something you feel is wrong is morally wrong. Not to say the example you used is the case, but if I feel that someting is wrong, it's not only my right, but my duty to say so and stand up for what I believe. Should I force my views on everybody - absolutely not.

Individuals or Industry should not be forced to distribute things that are objectionable, dis-tasteful and against what they stand for. Nor should government use tax dollars to promote.

On the other hand, many have fought and died for the rights you talk of. And I agree that everyone should have those rights, but rights don't determine success - having something people want will determine success.

[Simon666]

You're very much pro-censorship if it is done by companies. Why do governments have no right on censorship then? They can decide what to do with the money they get, right? You'll probably say wrong because it is not their money, but if the majority of citizens is in favor of it then it should be okay by the set of rules you seem to us. Those that don't like it can go live under another government.

[jnewbyjr]

Because many governments (not just ours) can and are manipulated by a few with an agenda, that is why the constitution clearly states the government shouldn't have the freedom to do many things.

The government should act for and in behalf of the people. Individual rights and government rights are very different and should be. Keeps the corrupt from controlling most everything, but as we can both most likely attest to, not always most effectively.

I'd still take our form of government (as imperfect as it may be) over any other.

[gopman]

A private corporation choosing not to sell a product is not censorship. If you want a cd that wal mart doesn't sell, they aren't stopping you from buying it somewhere else. Amazon, for example. And they certainly aren't forcing the artists to stop making the cd. This is just more spin by those who are for some reason "anti-corporation." Can anyone explain to me how a corporation is evil? At what point does it become evil? When it is incorporated? It makes no sense to me.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr
Because many governments (not just ours) can and are manipulated by a few with an agenda, that is why the constitution clearly states the government shouldn't have the freedom to do many things.

The government should act for and in behalf of the people. Individual rights and government rights are very different and should be. Keeps the corrupt from controlling most everything, but as we can both most likely attest to, not always most effectively.

I'd still take our form of government (as imperfect as it may be) over any other.
Yes, but let's pretend that that would not be in the constitution or the constitution would be changed to allow it. I have two questions for you and gopman as well:

1. You say the government should act for and in behalf of the people. If the majority of the people would be in favor of censorship and the government would institutionalize it, would you approve of it, when the constitution would not be against it?
2. And when there would be constitutional arguments against companies censoring, would you just accept it and hold to it?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
A private corporation choosing not to sell a product is not censorship. If you want a cd that wal mart doesn't sell, they aren't stopping you from buying it somewhere else. Amazon, for example. And they certainly aren't forcing the artists to stop making the cd. This is just more spin by those who are for some reason "anti-corporation." Can anyone explain to me how a corporation is evil? At what point does it become evil? When it is incorporated? It makes no sense to me.
And what if the company is censored by its customers? Is that correct or allowed?

[gopman]

Consumers can boycott a product if they choose. That's perfectly fine.

[gopman]

"1. You say the government should act for and in behalf of the people. If the majority of the people would be in favor of censorship and the government would institutionalize it, would you approve of it, when the constitution would not be against it? "

If the people were so greatly in favor of censorship, and they never would be, then an amendment could be added to the constitution. It could later be taken away if enough people changed their minds.

I don't understand your second question.

[jnewbyjr]

Always tough to deal with hypotheticals. However, the beauty of the constitution is in the fact that it deals with that very issue. If enough people really wanted to allow the government to censor, they can vote their mind and have the constitution amended to fit those concerns. We've seen several amendments over the years.
in other areas.

Would I abide by the laws, absolutely, would I fight to reverse the law, absolutely. But I would do it through the constitutional avenues that exists to do so and not resort to the courts which are very liberal to handle my concerns.

[Simon666]

jnewbyjr, I appreciate your honesty and see now you really believe what you propose. I however strongly disagree with your viewpoint. Anyway, it's your country and if you want to (in my opinion) ruin it by allowing such practices, fine with me if you're in the majority.

gopman, the second question asks that when the constitution would state that companies have no right to censor products in the way wal-mart does for example, would you accept it and live according to it?

[gopman]

I suppose i'd have to, but there will never be an amendment that forces private sellers to sell products that they don't want to. It would be contradictory to other parts of the constitution. It is not within the governments power, and it infringes on the rights of the firm.

[Simon666]

Once again, I already said they can't be forced to sell certain products, but I don't think they have the right to push the companies that sell these products into censoring them and not inform the customers about this.

[gopman]

It's the choice of those who make the products to censor them. Wal Mart does nothing illegal or unethical.

[jnewbyjr]

I'd be curious as to which practices you feel are destroying our country? I do feel our country has been eroded due to some of the latest changes in our laws and rulings from our courts.

But on the other hand, our country became a international success story over the past couple hundred years with a Constitution based on Christian principles and traditions. While many may or may not agree with those principles, it's still a fact that we've benefited by following them. As that is eroded, you will continue to see erosion.

[dove]

Originally posted by dove
I enjoyed certain aspects about walmart, until a fellow poster on that "other forum" enlightened me to one disgusting fact.

Walmart hires low wage workers and takes out life insurance policies on them, naming walmart as the beneficiary. I had wondered about the surge of elderly "greeters" at the door, but silly me, I figured they were retirees who.....hmmm...got fulfillment at working at walmart in their golden years?

http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_action/walmart.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave replies: (not jnewbyjr)


"I don't even know how to respond to such ignorance."

How about trying civility (look it up) and explaining your point of view on it?

too hard?

[jnewbyjr]

Civility might described as not radically taking offense while pointing out that the person whom last posted indicated that you had posted something that you hadn't.

How's that for a try.

I for one hope you have a great day.

Any other profound pieces of wisdom that you need addressed?

[dove]

*lol*. yeah. a translation of that statement please? :D

[jnewbyjr]

That's easy - liberal or loser!

[dove]

I apologize. my post was meant for dave, not you.

I've been running to the hospital because of my mom a lot, and i guess my eyes skimmed to the wrong person.

p.s. i'm no liberal ;)

i will edit that post. again, please accept my apologies.

Dave....the question stands ;)

[jnewbyjr]

Apology accepted, hope all is Ok with your Mom.

[JD3]

Originally posted by dove

p.s. i'm no liberal ;)



Just a note. Liberals are cool. :cool:

Just a little humor. Ill moms and caring children need a laugh now and then.;)

Be well.

[Dave]

Originally posted by dove
Originally posted by dove
I enjoyed certain aspects about walmart, until a fellow poster on that "other forum" enlightened me to one disgusting fact.

Walmart hires low wage workers and takes out life insurance policies on them, naming walmart as the beneficiary. I had wondered about the surge of elderly "greeters" at the door, but silly me, I figured they were retirees who.....hmmm...got fulfillment at working at walmart in their golden years?

http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_action/walmart.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave replies: (not jnewbyjr)


"I don't even know how to respond to such ignorance."

How about trying civility (look it up) and explaining your point of view on it?

too hard?




I'm sorry if my reply offended anyone. I was NOT calling anyone ignorant, but stating a view on the contents of the artical that was requested of us to read. Repeat: I'm sorry if my words offended anyone.

Now, like always I research things. Mainly things I disagree with, but I research. The mentioned lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart was for Wal-Mart taking life insurance out on it's workers and listing themselfs as the sole Beneficiary. Now this what we were told and it is true. However, what is not told, is more important.

Facts: Lawsuit droped when learned that the only Wal-Mart employees that life insurance was purchased for was the highest levels of Management. We're talking CEO's. Now every major company does this to help cover the cost of the persons absents and replacement. 100% legal. The words "door greeters" is pure slander and I wish Wal-Mart would take a more aggressive stance on this issue, but it's not their way.

I would think that if I can find the truth in such a short time, that just maybe it would be ok if others done the same. Just a thought:D

Sorry again if my words offened anyone and as always Thank you for reading our Wal-Mart discussion.:lol:

[dove]

Dave -

apology accepted, and thank you for explaining that to me. (my, what a civil group we have here :)

I know walmart is made fun of but hey, I always loved Walmart. Gimme anyplace where you get a big ole shopping cart and run around to different departments filling it up! :D

By total chance, two days before this thread appeared, the person i was speaking of told me of this topic. He supplied about 5 articles supporting what he said. Obviously, I have not had the time to delve into it further.

The very idea of taking life insurance on *low* wage earning employees is appalling. I agree about the higher level employees.

I would appreciate it greatly, if you could supply some sources that clarify that life insurance is taken on only high level employees. (since you did the research, and i only have time between hospital runs?) I would like to take that back to the person who informed me of this.

thanks again :)

[Dave]

Ok I'll try, but it's very hard to do when you can find no printable information on the subject. As in history, the victors tell the story. If Wal-mart wins they keep quite. I have found some reports that say Wal-Mart lost the battle, but it was only refering to a time table of the law and not the actual claim of door greeters being insured.

Now, as I stated in my pm to you, I'm to close to the information to be objective. My Information comes from with-in Wal-Mart and names I can not give. I hope you can accept that. This does not mean I am blind to facts however, Wal-Mart has made many mistakes when it comes to it's ethics and has paid dearly. Refusing not to learn and unwilling to change will at times cost you.

I do contend that people always jump on the first thing they hear and refuse to do their homework. Exsample: Anyone hear about Wal-Mart being raided by the Feds for hiring illegal workers. What were your thoughts? Have you heard anything since? The facts say Wal-mart did not have one illegal worker. Not one check ever issued from wal-mart went to a illegal worker. Not one. It wasn't what you read, but that's the facts. My personal belief is that the Feds wanted some headlines and that's it. No headline in catching Johnny's contracting service, but Wal-Mart that's a headline.

Anyway I've said to much, just try not to think of Wal-Mart as an evil empire, but as something going right. Lord knows, America needs that.

[dove]

Dave -

just for you, i will go to walmart this weekend and happlily fill the cart!

(notice, no massive arm twisting was required for me to make that gesture) :D :D :D

[Simon666]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr
I'd be curious as to which practices you feel are destroying our country? I do feel our country has been eroded due to some of the latest changes in our laws and rulings from our courts.

But on the other hand, our country became a international success story over the past couple hundred years with a Constitution based on Christian principles and traditions. While many may or may not agree with those principles, it's still a fact that we've benefited by following them. As that is eroded, you will continue to see erosion.
The near mythical belief in free trade, without any consideration for social aspects. This allows jobs in the US and Europe to get lost because people can be exploited to work for wages that are extremely low, and without any considerations for the safety and other rights of employees.

The excessive trend towards deregulation and privatisation. Privatisation can be a good thing in many sectors, but it should be applied dogmatically to every sector as in my opinion it cannot work in some. These include services like water, electricity, transportation, which in my opinion will never really work. For sectors like education and medecin I believe it is even worse, it would increase social inequality and be detrimental for overall quality of these services.

[jnewbyjr]

I do believe in free trade in the truest sense, the current set-up is worthless - I would agree. To many different playing fields to make it work correctly. I do agree that privativation of some things would be a big mistake, many of the items you pointed out can be done institutionally without any problem.

The one area I would disagree is Healthcare. While I'll be the first one to admit that we don't have the perfect system, I'll also be the first one to say that our system turns out almost every medical breakthrough that the world has ever used. This is because of our system which encourages vast amounts of money be spent on research and development.

One of the main flaws in our system is that we give medical and drugs to the rest of the world for vastly less than our own citizens. That is wrong, if anything it should be reversed so the rest of the world helps to pay for our research as well.

But as bad as our system is, most still come here for their mediacal needs because they know it will be the best.

[Simon666]

Well, I agree with pretty much all that you say, but I do not believe having a government supplied healthcare program would significantly decrease medical breakthroughs if handled the right way.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by dove
I enjoyed certain aspects about walmart, until a fellow poster on that "other forum" enlightened me to one disgusting fact.

Walmart hires low wage workers and takes out life insurance policies on them, naming walmart as the beneficiary. I had wondered about the surge of elderly "greeters" at the door, but silly me, I figured they were retirees who.....hmmm...got fulfillment at working at walmart in their golden years?

http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_action/walmart.html I'm fairly certain that one cannot be named a beneficiary unless there is an insurable interest. In other words, I cannot take out a policy on the mayor, for example, because he is older than I am and I will probably cash in when he croaks! Wally World would have to have an insurable interest other than just working there.

[DRMIZER]

There is a legitimate concern over Wal-Marts coming into smaller towns. Many local businesses have to close. These businesses include drug stores, lumber yards, mechanics, food stores, etc. who have made their living as a mom and pop operation for generations.

We have three super centers here but no problem. This is a largely populated area with many, many local businesses. Here access is important. Traffic is a bomb and if John Doe Pop has what I want and I can get there quicker, I'm there. For the money I would have saved going to Wal-Mart would have been lost in time and gas.

In small towns, small store owners don't have that opportunity. They are basically run through when the Wally Man comes into town.

I can see, if I was the guy who owned a small business and could not afford to buy in bulk as they do, and receive lower wholesale prices, I'd be a bit ticked off and let down too.

Otherwise, fair trade is fair trade. The problem with large companies is enough is never enough. Money isn't everything, it's the only thing. Amen.

[Big M]

to GOPMAN. If Walmart doesn't do anything illigal explain how all those Illegal immigrant workers the feds found.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Big M
to GOPMAN. If Walmart doesn't do anything illigal explain how all those Illegal immigrant workers the feds found.


I don't think Gopman should explan that, sinse I've already done it for him. Please read past replys

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dave
I don't think Gopman should explan that, sinse I've already done it for him. Please read past replys

I'm sorry, that reply was bit harsh. Let me try to explan it better for you.

It is my personal belief that the feds needed headlines. That seems to be the only thing that makes sense. Not one illegal worker, worked for Wal-Mart. Not one ever recieved a check from Wal-mart. If you don't get a check from Wal-Mart, that means you don't work for Wal-Mart.

Now that does not mean Wal-mart could not have done a better job in this situation. The illegal workers belonged to contracters which provided services to Wal-Mart. Now if you hire Joe Blow's contracting service, are you responsible for their workers being legal. We'll see.

I don't think it's fair though to run around saying Wal-Mart hires illegal workers, that's just not the case and if the Feds would have done their home work, they would have known it. Again my personal belief is they needed headlines.

[jnewbyjr]

Is Wal-Mart perfect, No!. Any company that big will have peopel that make wrong decisions, they'll address it and move on. However, Wal-Mart is a case in point of going from nothing to greatness through hard work, perserverence and having an idea that fits a need.

The bottomline is they do it better than most of their competitors and many of those that have never had an orginal idea in their life are very jealous. What really ticks people off is that they've done it without unions and government handouts.

History is replet with businesses, countries etc. that have been rendered obsolete because of their methods and/or ideas. Look at Europe in general, still trying to live off the greatness of their past, yet they are a continent that has been trained to live off the government in a socialistic society. You rarely get a novel or new idea out of any country in Europe. They are still trying to cling to any resemblance of power in the world they can cling to. Look at France, how they have any say on the world scene is a farce and disgrace to those that do something positive for the world. Oh, well - off the topic.

Long live new ideas, change and progress.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr
Look at France, how they have any say on the world scene is a farce and disgrace to those that do something positive for the world. Oh, well - off the topic.
Well, at least they were correct. How is the WMD search?

[jnewbyjr]

Would that be the same WMD (gas) that killed over 100,000 kurds in the north or the WMD used against Iran a few years back?

Now having said that I will confess that evidence is slim, but I will also say that history shows the use of such weapons and in fact France is knee deep in documentation and contracts sending them some of the supplies to create such weapons. That's the big reason France and Russia didn't want anyone in there in the first place. People might find out that they've been selling the rest of the free world down the river.

But that is another discussion. I lived in Europe for years, most European counties are trying. France is everything America never wants to be.

[Simon666]

The very same that hasn't been found again since I don't know say 1998. And the US also supplied them with the ingredients for biological and chemical weapons, as I have already posted in another thread. America is also what France doesn't want to be except for the military power.

[jnewbyjr]

Trust me, were glad France doesn't want to be like us. It's much easier to see what you don't want to become when you have an example to show people. Is this same France that America liberated twice from Germany? France is pretty typical however, take the help when needed and stab in the back when a disagreement arises.

Let's cut through all the small talk, France and many others want to bring America down to it's level so to better level the playing field in this "New World Order" set-up. They can't stand the fact that they are no longer even a relavent player in the global community and America is a big reason why.

While I could honestly debate the war in Iraq and even understand the opposing view and would submit they have a valid arguement, none-the-less, it isn't about Iraq - we all know that, no the stakes are much higher.

[Simon666]

The same France that helped liberate you from the English and whose statue is standing on Liberty Island. France has the right to be concerned when the United States goes trampling over other countries, you can't stand the fact that you're not the only player. You claim you admire people who stand up for their opinion except when it is not what you want.

It was thinkers like Rousseau ("I do not agree with a word you say but I will defend to death your right to say it.") that influenced the Founding Fathers to acknowledge the freedom of speech but apparently the US easily forgets these lessons learned from the French when they do not agree with them.

[jnewbyjr]

Yes, that same France that gave us the statue that says to send the homeless tempest tossed to me. Never said that France has never done anything good. That wouldn't be fair to France, for they have.

I would challenge you to name one country that America has trampled on, when you are the most powerful Military in the world, sometimes being the peacekeeper or yes the person that comes along and slugs the playground bully is required.

Not once has America gone in and set-up shop so to speak. Usually in and out when the conflict is over. On top of that, not only to trample dictators to use your words, but we then help them to regroup and build their country up again. Just to name a few:

Germany WW1 & WW2
(The whole of Europe for that matter)
Japan
South Korea
(The whole Far East for that matter)
Kuwiat - not a great example I guess, they had money
Iraq - Currently

Not to mention that trampling country that toppled the Iron Curtain allowing millions to experience freedom for the first time.

Am I excusing America in all cases, absolutely not, I don't even agree with all they do. If I had my way, we'd pull out of many places and say "Have a Ball". Good thing we didn't pull out of Europe before the wall came down or that continent might all be speaking some communist block language. I certainly wouldn't be having this conversation with anyone from that part of the world.

As for free speach, I agree with you 100%. I don't condem anyone for expressing their thoughts and minds. But like you, I don't have to agree and am also allowed to point out the holes in their arguements or myths.

By the way, where are you from? Despite what you say and despite the fact I disagree with much of it. You appear to be pretty informed and intelligent - it is people such as yourself that cause us all to look inside and evaluate what we stand for.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr
I would challenge you to name one country that America has trampled on, when you are the most powerful Military in the world, sometimes being the peacekeeper or yes the person that comes along and slugs the playground bully is required.
Easy challenge. (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43/049.html)

[Simon666]

For the rest, any recent blatant violations aren't there, but it is the fear for a precedent that causes it I believe, plus a lot of other issues like Kyoto, the ABM treaty, landmine treaty and such that create a fear the US would continue on such a spree. The US doesn't always work for good as has been seen in countries like Nicaragua, Chile and Vietnam.

As far as the "communist block language", neither Nazis nor the Soviet Union intended to impose their language on other nations. I understand you disagree with france, but it seems you don't blame them on the issues in their opinion but on the fact that they dare to have one and one that is not in your country's favor.

And I'm from Belgium, it's in my profile.

[jnewbyjr]

I don't blame anyone for opinions, including France - France I blame for constant stabbing in the back. You noticed I didn't include Germany which had the same stand as France but for different reasons. They have their views and are certainly entitled to them.

As far as going further. When countries of the world get together and put together erronous treaties like the Kyoto treaty as a n example. It would not be in our best interest to sign off on something that is rediculous anyway. I'll use that as an example. The Northern Hemesphere countries (most noteably the US) get blamed for this ever growing Ozone hole over Antartica. Well, funny thing is that it is impossible for air from the Northern Hemisphere to mingle with that air from the southern hemisphere. Due to our atmospheric makeup, that is scientically impossible. We don't hear about that in the news, just that we are destroying the world. We are the cause of this massive and growing hole because of our SUV's and so forth. That is totally impossible and we're suspose to sign a treaty that uses that kind of logic?

I don't believe that these treaty's and others are even meant to solve a problem. (Of which I do believe exists) They are meant to put America in it's place and bring us all down to the lowest common demoninator.

As long as America can do it's own thing, the elitest of the world are helpless, so if we can't beat them fairly on an even playing field, lets do it another way.

Thaks goodness at least a few realize this.

It was once said that in polictics "Nothing happens by accident" If it happens you can bet it was planned that way. Now, I don't know if that is true - but I believe there is at least a bit of truth in that.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr
I don't blame anyone for opinions, including France - France I blame for constant stabbing in the back. You noticed I didn't include Germany which had the same stand as France but for different reasons. They have their views and are certainly entitled to them.
I don't really believe you. i think you hate France more than Germany because Germany just expressed its opinion which you hoped to easily discard as "considered but rejected". I have the impression France is hated because it stood up for its conviction. Which you describe as "stabbing in the back". They stabbed you right in front, everyone could see it, you saw it coming in advance.
Originally posted by jnewbyjr
As far as going further. When countries of the world get together and put together erronous treaties like the Kyoto treaty as a n example. It would not be in our best interest to sign off on something that is rediculous anyway. I'll use that as an example. The Northern Hemesphere countries (most noteably the US) get blamed for this ever growing Ozone hole over Antartica. Well, funny thing is that it is impossible for air from the Northern Hemisphere to mingle with that air from the southern hemisphere. Due to our atmospheric makeup, that is scientically impossible. We don't hear about that in the news, just that we are destroying the world. We are the cause of this massive and growing hole because of our SUV's and so forth. That is totally impossible and we're suspose to sign a treaty that uses that kind of logic?
I did not give my opinion on what I think of those treaties, that is another discussion. I gave you my opinion as to why people believe America is stepping over other countries and will continue to do so. And the US is energy inefficient compared to Europe by the way. SUVs are a part of it. And we really don't vote these treaties just to annoy you, another misconception. :rolleyes: Otherwise we would have voted a pro abortion treaty or something. :D

[Big M]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr

I would challenge you to name one country that America has trampled on, when you are the most powerful Military in the world, sometimes being the peacekeeper or yes the person that comes along and slugs the playground bully is required.




like he said, "easy challenge"

1953: US overthrows prime minister Mossadeq of Iran, and reinstall shah as dictator.

1954: US overthrows democratically elected arbenz of Guatemala

1963: US backs assasination of South Vietnamese president Diem

1973: US stages a coup in Chile democratically elected president Allende assasinated (some say suicide). Dictator Agusto Pinochet is installed.

1977: US backs military rulers in El Salvador. 70,000 salvadorans killed.

80's: US trains Osama bin Laden and Taliban to kill soviets, and the CIA gives them $3 billion.

1981: Reagan Administration trains and funds Contras who kill 30,000 Nicaraguans

1982: US gives billions in aid to Saddam Hussein to kill Iranians.

1989: US invades Panama to remove president Manuel Noriega.

1989: US gives weapons to Saddam AFTER he kills Kurds with poison gas.

2000-2001: US gives $245 million in aid for getting rid of opium trade.

[jnewbyjr]

It is another discussion, I just merely pointed out why we don't always walk in lock step with everyone. Are we energy inefficent, maybe we are in some ways, but we pay for our gas and oil like any other country - that's also our right. As it is there right to not sell it to us if they choose. Our ineffiecencies allow many countries to thrive that would otherwise slide backwards into 3rd world poverty. Which by the way, which county gives more humantain aid than the rest of the world combined. That's right - the United States.

As for hating France, they have stabbed us in the back on voting issues in the UN over and over after saying one thing and doing another. After having that done to you over and over, yes you can develop a different additude towards them. But I still believe they can say what the want and vote the way the want.

But to answer the other post as well. I've never said that America is perfect at home or abroad intheir actions. However, many of the actions you pointed out where the right thing at the time, as time and conditions change - oftentimes we regret some of those actions. America is no different. Have aided leaders who requested help and it has burned us, absolutely - I'd be stupid if I thought otherwise.

On the other hand, the US has aided the wrong people at times in an attempt to get them to change their ways. Sometimes it works, but more often than not it hasn't.

One still must do what they feel is right at the time. Some times it does backfire and thens turn south. But I'm still more confident doing something than not doing anything.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr
It is another discussion, I just merely pointed out why we don't always walk in lock step with everyone. Are we energy inefficent, maybe we are in some ways, but we pay for our gas and oil like any other country - that's also our right. As it is there right to not sell it to us if they choose. Our ineffiecencies allow many countries to thrive that would otherwise slide backwards into 3rd world poverty. Which by the way, which county gives more humantain aid than the rest of the world combined. That's right - the United States.
Doing something about energy efficiency wouldn't cost that much. It even saves money as less has to be spend on energy and decreases funds that Saudi Arabia uses to fund Wahabism. And by the way, you are cheapskirts when you put humanitarian aid next to GDP. Europe and especially Japan are far more generous. Only in absolute numbers you do more. How generous is a person that makes 1000$ and gives away 2$ versus a person that makes 500$ and gives away 1.5$? Much of that aid is also military aid funding conflicts and poverty.
Originally posted by jnewbyjr
As for hating France, they have stabbed us in the back on voting issues in the UN over and over after saying one thing and doing another. After having that done to you over and over, yes you can develop a different additude towards them. But I still believe they can say what the want and vote the way the want.
I beg to differ, they gave you a clear notice on what they would do and vote. Can you give me an example? You're very vague about this, I think you have listened to "back stabbing" propaganda too much without having anything to substantiate this.
Originally posted by jnewbyjr
But to answer the other post as well. I've never said that America is perfect at home or abroad intheir actions. However, many of the actions you pointed out where the right thing at the time, as time and conditions change - oftentimes we regret some of those actions. America is no different. Have aided leaders who requested help and it has burned us, absolutely - I'd be stupid if I thought otherwise.
That's one thing that keeps coming back as a constant and which I really dislike : "it was the right thing at the time". I don't think the American people would have approved if they knew and were properly informed what was done by their leaders in their name. I don't like excuses as "communism would otherwise have overrun us" as I doubt there are Americans who seriously believe communism would ever work. This is a fake reason to feel better about yourselves.
Originally posted by jnewbyjr
One still must do what they feel is right at the time. Some times it does backfire and thens turn south. But I'm still more confident doing something than not doing anything.
Sometimes you can see in advance it will backfire, I seriously don't believe they couldn't have seen islamic terrorism coming when they used "communism" as excuse for arming Osama and co in Afghanistan. Just as I believe that supporting "freedom loving nations" like Uzbekistan (vicious dictatorship part of the "Coalition of the Willing") will seriously backfire. When it does, I bet you'll be saying there was no way to see it coming, that the threat of terrorism justified it and that you wonder why the fanatics in Uzbekistan hate you, maybe it is your freedom (while it is the freedom you've denied their people).

[Duo_Maxwell]

As for hating France, they have stabbed us in the back on voting issues in the UN over and over after saying one thing and doing another. After having that done to you over and over, yes you can develop a different additude towards them. But I still believe they can say what the want and vote the way the want.


The US, like every other country, votes for what is in its best interest, and its interest alone. To condemn another country for nothing voting with us for OUR national interest, when it doesn't suit their's is ludicrious. They'll do what is best for them. Often that isn't what is best for us. They are doing exactly what we;d be doing in their places. hardly a reason for hate.

[jnewbyjr]

I agree with your premise that giving based on your income or GDP is correct. However, the United States GDP isn't that of the entire world. On the other hand, your telling me that 250 million people can produce a GDP that is nearly equal to that of the rest of the world, however many BILLIONS of people that may be. If so, looks like we have one heck of a productive system here. When I made that comment I wasn't referring to military aid, I was referring to humanitarian aid.

But let's not get carried away, the United States has no obligation to try and re-disbute their wealth around the world, nor does any other country. They don't have to be apoligetic for having the most productive economy the world has ever known.

Do you really believe the Soviet Union wasn't a threat to rest of the world? Tell that to Poland and most every other Nation that existed before the Communist bloc began putting up walls and fences. Are they a threat today? Not really, but it is no wonder why - somebody stood up to them and forced them to spend more than they had and slowly defeated them without armed conflict.

As for aiding Osama, considering they were still battling the Soviet Union and Osama was one of the spearheads of that, probably a great thing to do at the time. As a matter fact, if I recall - it was a total disaster for the Soviet Union. Was that the right thing to do at the time, Yes I truly believe it was. Did it backfire, absolutely - we were burned big time with that one.

To answer another post, I know UN countries vote in their best interest as they should in most cases, unless of course it's to cover illegal activities. Even then they have that right to vote the way they want. And I really don't have a problem with that.

This is a little different than our discussion. But if I recall, almost every country voted to give Saddam time if he would follow various UN sanctions. Saddam was given countless opportunities to submit to the UN and clear is name and clean-up his actions of genocide on his people. The bottom-line is that he didn't, he continually put up roadblocks to the UN inspectors and defied the UN to do anything that they said they would. The UN voted more than once to use force if he didn't compley. He was given chances over and over and laughed at the UN counting on the fact that that most within the UN wouldn't really have the spunk to actually do something. In the end, while the media says the US went against the UN - they were actually following several UN mandates that had been passed by the UN themselves.

Games are Ok for awhile, but eventually you have to buck up and say - enough is enough. Saddam was making a mockery of the UN. Everybody knew it but the UN.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr
I agree with your premise that giving based on your income or GDP is correct. However, the United States GDP isn't that of the entire world. On the other hand, your telling me that 250 million people can produce a GDP that is nearly equal to that of the rest of the world, however many BILLIONS of people that may be.

But let's not get carried away, the United States has no obligation to try and re-disbute their wealth around the world, nor does any other country. They don't have to be apoligetic for having the most productive economy the world has ever known.
Where do you get that? The GDP of the EU is close to the American. And I do not say it is an obligation, I just say it is not as generous as you want people to believe. It is also hardly redistributing wealth, the percentage of the GDP of the EU is probably somewhat below 0.70% and that of the US even a lot lower, therefore as good as neglectable.
Originally posted by jnewbyjr
Do you really believe the Soviet Union wasn't a threat to rest of the world? Tell that to Poland and most every other Nation that existed before the Communist bloc began putting up walls and fences. Are they a threat today? Not really, but it is no wonder why - somebody stood up to them and forced them to spend more than they had and slowly defeated them without armed conflict.
I did not say the Soviet Union was not a threat to the world. The threat that the Soviet Union would overtake other countries other than militarily was severely exagerated however. Unlike the US in Iran, Chile and Nicaragua, their funds were much, much smaller. The real reason was that the US or US companies didn't like social policies in those countries and therefore they supported repressive rightwing regimes. It still keeps doing so, Chavez was almost the latest victim. I can't name any such cases for the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan they did that but had to occupy it militarily anyway, and maybe in Angola they achieved a socialist government thanks to them, although I would have to look into that one.

[jnewbyjr]

I wasn't intending to say that the US had a combined GDP equal to that of the entire or even EU. I was pointing out that our donation per capita puts everyone to shame. Could we give more, absolutely in many cases - but because we produce more per capita doen't mean we give it all away. That's all I was trying to convey.

The Soviet Union had there tenticles over the globe, while Vietnam was a waste for us, they were working to contain communism in that part of the world. From Cuba to Vietnam and Central America - communism was a threat at the time. Thanks to Reagan who had a backbone to stand up to them unlike other U.S. Presidents, that is no longer the case.

I am curious a to your take on why a country with only 250 million can produce that of the EU which has 2X3 times the people. Or China that has 4X or more the people.

I submit it is the system with which we operate. I will say I know it isn't perfect by any means. But I also believe there is none better at this time. Your take?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by jnewbyjr
I am curious a to your take on why a country with only 250 million can produce that of the EU which has 2X3 times the people. Or China that has 4X or more the people.
Some data:

Gross Domestic Product (Billions $)
EU : 8623.0
US : 10383.1

Population (Millions)
EU : 379.6
US : 289.0

Where did you get the crazy idea that the EU has over 2 or up to 3 times more people? The explanation for China is quite simple : bad government policy for decades. The explanation for Europe (http://home.t-online.de/home/EikeBiehler/eu_e.htm) : country like Greece, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal tear the average down. In case of Greece a civil war (it was a colony of Great Britain then) and a US backed military junta did little good. Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships remaining in place until around 1980, long after WWII which some Americans claim was to "free Europe from fascism". In case of Italy : eternal political instability, corruption and maffia. In case of Ireland : the British have done their best to ruin them as long as possible. And as for the British themselves : ask them, I don't know. Maybe Tatcher left a ruin.

[jnewbyjr]

My mistake, I was including Russia with Europe but indicated EU which was misleading and wrong.

I'm sure you can show why each country didn't or doesn't pull their weight, as I can show why many states within the U.S. didn't pull theirs as well. To keep my point simple, why not take the strongest country within the EU or Europe and compare to one state - California which has the 5th largest GDP in the entire world.

You made my point entirely, bad polictical polices can bring a country to their knees as Europe has pointed out, and China, and Canada, and Russia, and Iran, and Iraq, and Mexico, and every other country who's citizens are fighting to get to America and make a decent way of life. Still my point stands, there are some forms of government that encourage growth and creativity, others stifle it and are inefficent.

I guess we must both come up with crazy ideas, since when does anyone in the United States think WWII was about anything except getting rid of the Nazi and Japan war machines that had trampled nearly two entire continnents 6except Great Britian and to a degree Russia? If history serves me well, we fought to stay out of the war until both Japan and Germany decided to make it personal and start targeting our ships in the Atlantic and making minch-meat out of Pearl Harbor.

[RepublicanGal]

I'm sorry...I know that there is much to read in this thread, but I am still stuck on the life insurance policy. I assumed that ANYONE on whom a life-insurance policy was taken had to be informed, legally. Turns out that's not quite true:

[quote]he suit claims that collectively, policies on other rank-and-file Wal-Mart workers were worth millions of dollars. There is no requirement to report such corporate policies, and when the employee dies, Wall-Mart collects the insurance, none of which goes to the families.

Companies commonly take "key-man" policies out on high-level employees, the loss of whom would affect the overall business. But companies also take out "janitors insurance" on lower-level employees, in whom they have less stake.[/i]

And Wal-Mart takes that to the intended limit and crosses over it into the gray area. And there are those who don't have a problem with this?

As far as loss-leaders and big corporations, I keep seeing text from "Grapes of Wrath" floating before my eyes. Don't get me wrong...please...I am a great supporter of free enterprise . But to prey upon unkowing employees and profit from their deaths? Sure shows where Wal-Mart will go.

I suppose you all heard of the stampede that nearly killed a woman, when Wal-Mart allowed an enormous, unruly crowd to gather, without any planned crowd control, to buy $27 ($29?) DVD players. They blew a siren at the time they opened the doors. Like dogs at a race, the crowd stampeded. Wal-Mart felt so bad that they offered to keep one of the DVD players on hold for the woman, because they "didn't want to lose her business". Man, Wal-Mart must have some powerful legal department.

However...to date, at least, we still have the freedom of choice. I chose to avoid K-Mart when their quality of service dropped, tired of unmarked prices and poor service, and tired of listening to their employees gripe. Turns out that is the reason many others stopped, too. Every person I encountered who used to shop at K-Mart also stopped for that reason.

I choose not to shop at Wal-Mart. After this round of publicity, many others will, too. If one large corporation can shoot itself in the foot, so can another.

[Dave]

Originally posted by RepublicanGal
I'm sorry...I know that there is much to read in this thread, but I am still stuck on the life insurance policy. I assumed that ANYONE on whom a life-insurance policy was taken had to be informed, legally. Turns out that's not quite true:

[quote]he suit claims that collectively, policies on other rank-and-file Wal-Mart workers were worth millions of dollars. There is no requirement to report such corporate policies, and when the employee dies, Wall-Mart collects the insurance, none of which goes to the families.

Companies commonly take "key-man" policies out on high-level employees, the loss of whom would affect the overall business. But companies also take out "janitors insurance" on lower-level employees, in whom they have less stake.[/i]

And Wal-Mart takes that to the intended limit and crosses over it into the gray area. And there are those who don't have a problem with this?

As far as loss-leaders and big corporations, I keep seeing text from "Grapes of Wrath" floating before my eyes. Don't get me wrong...please...I am a great supporter of free enterprise . But to prey upon unkowing employees and profit from their deaths? Sure shows where Wal-Mart will go.

I suppose you all heard of the stampede that nearly killed a woman, when Wal-Mart allowed an enormous, unruly crowd to gather, without any planned crowd control, to buy $27 ($29?) DVD players. They blew a siren at the time they opened the doors. Like dogs at a race, the crowd stampeded. Wal-Mart felt so bad that they offered to keep one of the DVD players on hold for the woman, because they "didn't want to lose her business". Man, Wal-Mart must have some powerful legal department.

However...to date, at least, we still have the freedom of choice. I chose to avoid K-Mart when their quality of service dropped, tired of unmarked prices and poor service, and tired of listening to their employees gripe. Turns out that is the reason many others stopped, too. Every person I encountered who used to shop at K-Mart also stopped for that reason.

I choose not to shop at Wal-Mart. After this round of publicity, many others will, too. If one large corporation can shoot itself in the foot, so can another.


We've been over this insurance thing. I respectfully request you to do your home work, including getting replys from wal-mart's side of the story. Some facts are nothing more than a persons point of view. Search, the truth is out there.

[RepublicanGal]

Been doin' it, Dave; thanks. Will read the entire thread...and if what I found hasn't already been chewed up and spit out, may I respectfully submit my homework? ;)

[Dave]

Originally posted by RepublicanGal
Been doin' it, Dave; thanks. Will read the entire thread...and if what I found hasn't already been chewed up and spit out, may I respectfully submit my homework? ;)


I'd prefer to have it no other way. Since you use the name RepublicanGal, I'd like to invite your views on the bush lies tread.