BS: Has Walmart been defeated?

Subject: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:40 AM

The Democrats latest strategy for getting elected:

A Coordinated Democratic Assault on Wal-Mart
Clay Waters 8/17/2006 1:29:42 PM

A Coordinated Democratic Assault on Wal-Mart
Posted by: Clay Waters
8/17/2006 1:29:42 PM

Political reporter Adam Nagourney and anti-Wal-Mart specialist Michael Barbaro team up to cover the Democrat's latest campaign tactic -- a coordinated attack on Wal-Mart. After teeing off with Sen. Joe Biden laying into the company at a speech in Des Moines, they continue:

"Among Democrats, Biden is not alone. Across Iowa this week and across much of the country this month, Democratic leaders have found a new rallying cry that many of them say could prove powerful in the midterm elections and into 2008: denouncing Wal-Mart for what they say are substandard wages and health care benefits."

The Times insists on casting the anti-Wal-Mart crusade as a "populist," not a liberal, campaign, even though the Democrats are pushing typical big-government ideas like hiking the minimum wage as part of their solution.

"The focus on Wal-Mart is part of a broader strategy of addressing what Democrats say is general economic anxiety and a growing sense that economic gains of recent years have not benefited the middle class or the working poor.

"Their alliance with the anti-Wal-Mart campaign dovetails with their emphasis in Washington on raising the minimum wage and doing more to make health insurance affordable. It also suggests they will go into the midterm Congressional elections this fall and the 2008 presidential race striking a populist tone.

"Some Democrats expressed concern about the direction the party was heading, saying it could turn back efforts by such party leaders as former President Bill Clinton to erase the image of the party as anti-business and scare off corporations that might be inclined to make contributions.

"Still, what is striking about this campaign is the ideological breadth of the Democrats who have joined in, including some who in the past have warned the party against appearing hostile to business interests."

The text box also claims that there is "An offensive from across the ideological spectrum."

That spectrum apparently spans from unlabeled liberals like Ned Lamont and Sen. Hillary Clinton all the way to...Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, whose lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 21 out of 100 isn't all that centrist (by comparison, Sen. Clinton's rating is 9).

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who was a member of Wal-Mart's board when she lived in Arkansas, the corporation's home state, returned a $5,000 campaign contribution from the company last year. Mrs. Clinton said she did so to protest Wal-Mart's health care benefits, and she has continued to distance herself from the policies of a company she was close to when she was the first lady of Arkansas....'It's not anti-business,' said Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a former head of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, appearing at an anti-Wal-Mart rally on Tuesday. 'Wal-Mart has become emblematic of the anxiety around the country, and the middle-class squeeze.'"

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2006/20060817132454.aspx

Woooooo Hooooooo Way to go! Keep up the good work. Get'er Done Boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:45 AM

"...denouncing Wal-Mart for what they say are substandard wages and health care benefits." Do you dispute it?


typical big-government ideas like hiking the minimum wage as part of their solution. Oh. A minimum wage that has not been changed in nine years- even to keep up with inflation - is a good thing. I see.


"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who was a member of Wal-Mart's board when she lived in Arkansas, the corporation's home state, returned a $5,000 campaign contribution from the company last year. Mrs. Clinton said she did so to protest Wal-Mart's health care benefits, and she has continued to distance herself from the policies of a company she was close to when she was the first lady of Arkansas...."

Wal-Mart is a different critter today from what it was when it began, boyo. Somebody ought to do their research.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 04:50 AM

This song can also be sung to the tune "Will the circle be unbroken".

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: kendall
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 05:30 AM

Old Guy, tell me ONE thing that the Republicans (Conservatives) have ever done for the benefit of the working man/woman. ONE thing.

Why didn't the vote on minimum wage pass? Because the republicans attached a parasite to it that called for removing the estate tax.
Minimum wage would cost millions, and removal of the estate tax would benefit 1% of the population and cost BILLIONS.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:08 AM

Can someone tell me why responding to Fat Old Woody's inane & mindless cut-qnd-paste crap is a productive thing to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:50 AM

Captain, there is no hope for those that will not be swayed. I believe one needs only to look at some key stat's and the obvious conclusion will be reached. Take a look at the amount the average CEO makes per dollar made by his employee. Contrast todays figures against 20 years ago. Then ask yourself this. Anyone you know got those kind of increases? Take a look at the polarization of the money. The gap between richest and poorest is at an alarming rate. More and more money is centralizing in fewer and fewer hands. Examine how the tax breaks are all falling to the people who least need them.

The American Dream hasn't died, but it is on life support. It used to be said that anyone who was willing to work hard could make it. Tell that to all the folks working two and three jobs just to make ends meet.

I crack up at the "old guys" that are living on pensions, that they got because of unions, chastising all these lazy folks that are working two jobs, and none of them have a decent defined benefit pension plan. Health insurance is being provided to many of these "old guys" by the work of the collective bargaining units, but they will tell you that unions aren't needed anymore.

Walmart isn't defeated, not even close. And they are just the tip of the iceberg. Biggest player, and biggest target, in a war to save the American working class. They are playing a very sophisticated game of "make it look like one thing, when really it's another". The stakes for working families are huge.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:10 AM

"ONE thing":

Bush Limits Eminent-Domain Seizures

Associated Press
Saturday, June 24, 2006; Page A05

President Bush ordered yesterday that federal agencies cannot seize private property except for public projects such as hospitals or roads. The move occurred on the one-year anniversary of a controversial Supreme Court decision that gave local governments broad power to bulldoze people's homes for commercial development.

The majority opinion in the Supreme Court case involving New London, Conn., homeowners limited the homeowners' rights by saying local governments could take private property for economic-development-related projects because the motive was to bring more jobs and tax revenue to a city.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062301722.html

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:18 AM

"I crack up at the "old guys" that are living on pensions, that they got because of unions"

I hate unions and I do not get a pension. Unions are what run US businesses offshore. Of course businesses are evil when they operate in the US and when they move out of the country, they are still evil.

And Libs hate Republicans because they are not chumsey wumsey with Unions. Dems try to suck up to them for votes.

And Walmart is not unionized and a natural target for the Dems.

It's lots easier for the Democrats to target Wallmart than terrorisim.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:38 AM

Old Guy, you betray your own arguments. What runs businesses offshore is their desire to take advantage of workers. They don't want to pay a living wage with simple health insurance benefits and some kind of retirement option. In other words, they don't want to take part in the American Dream. They prefer the old days of company stores, blackballs, and the ability to use people as a commodity to be used up and cast off. If we pass simple laws here that provide for this as well as protecting our environment and education system, they just move offshore. In other words, capital over people.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:51 AM

Do you support slavery, old Guy?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 11:13 AM

Washington Times: Inside the Beltway:

    In passing the 2005 Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, Congress this week handed itself a pay raise - jacking up its annual salary nearly $4,000 above a current income of $158,000.

    It marks the sixth straight year that Congress has accepted an automatic pay raise. Hats off to two-term Rep. Jim Matheson, Utah Democrat, who last week made a procedural attempt to prevent the annual pay increase, but his measure was voted down 235 to 170.

    All site contents copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc.

Matheson donates his pay raise to local charities every time his attempt to vote against this shit fails. More here:

    The congressman's remarks did little to prevent what has become almost automatic since 1989 when lawmakers opted to take politics out of pay raises. House members voted 235 to 170 Tuesday on a procedural measure that essentially endorses the pay raise and allows the annual cost-of-living allowance to take effect.

    Not since 1998 has Congress turned down the raise, and it has only done so five times in the past 14 years. The base salary for members of Congress -- those in leadership positions earn more -- this year is $158,100.

    Copyright ©2004 The Spectrum. All rights reserved.

    Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, these are difficult times for our Nation. We are fighting terrorism on numerous fronts. We have commitments to keep our troops overseas, and we struggle to meet our needs here at home. Our economy needs a boost, unemployment is high, and our future budget deficits are predicted to be the highest in the history of this great Nation.

    Now is not the time for Members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise. We need to show the American people that we are willing to make sacrifices. We need to budget, live within our means, and make careful spending decisions based on our most pressing priorities.

    Mr. Speaker, let us send a signal to the American people that we recognize their struggle in today's economy. Vote "no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to block the automatic cost-of-living adjustment to Members of Congress. This vote ought to be cast in the light of day and on the record. A "no'' vote on the previous question will allow Members to vote up or down on the cost-of-living adjustment.

    If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will block the fiscal year 2005 automatic cost-of-living pay raise for Members of Congress. Because this amendment requires a waiver, the only way to get to this issue is to defeat the previous question. Therefore, I urge Members to vote "no'' on the previous question.

Here are the House Reps who voted for Matheson's measure to be defeated. Keep this list in mind the next time you hear a Rep bitch about the budget deficit, a lack of funds for programs, or loudly voicing concern for the poor. Texans are ALL CAPS; Austin reps are bolded:

    Abercrombie Akin Andrews Baca Bachus BARTON (TX) Bass Berman Biggert Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Boehner BONILLA Bono Brady (PA) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Brown-Waite, Ginny Butterfield Buyer Calvert Camp Cantor Capuano Cardin --CARTER-- Clay Clyburn Cole Collins Cooper Cox Cramer Crane Crenshaw Cubin CULBERSON Cummings Cunningham Davis (AL) Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis, Tom Deal (GA) DeGette Delahunt DeLauro DELAY Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dicks Dingell Dooley (CA) Doolittle Doyle Dreier Dunn Ehlers Emanuel Eshoo Everett Farr Fattah Feeney Ferguson Foley Frank (MA) Frelinghuysen FROST Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gilchrest Gillmor GONZALEZ Goodlatte Goss GRANGER GREEN (TX) Grijalva Gutierrez Gutknecht Harman Hastings (WA) Hefley Herger Hinchey HINOJOSA Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Honda Houghton Hoyer Hunter Hyde Israel Issa Istook Jackson (IL) JACKSON-LEE (TX) Jefferson JOHNSON, SAM Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kennedy (RI) Kilpatrick King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline Knollenberg Kolbe Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) LaTourette Leach Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Linder Lipinski Lowey Lucas (OK) Maloney Manzullo Markey Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCotter McCrery McDermott McHugh McKeon McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Millender- McDonald Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Miller, George Mollohan Moran (VA) Murtha Myrick Nadler Neal (MA) Ney Nunes Oberstar Olver ORTIZ Osborne Otter Oxley Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Pence Pickering Pombo Portman Pryce (OH) Putnam Quinn Radanovich Rangel Regula Rehberg REYES Reynolds RODRIGUEZ Rogers (KY) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Sabo Saxton Schakowsky Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Sessions Shadegg Shaw Sherman Simpson Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) --SMITH (TX)-- Solis Souder Spratt Stark Sweeney Tauscher Thomas Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) THORNBERRY Tiberi Turner (OH) Van Hollen Velazquez Visclosky Walsh Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Woolsey Wynn Young (AK) Young (FL)

    These people didn't cast a vote:

    Ackerman
    Baker
    Ballenger
    Blackburn
    Boehlert
    Bonner
    Burton (IN)
    Cannon
    Conyers
    Crowley
    Engel
    Gephardt
    Greenwood
    Hastings (FL)
    JOHNSON, EDDIE B.
    Kleczka
    Langevin
    McInnis
    Miller (FL)
    Nethercutt
    Owens
    Schrock
    Serrano
    Sherwood
    Slaughter
    Tauzin
    Towns
    Whitfield

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 12:19 PM

Buth of your insinuations that I am getting a pension and I am union are false. How des that belie anybody but you?

For the record, are you pro union and therefore pro old guys living on union pensions and amusing you? Or are you anti union and therefore against old guys living on union pensions and expressing their opinions?

Anybody that objects to being taken advantage of by an evil corporation can start his own business. Legal emigrants can't wait to get to the USA, land of opportunity, and start a business while the natives sit on their asses and piss and moan about how bad things are in the US.

I am against slavery which is caused by Democrats as well as Republicans by promoting Illegal immigration. The Dems do it because they want the votes. The Republicans do it because they want the cheap labor.


So anyway, are the Democrats going to ride this anti-Walmart strategy to victory by appealing to all the pissers and moaners?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 12:27 PM

Old Guy--

If you were truly against slavery---which I interpret in this case as exploitation of of illegal immigrants, you'd be in favor of a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. If they remain illegal immigrants, they are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. They are not about to leave, since they do have jobs and often families in the US.

Since you are not in favor of such a path to citizenship, I'm unwillingly forced to the conclusion that you are, not to put too fine a point on it---a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 12:35 PM

"...denouncing Wal-Mart for what they say are substandard wages and health care benefits." Do you say it is true?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 12:38 PM

Congress OKs raise despite Matheson

Cannon, Bishop join in effort to avert hike — and fail a fifth time
By Jerry Spangler
Deseret Morning News
      WASHINGTON — In a way, Congress again voted itself a pay raise Tuesday, this time to the tune of 1.9 percent, or $3,100. But members can all go home and tell voters they didn't really vote to boost their pay.
      It just sort of happened automatically.
      Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, tried again — and failed again — to persuade his colleagues to reject the automatic congressional pay raise that is wrapped inside an appropriations bill.
      "We are at war, and that requires shared sacrifices," Matheson said. "Let us send a signal to the American people that Congress gets it. A little belt-tightening wouldn't hurt anyone around here."
      Matheson said the $8 trillion federal debt has put every man, woman and child "on the hook" for $26,000 in government debt. And he finds it ill-timed that lawmakers would be giving themselves pay raises.
      Reps. Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop, both Utah Republicans, joined Matheson in supporting the procedural move. But in the end, 263 representatives voted to end debate while 152 voted with Matheson.
      This is the fifth time in five years Matheson has attempted the procedural move on the House floor and the fifth time he has failed. This time around, he got 18 fewer votes than the 170 he got in a similar vote taken last September. If that motion were defeated, then Matheson could offer an amendment blocking the automatic pay increases.
      Matheson's procedural approach is the only means whereby members of the House actually vote on their pay, which will stand at $165,200 in the 2006 fiscal year.
      Matheson said he will again donate his pay raise to local Utah charities.
      Without Matheson's annual efforts, congressional pay raises would quietly slip thorough the legislative process.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 12:39 PM

Mr. Guy--

What about "slavery" and exploitation of illegal immigrants? Are you in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants or not?

Just a yes or no will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 12:49 PM

I am for legal immigration and against illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal emmigrants.

Immigration is what made this country great.

What is your position and will the Democrats win with this anti Walmart platform?

By the way, Walmart is a benefactor to immigrants. At Walmart you can send money back home to Mexico for less than is costs to send money to some place in America.

So if you are pro illegal immigration and anti-Walmart, you hypocritical.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:06 PM

Mr. Guy--

You're dodging the question, in classic Bushite fashion. I'm talking about the illegal immigrants already here (estimated 12 million). Path to citizenship for them or not?

Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:09 PM

And without being forced to leave the US first. If that is a condition, they'll never come out of the shadows. (In their place, I wouldn't either).

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:28 PM

Wal-Mart Looking to Buy, Sell, or Steal an Ethical Image

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:30 PM

Can you grasp this statement?:"against illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal emmigrants". Does "Path to citizenship"=Amnesty?

If the current administration, GWB, would enforce the law that says you cannot employ illegal immigrants. They would have to come out of the shadows, leave and enter legally.

I don't expect people that are doing something illegal to suddenly stop doing it.

We went through this amnesty shit before and one part of the deal was enforcement of the laws. They were not enforced and here we are again, in an even worse situation.

Do I still represent a "Bushite" to you? If so you are having difficulty proccessing information.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:58 PM

Mr. Guy--


How do you propose to toss out 12 million out? I thought you were a "conservative"--against big government?    So it seems you're a hypocrite on this too. Fascinating.

To get all the 12 million out, you'd need to expand the Customs Service dramatically---and possibly have informants--a la Gestapo.

Sounds like your philosophy, all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:14 PM

Old Guy's display of irrational hatred (not just disagreement with, but full-blown hatred) of anything to the left of Benito Mussolini is an example of what someone on another thread so aptly described as "profound ignorance combined with absolute certainy."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:32 PM

Adhering to the law = irrational hatred?

Adhering to the law = Profound ignorance?

Sounds like somebody going off on tangents to avoid facing facts.

The illegals came here to find work.

What do they do if there is no work ?

Did the previous Amnesty program succeed or did it fail?

It has no relation to Mussolini or the Gestappo except on your shakey defence of Amnesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:36 PM

Facts? You? Talking about facts?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:42 PM

Evidently you don't have any. Just tripe about how enforcing the law is Gestappo tactics or Mussolini tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:53 PM

And don't forget, If you are pro-Amnesty you are pro-Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: pdq
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:59 PM

Old Guy...look at the good side. Don Firth changed his act enough to equate you with Mussolini. Usually he just calls anyone is not in perfect agreement with him a Nazi.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 03:02 PM

Facts a-plenty. But rather than wasting my time arguing with someone who wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the butt, I'll let someone else handle it. Lots of folks here seem to be willing, so I'll leave it to them. I'm not going to blow a perfectly good Sunday trying to educate someone who thinks he knows it all already.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: kendall
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 03:33 PM

Let's watch the name calling folks, that gets us nowhere.

Old Guy, I said FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WORKING MAN. Is that the best you can do? Did you know that Supreme Court Justice David Souter's own house was in the cross hairs of that land grab? Do you call him a working man?
I'm talking about things such as, Minimum wage, Social security, the 40 hour week, child labor laws and the vote for women. What have the republicans ever done to equal those?

The gap between rich and poor is growing, and anyone who knows anything about French history knows what happened when the starving peasants got enough.
In 1900, there was no middle class here. There was rich and poor. Labor unions created the middle class. "Labor unions, the folks who gave you the weekends, and vacations".
What a paradise this country could be if we stayed home and minded our own damn business and stopped making enemies! A billion dollars a week. How many hospitals and schools would that buy?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 03:35 PM

You lie, pdq. I have never called anybody a Nazi.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 03:44 PM

Old Guy--

I repeat---are you for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants--without their leaving the US--or not?

Just cut the bobbing and weaving--and answer the question.

Thank you so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: pdq
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 03:53 PM

Firth...equating someone who disagrees with you to Hitler is the same thing as calling them a Nazi. Equating someone who disagrees with you to Mussolini is the same as calling them a Fascist. You do both on a regular basis. Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 04:01 PM

And, yes, I'm aware Bush is in favor of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Like a broken clock, he's right once in a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 04:05 PM

Name one country or person in this world who does not enslave others.

"Name me someone who's not a parasite and I'll go out and say a prayer for him." B Dylan

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 05:00 PM

But that doesn't mean we should be in favor of making it easy to exploit people--say, illegal immigrants---and it is easy to exploit them now. The way to change that is to put them all on a path to citizenship--and to support a rise in the minimum wage.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 05:01 PM

Still lying, pdq. And your apparent inability to grasp the distinctions between a Nazi and a fascist reveal your tenuous grasp of political science. A Nazi is a fascist. But a fascist is not necessarily a Nazi. Mussolini was not a Nazi.

I have never called anyone here a Nazi or a fascist or a Hitler or a Mussolini. I will, however, point out if someone is espousing ideas that are in line with the philosophy of fascism. This doesn't necessarily make them a fascist, but they should be aware of the nature of what it is they are advocating.

You might try educating yourself on the subject instead of going off half-cocked and accusing people of things you don't understand.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 05:08 PM

Old Guy, I'm curious- earlier you were on about Walmart. No longer interested in their employee pay and health benefits? Not interested in the fact that many Walmart employees sign up for food stamps and other governmental aid and - sadly - qualify for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 05:16 PM

Any Wal-mart stock holders here?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: pdq
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 05:17 PM

Blather on, Firth. You are mis-quoting as usual. Is the only way you can 'win' by personal attacks or mis-quoting people?

As soon as someone dares to disagree with you, out come "Hitler", "moron", "Mussolini", "Nazi", "idiot", or you say that someone is not capable of understaning your self-imagined superiority.

Blather on. If you argue using facts you might lose. If you can't muster any facts to support you contentions, you have already lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Slag
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 06:23 PM

Yep, there I was, just walking down through my favorite strip mall and Big-Box block, minding my own business, thinking of where to spend my public assistance money when suddenly two big burly Wal-Mart recruiters jumped out from behind the trash bins and Shanghaied me. They MADE me go to work for them! What was I to do??? OH what was I to do???? They had no UNION to turn to! True, they started me out at higher than minimum wage but this was going to ruin my welfare life style. God, I might even have to start paying taxes like all the rich people. Then I'd have even less money. My friends would leave me. Oh what EVIL this store is. If only I could figure out some way to not have to work for this unscrupulous outfit! But how? If only the free market concepts were at play then I could choose to go elsewhere but until that happens I am a virtual slave for WAL-MART.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 06:26 PM

Sowell defends Wal-Mart, ignores workers' dependence on Medicaid, food stamps
In his May 12 syndicated column, Thomas Sowell criticized those urging higher wages for employees of the discount retailer Wal-Mart. Sowell referenced a May 4 New York Times article that contained a quote from a Wal-Mart employee who said he was not earning a living wage. Sowell asked: "How is he living, if he is not making a living wage?" Several studies show that he might in fact be getting help through government assistance programs.

Sowell argued that Wal-Mart stockholders should not have to subsidize higher wages for Wal-Mart workers "through lower earnings," but he apparently failed to recognize that taxpayers are subsidizing Wal-Mart stockholders and executives through the high levels of public assistance that are used by its employees compared with other retail workers. A number of studies and analyses have shown that taxpayer-funded government programs are picking up the tab resulting from Wal-Mart's low wages and insufficient health insurance coverage.


from

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505120009

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 06:46 PM

Slag--


Well, if Walmart hadn't driven the other stores in your area out of business, you'd have other options. (Sounds like your fantasy is wide open--if other ideas are not welcome, you'd best say why.)

And if everybody is so happy to work at Walmart, why all the lawsuits--including some which Walmart has already paid--and a huge one, by women, for underpayment?

And sorry, it's not just those evil union organizers that you seem to fear--Walmart employees themselves are not all happy little bunnies.

Even other big-box stores treat their employees better than Walmart--Costco for instance--do I have to post the comparisons again?   Why do you suppose Walmart fought the recently passed Maryland bill mandating that it pay 8% of its income to a fund for medical care in Maryland. (And so far, Walmart is winning). If they provided decent health care for their employees, the bill would not ever have come up. Interesting that you think Maryland taxpayers should pay for the medical care
for Walmart employees that Walmart is unwilling to pay itself.

Good thing you're not a Maryland voter.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: kendall
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:39 PM

I'm still waiting, old Guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 08:49 PM

You compound your felony, pdg. Cite instances or shut the hell up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:00 PM

Global search of Mudcat turns up nothing, so if anyone knows of any instances where I called someone here a Nazi or a fascist, will you please point it out to me? I mean the specific posts in which I did this.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: pdq
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:05 PM

Yo Firth...

This thread itself is a perfect example. You have supplied 0% fact and 100% personal attack. If you think people who disagree with you will leave because you are rude, think again. Actually, just think. Believe me, if you insist on 'rude' you may start getting some of it back.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:06 PM

You called Hitler a Nazi, Don. I remember that.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:16 PM

"FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WORKING MAN"

Are you implying people that own property do not work?

Or are you implying working men do not own property?

"I'm talking about things such as, Minimum wage, Social security, the 40 hour week, child labor laws and the vote for women. What have the republicans ever done to equal those?"

There was a small item known as the Emancipation Proclamation.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Walmart been defeated?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 06 - 10:37 PM

Exactly so, Peace.

What I said was:

"Old Guy's display of irrational hatred (not just disagreement with, but full-blown hatred) of anything to the left of Benito Mussolini is an example of what someone on another thread so aptly described as "profound ignorance combined with absolute certainty."

Let me parse it for you, pdq. I accuse Old Guy of irrational hatred for liberals, I strongly imply that he is "profoundly ignorant" and "absolutely certain" in his ignorance. I also accuse him of hating anything or anybody that is extreme Right Wing. That is what Benito Mussolini represents in what I wrote.

Nowhere did I call Old Guy and Nazi or a fascist. And nowhere have I called anybody on this forum a Nazi or a fascist.

If you want rude, pdq, look to yourself. Deliberately trying to misrepresent what someone else said is pretty rude. And a few other things.

Don Firth