T1B

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Maybe he shouldn't be wasting his money on a baseball team. I mean, he should just take all that money he has and give it away, without expecting a tax write-off You're bold in your brazen, unabashed hypocrisy, I'll acknowledge that.

The hypocrisy is watching "free market" Republicans turn into socialists the second it looks like a political rival might score a deal.

I don't see anything in the quotes you've provided where they are saying he CANNOT buy the team. I see speculation about "hinting at revoking...." but direct quote like "We might revoke...."

Other than the known reaction of many in this area. If Soros buys the team, the Nat's lose a lot of fans. It's not good business sense.

Were I to read between the lines, I might conclude they're planning something, but realize that is just a conclusion I draw .... sometimes our conclusions aren't accurate.

And guess what, the free market is rife with politics, and bullshit like this.

But what does that have to do with your polarized attitude towards Walton's philanthropy and Soros' ? Between Walton's capitalistic ways and Soros'. This is the standard liberal clap trap. "People shouldn't own but one home", quoting some actor or actress in his/her summer home

Tom In VA wrote:I don't see anything in the quotes you've provided where they are saying he CANNOT buy the team. I see speculation about "hinting at revoking...." but direct quote like "We might revoke...."

Oh you are so coy. You know damn well that the anti-trust exemption is a bigazz hammer to be swinging. Revocation of the anti-trust exemption is a big freaking deal. And the GOP is obviously using it as leverage to push MLB in the direction they want.

Again, hardly something one would expect from free market supporters.

Other than the known reaction of many in this area. If Soros buys the team, the Nat's lose a lot of fans. It's not good business sense.

Now if you said Angelos, I'd buy it. But what does the average person care if Soros buys a team? As long as he's willing to spend for a winner, I'm sure the fans would back him. And that's what scares Republicans.

Sure is scary how bread and circus politics hasn't changed much since Roman times.

Were I to read between the lines, I might conclude they're planning something, but realize that is just a conclusion I draw .... sometimes our conclusions aren't accurate.

This conclusion is.

And guess what, the free market is rife with politics, and bullshit like this.

But what does that have to do with your polarized attitude towards Walton's philanthropy and Soros' ? Between Walton's capitalistic ways and Soros'. This is the standard liberal clap trap. "People shouldn't own but one home", quoting some actor or actress in his/her summer home

I'm not sure I ever offered an opinion on Soros' philanthropy. I suspect he is more active than Walton was in his charity. I also suspect that Soros has been better to the people responsible for his millions than Walton ever dreamed of being. But, that's just conjecture.

"Sure is scary how bread and circus politics hasn't changed much since Roman times."

Not really. Human nature had already reached the pinnacle of it's evolution. The technology has changed, and evolved, and we've discovered and found a lot more but more or less underneath it all is a fallible, frail, and corruptible human being.

I also suspect that Soros has been better to the people responsible for his millions than Walton ever dreamed of being. But, that's just conjecture.

The Walton’s didn’t make their millions because they pay their employees so little, Target and K-Mart pay roughly the same in wages, as do the Mom and Pop stores. Wal-Mart was incredibly successful because they targeted small communities while their competitors went after big cities, enabling WM to have monopolies across the nation. They also went to the companies that manufactured products like shampoos and deodorant and showed them how they could re-tool their manufacturing process to make the product more efficiently and at lower cost and then demanded a sweetheart deal, which the manufacturer was more than happy to give. Translation: They were smart innovators.

To use your analogy: You act like Wal-Mart is on third base because they got hit by a pitch and then benefited from two balks, when the truth is that they belted a triple and are about to stroll home while Target and K-Mart are standing on the mound still trying to figure out how WM got on base in the first place.

Truth is, if big US businesses adopted even a few of Wal-Mart’s business practices (no, not paying substandard wage, smartass :D), they’d see a huge jump in profits too, but most lack the vision and proactivity to take those sorts of steps. They'd rather wait to see what Wal-Mart and others do that works and then adopt those strategies after they've been proven. This is why Wal-Mart leads the pack and everyone whines as they try to catch up.

Variable wrote:Wal-Mart was incredibly successful because they targeted small communities ...

This part of it is true. Nothing like coming in, building a store on the outskirts of town, lowering your prices enough to kill downtowns of small towns across America, then jacking their prices back up once the competition is gone.

Yeah, Wal-Mart sure has been an improvment over mom and pop businesses and small-town downtowns.

RadioFan wrote:

Variable wrote:Wal-Mart was incredibly successful because they targeted small communities ...

This part of it is true. Nothing like coming in, building a store on the outskirts of town, lowering your prices enough to kill downtowns of small towns across America, then jacking their prices back up once the competition is gone.

Cite?

BSmack wrote:I wonder what it would take to get the rest of those cicksuckers up in a homemade aircraft?

Blood sucking illegal alien hiring WalMart heir does the world a favor

Neocon meltdown in 3...2...1

I'm always interested in listening to the opinions of others to get different perspectives on things. Now, let me see if I follow you here.

It's o.k. to kill the heir(s) of a big-business multi-millionair becasue he/they may have contributed to a charity for selfish, tax-evading reasons. But it's NOT o.k. to take a terror suspect who wants you dead and put him in a room cold enough to make him shiver and turn on some rap music.

Are surprised that left wingers are complete hypocrites? That isn't news.

then jacking their prices back up once the competition is gone.

Link?

Wal-Mart has the lowest prices around, bar none. The whole reason they succeed is that they find ways of selling products for lower prices than their competitors. Capitalism 101, AKA sound business practices.

I don't see the same people bitching about how Blockbuster put Mom & Pop video stores out of business and charges minimum wage. Why?

Blockbuster sucks donkey dick.
WAR Netflix.

That's all.
Continue.

"It's o.k. to kill the heir(s) of a big-business multi-millionair becasue he/they may have contributed to a charity for selfish, tax-evading reasons. But it's NOT o.k. to take a terror suspect who wants you dead and put him in a room cold enough to make him shiver and turn on some rap music."


They're essentially the same person. I assure you that neither one has your best interests at heart.

mvscal wrote:It isn't about loopholes. It's about poor translations.

Shhhhhhh your not supposed to say that to loud in the presence of the Christian brotherhood ;)

Rushville wrote:I'm always interested in listening to the opinions of others to get different perspectives on things. Now, let me see if I follow you here.

It's o.k. to kill the heir(s) of a big-business multi-millionair becasue he/they may have contributed to a charity for selfish, tax-evading reasons. But it's NOT o.k. to take a terror suspect who wants you dead and put him in a room cold enough to make him shiver and turn on some rap music.

You make some strange linkage. Meds wearing off?

You make some strange linkage. Meds wearing off?

He makes entirely too much sense. You WOULD think he's medicated.

Here's to Walton being the first of many.

Trump dies when the Trump Jet crashes into Trump Towers.

You may call me a dreamer.

Variable wrote:

I also suspect that Soros has been better to the people responsible for his millions than Walton ever dreamed of being. But, that's just conjecture.

The Walton’s didn’t make their millions because they pay their employees so little, Target and K-Mart pay roughly the same in wages, as do the Mom and Pop stores.

When I hear of K-Mart & Target being sued in twenty eight or so states for not paying overtime, of which six involve locking their employees inside the store over night, then I'll consider them in the same league as Wal-Fart. :roll:

RadioFan wrote:

Variable wrote:Wal-Mart was incredibly successful because they targeted small communities ...

This part of it is true. Nothing like coming in, building a store on the outskirts of town, lowering your prices enough to kill downtowns of small towns across America, then jacking their prices back up once the competition is gone.

Yeah, Wal-Mart sure has been an improvment over mom and pop businesses and small-town downtowns.

Why do you people demand that we pay higher prices??

It's hilarious to watch the liberals complain so much about a company that employs millions and millions of the very people the liberals claim to want to help. So much do they want to help that liberals are willing to compel Wal-Mart to raise its prices.

It's not enough for a wealthy person to give away a fortune to fund an eeucational program, nooooo, he must be shaken down and forced to accept unions and pay his employees much more than they should be.

Reminds of Diego arguing that $19/hr for grocery store cashiers was not nearly enough.

DrDetroit wrote:It's hilarious to watch the liberals complain so much about a company that employs millions and millions of the very people the liberals claim to want to help. So much do they want to help that liberals are willing to compel Wal-Mart to raise its prices.

It's not enough for a wealthy person to give away a fortune to fund an eeucational program, nooooo, he must be shaken down and forced to accept unions and pay his employees much more than they should be.

Reminds of Diego arguing that $19/hr for grocery store cashiers was not nearly enough.

If you were offered a job that paid $40/hr but only allowed to work 5 hours a week, would you take it? If not, why?

Sorry, jerkoff, no diversions necessary.

Your arguments ring hollow. Your arguments would result in millions and millions of people being out of work and the rest of us paying inflated prices for products.

Sorry, but, uh, the people you supposedly represent would be hurt most by your inane central government planning economic policies.

DrDetroit wrote:Why do you people demand that we pay higher prices??

I'm not "demanding" anything. But my feet and my pocketbook speak for me, as I haven't even stepped once into a Goddamned Wal-Mart in the four-plus years I've lived in Tulsa.

Big difference between people who chose to save $1.29 on a pair of tennis shoes or a clock (and helping China's economy in the process) because they simply can't afford to do otherwise -- especially on big-ticket items -- and those who have simply taken on Scrooge as an "American" value.

I've got no problem with the former. Just don't ever try to extol the wonderful virtues of Wal-Mart because that pig just is never going to fly, no matter how many censored CDs they can peddle for $12.99.

Variable and SYNW, I posted earlier (re: prices) about something I witnessed in Shawnee, Okla. After looking it up, it seems there's a lot of opinions on both sides as to if Wal-Mart raises its prices after the competition is gone. Some argue they do, but only slightly on some items, some argue they don't, so I stand corrected in my statement in a general sense. However, in Shawnee, I distinctly remember some items going up once a few mom and pop stores went out of business.

RadioFan wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Why do you people demand that we pay higher prices??

I'm not "demanding" anything. But my feet and my pocketbook speak for me, as I haven't even stepped once into a Goddamned Wal-Mart in the four-plus years I've lived in Tulsa.

Big difference between people who chose to save $1.29 on a pair of tennis shoes or a clock (and helping China's economy in the process) because they simply can't afford to do otherwise -- especially on big-ticket items -- and those who have simply taken on Scrooge as an "American" value.

I've got no problem with the former. Just don't ever try to extol the wonderful virtues of Wal-Mart because that pig just is never going to fly, no matter how many censored CDs they can peddle for $12.99.

Variable and SYNW, I posted earlier (re: prices) about something I witnessed in Shawnee, Okla. After looking it up, it seems there's a lot of opinions on both sides as to if Wal-Mart raises its prices after the competition is gone. Some argue they do, but only slightly on some items, some argue they don't, so I stand corrected in my statement in a general sense. However, in Shawnee, I distinctly remember some items going up once a few mom and pop stores went out of business.

I don't know what you're talking about. I saw an Access point at Wal-Mart for the same price as one at Micro-Center, which was relatively the same price as the one Best-Buy.

All Linksys.

Please explain.

RadioFan wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Why do you people demand that we pay higher prices??

I'm not "demanding" anything. But my feet and my pocketbook speak for me, as I haven't even stepped once into a Goddamned Wal-Mart in the four-plus years I've lived in Tulsa.

Good for you. Now kindly stfu about Wal-Mart, then.

Big difference between people who chose to save $1.29 on a pair of tennis shoes or a clock (and helping China's economy in the process) because they simply can't afford to do otherwise -- especially on big-ticket items -- and those who have simply taken on Scrooge as an "American" value.

Idiot, it doesn't only help China. That "savings" gets compounded and pays for others goods and services, like groceries, auto payments, doctors bills, i.e., the "savings" is spent on things that employ the Americans that produce them or are employed by firms that sell them.

I've got no problem with the former. Just don't ever try to extol the wonderful virtues of Wal-Mart because that pig just is never going to fly, no matter how many censored CDs they can peddle for $12.99.

I don't see anyone extolling the virtues of Wal-Mart. Rather, I see people defending Wal-Mart for near constant attacks from the left.

Variable and SYNW, I posted earlier (re: prices) about something I witnessed in Shawnee, Okla. After looking it up, it seems there's a lot of opinions on both sides as to if Wal-Mart raises its prices after the competition is gone. Some argue they do, but only slightly on some items, some argue they don't, so I stand corrected in my statement in a general sense. However, in Shawnee, I distinctly remember some items going up once a few mom and pop stores went out of business.

So what?

Wal-Mart can charge what it wants. If people pay what they charge then they can maintain proces or they can increase. If people don't buy they can maintain them or reduce the prices.

Just like Wal_mart can pay their people what it wants to.

Tom In VA wrote:Please explain.

I think your example may be an exception, Tom. DVD players, stereo equipment and other basic (and poor quality in many cases) electronic items 9 times out of 10 are cheaper at Wal-Mart, though some higher-quality items may be about the same price (this was the case with USB routers, according to some computer geek co-workers of mine when I asked them about it about a year ago). I ended up getting ours at Best Buy.

If folks are simply looking for "a DVD player" as a gift, and not the Pioneer super-delux turbo-charged 4-beam video enchancer with virtual petting zoo and Farris Wheel with thought-control remote, Wal-Mart will have one cheaper in most cases, at least according to my after-Thanksgiving Day shopping co-workers and acquaintences.


Btw, DrD? I'll continue to criticize Wal-Mart all day in here, if I so choose.

EAD, bootlicker.

RF, you're right about Wal-Mart and electronics. But who goes there for a DVD player, other than those who want a cheap piece of crap? The OL and I bought each of our kids a $50 dvd player for their rooms (yeah, they're spoiled), because all we wanted was a cheap piece of crap for $50. But we wouldn't buy a tv there and I don't think most other people would either.

I'm only picking at that as an example, because it's the smallest section in their store and the vast majority of people who go there don't go there for those products. They might shop for cheap DVDs or PS2 games there, but that's about it. Most people go to Wal-Mart for cheap kids' clothes and cheap toiletries-type items. We buy those items there and shop at other stores when we want items of higher quality.

You'll never get me to defend Wal-Mart's quality. They sell a LOT of shit products, but the thing is, you're still getting what you pay for because they don't charge much for it.

So I can sleep at night answer me this please.


If my Linksys wireless NIC breaks or something and disables my ability to craft epic takes that do not suck at 9:45 PM after all the other stores are closed .... MAY I buy one at Wal-Mart without soiling anyone's panties ?


What about socks, underwear, tee-shirts, protein bars, AXE Spray, toothpaste, and Lubriderm for those lonely nights

Tom In VA wrote:MAY I buy one at Wal-Mart without soiling anyone's panties ?

No, you may not.

We've got a Target close by, and it does suck that they close at either 9 or 10 p.m., while the Wal-Mart down the road is 24 hours. I guess I've been able to sufficiently adopt a healthy planning ahead lifestyle, thanks to state law requiring liquor stores to be closed by 9 p.m. as well.

What about socks, underwear, tee-shirts, protein bars, AXE Spray, toothpaste, and Lubriderm for those lonely nights

Depends on what's on cable. If it's "The L Word," and Walgreens is closed, the Wal-Mart boycott is history.

But don't tell anybody.

DrDetroit wrote:Sorry, jerkoff, no diversions necessary.

Your arguments ring hollow. Your arguments would result in millions and millions of people being out of work and the rest of us paying inflated prices for products.

Sorry, but, uh, the people you supposedly represent would be hurt most by your inane central government planning economic policies.

If that's true, where's the harm in answering the question?

Nice surrender flag.

Diogenes wrote:Just another reason to support them ...

So you support wages that Wal-Mart itself admits aren't enough for their employees to live on?

And no, no link. Google it, and tell me what you find. I did enough Googling the other night, and found that my experience was wrong, about Wal-Mart raising prices, after the competition is gone, in a general sense.

But I did find that Wal-Mart itself admits that it doesn't pay a "living" wage.

Tell me otherwise. :twisted:

Diogenes wrote:
And if someone is trying to make a living working at Wal-mart, Burger King, or the local car wash, they might just want to consider getting some fucking job skills or something.

If everyone had job skills, who is gonna work at Burger King? English grads?

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
And if someone is trying to make a living working at Wal-mart, Burger King, or the local car wash, they might just want to consider getting some fucking job skills or something.

If everyone had job skills, who is gonna work at Burger King? English grads?

'Zactly.

Not to mention the "worth" of those degreed jobs would go down due to the employee pool growing (those market forces, Dio).

Diogenes wrote:The reason that the cost of living is so high is because (among other things, including automatic COLAs) unions manage to drive said price of living up by using extortionary means to get more than they could via the free market.

First off, you don't think that employers push wages artificially low when the employee pool is small? When unemployment goes down for significant periods wages tend to go up. And when unemployment goes up for significant periods wages go down (as we have seen over the last four years). So why is it that when your market forces cause wages to go down you say nothing, yet have kittens & rage when the opposite happens? Not suprising considering the rupublicans in this state said nothing about the price of gas when it went up 80 cents in six months but go nuts when it's proposed to add 3 cents per year for three years for badly needed highway funds.

Secondly, note during the last century when the american economy was at it's best. Then tell me what the rate of union membership was at that time & how it compares to other times & now.

Save us your "Big Business can do no bad, unions all bad" attitude, Dio. The only people you're fooling are your fellow repugnantcans.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Sorry, jerkoff, no diversions necessary.

Your arguments ring hollow. Your arguments would result in millions and millions of people being out of work and the rest of us paying inflated prices for products.

Sorry, but, uh, the people you supposedly represent would be hurt most by your inane central government planning economic policies.

If that's true, where's the harm in answering the question?

Nice surrender flag.

Why are you diverting???

DrDetroit wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Sorry, jerkoff, no diversions necessary.

Your arguments ring hollow. Your arguments would result in millions and millions of people being out of work and the rest of us paying inflated prices for products.

Sorry, but, uh, the people you supposedly represent would be hurt most by your inane central government planning economic policies.

If that's true, where's the harm in answering the question?

Nice surrender flag.

Why are you diverting???

Why do you present information out of context??? (Just asking rhetorically, as everyone knows the answer to that question).

I'm curious...can anyone explain why lefties are compelled to blatantly lie about the economy? Anyone?

First off, you don't think that employers push wages artificially low when the employee pool is small?

No.

You have any empirical data to demonstrate this??

And it seems you're having some problems with the whole supply/demand concept.

When unemployment goes down for significant periods wages tend to go up. And when unemployment goes up for significant periods wages go down (as we have seen over the last four years).

Again, any empirical data to demonstrate this?

Oh, and btw, uh, wages have been increasing over the last two years along with after-tax income.

WTF are you talking about?

So why is it that when your market forces cause wages to go down you say nothing, yet have kittens & rage when the opposite happens?

"Our" market forces? LOL!!!

Nice red herring argument you have there.

Not suprising considering the rupublicans in this state said nothing about the price of gas when it went up 80 cents in six months but go nuts when it's proposed to add 3 cents per year for three years for badly needed highway funds.

Said nothing? Again, why are you compelled to lie?

Secondly, note during the last century when the american economy was at it's best. Then tell me what the rate of union membership was at that time & how it compares to other times & now.

LMAO!!!

You're attempting to correlate union membership growth with economic growth?

Do you have any data that demonstrates a correlation exists??

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
And if someone is trying to make a living working at Wal-mart, Burger King, or the local car wash, they might just want to consider getting some fucking job skills or something.

If everyone had job skills, who is gonna work at Burger King? English grads?

Why not, they have no job skills.

You can add high school students and dropouts, retirees suplementing their income, and others who have no job skills YET.

And if BK can't hire, then they'll raise wages (and prices) until they can.






Who the fuck do you think works there now?

Okay I rread your question.

If EVERYBODY had job skills?


Nobody would need to work anyway, we'd all be living in a fucking delusional fantasy land.



Idiot.

And when unemployment goes up for significant periods wages go down (as we have seen over the last four years). So why is it that when your market forces cause wages to go down you say nothing, yet have kittens & rage when the opposite happens?

No they don't, as we have seen over the last eight decades.


When exactly was the last deflationary cycle?

Diogenes wrote:The reason that the cost of living is so high is because (among other things, including automatic COLAs) unions manage to drive said price of living up by using extortionary means to get more than they could via the free market.

If unions are roughly 12 percent of the market, and continuing to decline, how could they be a significant factor in the cost of living?

Right to work was passed here about 4 years ago, and didn't make one scintilla of difference in the economy, despite predictions of economic freedom and glorious times by former Gov. Frank Keating and the GOP here. I haven't heard any of these idiots say one thing about right to work since it passed ... mainly because it has made no difference whatsoever in the economy here, nor has there been a flood of new companies looking to set up shop simply because Oklahoma is now a right to work state. In fact, Tulsa has lost jobs since it passed.

And if someone is trying to make a living working at Wal-mart, Burger King, or the local car wash, they might just want to consider getting some fucking job skills or something.

Just a thought.

I agree.

But unless you get some kind of help (via parents/relatives or student loans), it's virtually impossible to get out of that hole.

I honestly think the cost of living increases BECAUSE I get a raise.

Everybody, tryin' to keep a brutha down.