Skip to comments.Wal-Mart Not Too-Smart
Posted on 09/29/2006 9:14:41 AM PDT by restornu
We've just begun a serious discussion at our house about whether we will withdraw from shopping at Wal-Mart. They are close by; we spend thousands of dollars there a year; but they have succumbed to pressure and are actively promoting the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage. Just look at what they are doing in Idaho, where Family Leader is working hard to pass a state marriage protection amendment.
Enough is Enough
Wal-Mart Sponsoring Diversity Week
The following is a report from our friends at the American Family Association. We work in coalition with them on several projects through our Washington D.C. affiliation.
Wal-Mart has given its full endorsement to the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage. Boise State University in Boise, Idaho, will observe LGBT Diversity Week October 9-13. One of the sponsors for the Diversity Week is Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart is joining the Pleasure Boutique (an adult bookstore which bills itself as "Idaho's largest selection of adult movies and DVDs and largest adult toy selection in Idaho") and other groups in sponsoring the week. Diversity Week is a week of celebrating homosexuality and promoting the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage.
Among the events being sponsored by Wal-Mart is Idaho Votes No Campaign Update and Information Workshop. Voters in Idaho will be voting on a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in November. This Wal-Mart sponsored event will inform voters how to oppose the amendment and how to get others to do so. Wal-Mart is putting their money behind the effort to legalize homosexual marriage.
Other events being sponsored by Wal-Mart: Gay History of Idaho, Diversity in the Workplace, Women's/Lesbian Issues, Hate Based Crimes, Heterosexism, Homosexuality and Disabilities, LGBT Youth in Trouble, MCC-Faith and LGBT, and a youth dance for those age 24 and under.
Wal-Mart is throwing their clout and cash behind the homosexual marriage effort.
A great source for information on early American family life is diaries by women and children.
Something that stuck in my mind from a book about women's diaries written on wagon trains was that the men wanted the women to abandon their dresses and wear more practical pants.
The women absolutely refused, telling the men that they would not give up all their womanly rights to the brutal nature of the wilderness, and the practical desires of their husbands.
I gather you are an agnostic or atheist?
I boycott Wendey's, Denny's, Best Buy, Casey's General Stores, Bush's canned vegetables and a few other businesses and products.
I won't even bother to tell you why but believe me, I have sound reasons for doing so. Neither will I suggest that you should boycott them too, as I believe you to be a thinking adult and you can make your own decisions.
Those businesses and products that I named continue to thrive without my patronage and it doesn't piss me off in the slightest nor does that fact instill in me a feeling of jealousy or rage or a need to rant on and on about them on this forum.
If one searched the archives of FR for articles on various businesses I believe that it would be found that articles about Wal-Mart would hugely outnumber any other business. The reason for that is that it's the biggest and most sucessful business on earth.
Liberals/socialists/communists/unionists types can't stand that and those types do have a compelling need to make all others believe the same way they do.
There are numerous businesses and products that I don't patronize or use for various reasons. If the topic comes up I will explain my reasons, but I don't push it on other people..........I don't particularly care where a person shops, or eats, or what products he/she buys or for what reasons.
And I know you have a similar attitude, but then again, you and I are thinking adults and not Liberals/socialists/communists/unionists types or fundamentalists who wish to impose our ideals on others.
I'm not happy with WalMart doing away with lay-a-way, but not unhappy enough to stop shopping there. In fact my husband is going in the morning to get what I currently have on lay-a-away, and on Monday morning we'll be going back to put the major part of our daughter's Christmas presents on lay-a-way
Actually I collect and read a lot of old books too. And also more recent historical studies of the 19th and early 20th century U.S. Certainly it wasn't just a sea of miserable marriages. But there were plenty of people for whom the overwhelming social and legal pressure to get married and stay that way "til death do us part" left them stuck in misery -- either unmarried or married. More ordinarily, people just didn't expect anything out of marriage except some economic and physical security, which probably a solid majority of them got. People want more from life now, and I think that's a good thing.
Their margins are skin-deep on everything they sell. Too much evidence exists that they are beginning to make business decisions for the pandering effects towards liberals, and I believe their decision to get rid ofg guns is one of them.
"Actually I collect and read a lot of old books too. And also more recent historical studies of the 19th and early 20th century U.S. Certainly it wasn't just a sea of miserable marriages."
You can try what I do now, I mostly quit reading non-military, American history books written since the late 50s.(mostly)
I have a library full of leftist books written by college professors, especially women that portray a dark sinister past, where women were nothing but chattel, or slaves.
In recent years main stream scholars have started fighting back, now you can find many books that are written without an agenda.
I come from an interesting family, on my dads side they are less than thirty years away from celebrating their 400th anniversary here. On my mothers side they never had any money and very little research has been done on them, but they have been here for over 200 years at least.
There is a lot of history in my family and much hardship, but I never picked up even a hint of self pity.
My mom's side have been hardscrabble Scotch-Irish Southerners that migrated to California as they picked cotton and fruit.
I never met any one in that family, or heard any history that sounded anything less than happy and proud.
My grandfather rode a horse drunk into a church to propose to my grand mother, but in marriage he is described as a very quiet, strong figure, that was a deacon in the Baptist church.
My grandmother is described as a somewhat dangerous, violent Indian, that while tough on every one else, loved her quiet, soft spoken husband very much.
Even when she shot a hole in the ceiling to break up my uncles, everyone was only amused by it, sadly at her age they managed to take the gun away from her for good, so that she was forced to sleep with a hatchet instead.
Since childhood I have sought out the stories of old people, usually women because they are more willing to talk, that means I have talked to many people born in the past from reconstruction to the Geronimo days, to the Rough Riders and the great depression.
I didn't find sad, passive women of limited options that had to marry a man to eat, or that couldn't leave a bad husband because she would be damaged goods, or starve.
If you want women in sad circumstances, that seem desperate and feel hopeless, at the mercy of the world, then look around today, and the surveys I've seen reflect that.
How much money did AFA bring in last year compared to Walmart?
Maybe one-hundredth-of-one-percent -- $25-million dollars. What did AFA contributors receive in return compared to what WAL*MART customers got in their exchange?
I won't say all 3 things are present all of the time, but when I lived in Lakeland, FL, and one referred to "the great unwashed" with Wal-Mart, it was not necessarily the customers. Friend of mine said she couldn't tell customers from employees.
One of my particular peeves was younger women of a certain ethnic persuasion being consistently surly. Like you were interrupting something important they were doing when you wanted to get rung out at their register.
One of my non-favorite women working there had 8 studs in her ear, 1 1/2" black finger nails, tattoos on both arms and legs and was very creepy. I refused to use her register, gave me the heebees to get near her.
They are "getting rid of guns" only in market areas where they don't sell well. It's a business decision and guns will still be sold at Wal-Mart's where there is a demand for them.
Likewise they are eliminating layaway, also a business decision. Renting trailors for storage space at Christmas time is a very big expense. In other words they are trying to maximize profits. As a stock holder that's exactly what I want them to do.
"Gay rights" are as phony and contrived as the "right to choose."
Amazing what liberals can find in the Constitution, queer rights, the right to kill the unborn but they can't see anything about the right to keep and bear arms.
Then you would see your check number and the amount of your purchase. It takes approximately the same amount of time to reach your bank as the check.
How is this more revealing on your personal information than the check you used to leave behind?
The check you used to leave behind contains your name, address, phone number, accounts numbers, signature etc.
Let me tell, you, one of my chores is grocery shopping on Saturday morning. I LOVE shopping at Wal-Mart for all the hot babes in there, and several male acquaintances of mine feel the same way.
In fact, I was perusing a new product in the granola section a few months ago and this hottie walked up and told me she really liked that item, so I got a box of them. If she'd said "You know, these dog bicuits are great in a bowl of milk", I'd have thrown a box of them in the cart and headed for the dairy aisle!
FYI, this is in Store #1 right here in Rogers, AR, where my wife and 16yo son are employed part-time.
I live at Wal-Mart ground zero, Rogers, AR. Company GO is right next door in Bentonville. Every year during shareholder meeting week, associates come from all over the world, and Store #1 is a MUST visit.
The first place these people go is to the gun section, and let me tell you, they are FLOORED that we sell them over the counter here in the good ol' USA!
Some of the Sears Craftsman line is manufactured for Sears by Black and Decker. The parts, batteries, etc. are interchangable. The only difference is the nameplate.
"Amazing what liberals can find in the Constitution, queer rights, the right to kill the unborn but they can't see anything about the right to keep and bear arms."
Absolutely! Also the christophics' bogus claim that they have a right to "freedom from religion," since any Christian ideal is "offensive."
No matter how you construct a logic argument - the nature of reality can only be ONE WAY - you may believe different things about it, but there CANNOT be opposing foundations for the nature of reality.
What do you mean by "the nature of reality"? Is it, for example, a "reality" that you can travel from Houston to Dallas?
Who/what created the universe (it either occured spontaneously or was created by something outside of the universe - we do not know which, but only one origin is correct).
There are obviously concrete laws of physics that govern things (what is the origin of those?), might there also be concrete laws of morality that govern humans (it appears there may be, or may not be - but only one is correct)?
These aren't necessarily the only two alternatives. Furthermore, knowledge of the genesis of the universe is not a prerequisite to determining the global applicability within the universe of dicta such as "there is only one truth" or "the law of non-contradiction has no exceptions."
There are obviously concrete laws of physics that govern things
But those "concrete laws of physics" themselves present an evident exception to non-contradiction (or the rule that simultaneous, contradictory states cannot coexist), in that accurate knowledge of complementarity subatomic pairs is impossible. For example, you can measure the location of an electron, but not its momentum (energy) at the same time.
might there also be concrete laws of morality that govern humans (it appears there may be, or may not be - but only one is correct)?
Why would concrete laws of morality governing "X" human behavior necessarily be incompatible with indefinite laws of morality governing "Y" human behavior? In other words, why must there be only one or the other (concrete laws of morality for all situations /or/ no concrete laws of morality for any situation)?
Indeed, our western system of justice is premised on the notion of "case by case" analysis, explicitly recognizing both the concept of generalized "rules" applicable to all situations, and the concept that extenuating and/or mitigating circumstances accompany each situation.
The everyday intangibles of civilized human interaction have uncertainty frequently and inescapably built in (uncertainties that, for example, imbue physical objects with necessarily contradictory incorporeal states, both of which are equally "true" until the uncertainty is resolved by measurable means).
Sure, but no matter how many alternatives there are, only ONE can be correct.
"Furthermore, knowledge of the genesis of the universe is not a prerequisite to determining the global applicability within the universe of dicta such as "there is only one truth" or "the law of non-contradiction has no exceptions."
But nevertheless, there can only be one genesis of the universe - it cannot have two different but equal origins.
"But those "concrete laws of physics" themselves present an evident exception to non-contradiction (or the rule that simultaneous, contradictory states cannot coexist), in that accurate knowledge of complementarity subatomic pairs is impossible. For example, you can measure the location of an electron, but not its momentum (energy) at the same time."
I understand that we cannot measure both location and momentum of particles - that does not mean that they do not have both at the same time (we know that they do, or must). Only one location and only one momentum can be correct (true).
"Why would concrete laws of morality governing "X" human behavior necessarily be incompatible with indefinite laws of morality governing "Y" human behavior? In other words, why must there be only one or the other (concrete laws of morality for all situations /or/ no concrete laws of morality for any situation)?"
OK - there either are, or there are not - but they cannot be and not be - either there are NO rules, or there are a set of rules. Which fits better? (Why would it be wrong for us to slaughter each other wontonly, why is it wrong to abuse children, etc.?)
"Indeed, our western system of justice is premised on the notion of "case by case" analysis, explicitly recognizing both the concept of generalized "rules" applicable to all situations, and the concept that extenuating and/or mitigating circumstances accompany each situation."
Ditto above - some things are just wrong - there are some black-and-white sitiations - not everything is shades of grey.
"The everyday intangibles of civilized human interaction...."
Well Sir - in the words of Alex Karras: "Mongo just pawn in game of life."
Why not? You assert this definitively, but there is nothing other than your assertion to support it. And again, of what bearing is this on the supposed, global applicability within the universe of the "law of non-contradiction" and the statement that "there is only one truth?"
Only one location and only one momentum can be correct (true).
But only upon measurement. Until measurement, the particle exists in a state of uncertainty (possessing two mutually exclusive properties at the same time).
OK - there either are, or there are not - but they cannot be and not be - either there are NO rules, or there are a set of rules.
I'm not sure how, but you apparently missed my point. Your statement certainly appears to reiterate your original fallacy -- either there are rules for every situation, or there are no rules for any situation.
This either/or, black/white precept of yours is defied on a regular basis in our everyday lives. Sure, we live with an accepted set of generalized moral, behavioral, legal, and "engineering and navigation of life" rules (applicable to our subset of civilization and consistent with the current state of our knowledge of the physical world).
But we also live with the knowledge that there are unanticipated situations for which the general rules are inapplicable or only partly applicable (hence our need to consider the specifics of a situation before committing to a resolution). Simply put, we recognize (with little need for contemplation) that are in fact multiple "truths".
some things are just wrong - there are some black-and-white sitiations - not everything is shades of grey.
Correct. Not everything is "shades of grey." But a great deal is. Hence, the "only one truth" statement is a fallacy.
Well Sir - in the words of Alex Karras: "Mongo just pawn in game of life."
While humorous, I'm not sure I understand your point. The fact of the matter is, we accept and deal with inescapable contradictory states and uncertainties all of the time -- indeed, they are an inevitability in our social and economic construct. We give them little thought because they have become inextricably woven into the patterns of our behavior. But if you parse them out, you soon realize that the "law of non-contradiction" and the statement that "there is only one truth" have rather limited applicability.
My point is that I am (obviously) not schooled in the art of logic and debate (as you so ably are), and am in way over my head - the "Blazing Saddles" reference was an attempt to extricate myself from this discussion with a little bit of pride.
I'm not even college educated - my job is to figure out ways to perform a wide variety of modifications to combat aircraft in the field - I'm pretty-much self-taught, or as Alex Karras would say..........