Posted on 12/21/2004 9:55:35 AM PST by St. Johann Tetzel
Thank you for posting, but my reply was to Egon, not you, and for good reason.
Merry Christmas.
Amen, brother. We're not called to be successful; we're only called to be faithful.
God bless you.
I commend your persistence in putting those points forward and returning again and again to defend them; I was also initially concerned about Target's stance, and as a result of your perspective I will continue to shop at Target about as much as formerly...and I have also sought out the Salvation Army kettles at other stores this month to counter what has happened, whether I actually am buying or not.
I have a concern that those of us who are conservatives may be unwitting dupes to Leftist "wedging" tactics against otherwise supportive businesses.
If I understand correctly, you were advocating for thinking through the significance of the source of the information and the possible ramifications implied by that source, as well as what might or could be accomplished by supporting a boycott. Even if you ultimately prove to yourself that you were wrong in not supporting a boycott, as you stated: you felt a need -- as anyone would -- to be committed to that approach. You didn't need to volunteer that you and your spouse are employed by Target, and it was courageous to do so when you knew it would open you up to criticism -- legitimate or otherwise. I would have liked to have heard some legitimate debate on that point, but it never really went down that road -- alas. That would have been a very interesting topic to pursue, in itself, and probably would have elicited talk like that around the same dilemma the founding fathers faced in their "Committees of Correspondence" in the colonies and which ultimately led to their pledging their "lives, property and sacred honor." It wasn't an overnight decision for them, either.
For myself, I have simply learned to intensely dislike being maligned or shouted down if I don't take a "popular" view, and it is my reflex to battle on that ground first. It was a stupid distraction, unfortunately, but I learned something from the process in spite of that. In the future I will probably just sidestep that type of onslaught after the first try or two; as a friend advised me: Extinction is the best approach (re: O.C.) and that proved to be correct. (Wish I'd listened now.) I hope you feel vindicated in standing firm and not caving in to impugning, etc. In my estimation, you succeeded.
I'm still not totally satisfied with SJT's final response to you; I hope he will read through the whole thread again. You might do the same and examine your postings in the same way to see if he has/had a valid reason for continuing dissatisfaction with your conduct.
BTW, I don't personally mind a little profanity here and there as long as it isn't personal or pejorative...maybe it's the Irish in me, but I don't always totally trust someone whose lips are completely pristine! (I'm always reminded of the various men that God called to special service exclaiming, "No, Lord, not me! I am a man of unclean lips!")
Be of good cheer.
And again, my comments were only to Egon, not you. And they were a conciliatory attempt to end contentious debate, long after a thread was "over."
If anyone need examine their postings on this thread, it is neither Egon nor myself.
Adieu.
You keep making my point for me.
Adieu.
Several years ago I complained to a Target department manager that the magazine rack did not have any hunting/fishing or gun magazines. She spouted off words to the effect that Target did not want to encourage ownership of weapons of war or the senseless slaughter of animals. (I suppose it's possible that Target execs don't eat beef, pork, lamb, or chicken, but I doubt it)
I have only been in a Target twice since then, once on an errand for my sister to buy some fresh produce, and once to look at a vacuum cleaner that my wife had been shopping for. I didn't buy the vacuum at Target. I found it cheaper at Kohl's, and anyway I would have paid more rather than buy it from Target. (please don't tell me that Kohl's also supports sodomy and hates guns, it's too late to take the vacuum back)
I would be happy to join you, but my efforts in that area have all been in vain so far. My letters and calls to my congressman and Senators' offices regarding the far-left wingnuts who run PBS seem to fall on deaf ears.
I was angered and very disappointed to see that the Bush administration has included funding for PBS in every one of it's budget submissions. If PBS funding can't be stopped with a supposedly conservative president in office and a GOP controlled Congress in session, what hope is there for ever getting it stopped?
Wha....?!?! You mean, the Bushies are actuall funding the very seeds of their own destruction?
No!
Looks like Target used defective scales when they weighed. Target is losing millions of shoppers during the most crucial sales period of the year because of it's banning the Salvation Army from it's premises. WalMart has taken advantage of Target's stupid move by pledging to match donations to the Salvation Army kettles at it's stores.
I hope Target's execs are happy now that they have run off so many potential customers just by catering to the whims of a tiny minority, most of whom are affluent enough to not shop at discount stores to begin with.
FWIW, I don't believe that PBS alone can actually do much serious damage to Bush's administration or the nation, the great majority of it's audience is hostile to both institutions to begin with. But it's inability to do harm to Bush isn't because of any lack of desire on it's part to do so.
Yes, there was sarcasm.
FWIW, I don't believe that PBS alone can actually do much serious damage to Bush's administration or the nation, the great majority of it's audience is hostile to both institutions to begin with. But it's inability to do harm to Bush isn't because of any lack of desire on it's part to do so.
But make no mistake, I am hostile towards the Bush administration as well, and I must be, as I am loyal to this nation.
I gather from your tagline that you are not into celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, but I will wish you a Merry Christmas just the same.
I should have added to my last post that my wish for you to have a merry Christmas was not meant as disrespect for your own religious persuasion. Have a good evening.
Qwazy
I am not a Taoist, as is a common misperception here, I just find that quote extremely topical.
Merriest of Christmas' to you and yours.
But the lesson is that they despite their best brownshirt tactics it still wasn't enough.
One difference between us "red stater Americans" and the mass of Germans in the 1930's is that we don't intimidate very easily. And should it ever come down to it, most veterans, servicemen, and cops not to mention hill-billies and rednecks are Republicans.
I think all things considered we show remarkable restraint.
Such activities can be tied to the DNC party (just look at their example of hiring union goons to crack heads when someone dares protest at a Hillary Clinton function). One court case even proved that the Rats knew that the people they were "hiring" were prone to violence.
Tear down the party of leftist thugs economically and legally. RICO statutes could seize their money (even that not earmarked for crime) as they are definitely engaging in organized crimes.
If the Democrats want to prune these violent and criminal operatives from their party to keep their money, fine, I am for the competition, but I will not permit my countrymen to be threatened by Democrat brownshirts who will set fire to a home, vandalize cars and property, and physically assault Republicans merely because they (or in the case of underage school students, their parents) chose to vote for George W. Bush.
They are UNAMERICAN and need to be called this. It is not dissent. It is a violent order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.