Maryland and Walmart

Originally posted by ajm4481
Yes they did work there by choice. But the scandal of Enron is not the the success at Wal-Mart.

Enron wasn't a success? It was huge success, just like Wal-Mart, for a long long time.

Yes, well hopefully they are not planning on working at Wal-Mart their entire life. Hopefully they will go to school, and get a job somewhere else.

In the meantime, let 'em languish in a predatory environment so we can get cheap toilet paper. Ok. With no benefits, and at the poverty line pay, how are they going to pay for more school?

Haha..this one i will probably take some heat on. But look, who are we to impost our "ethical" standards on another country?

You're right, what were we thinking getting into World War II. If Hitler wanted to bake Jews in ovens, then we shoulda let him. Who are we to interfere.

When we were a young (non-advanced) country, were the youth not working there buts off out in the field? Were they not doing everything they could to help out around the fields? Were they not working aside a father or someone to learn a trade? Now where would we be as a country if that never happend? Did they work in prestine conditions? NO!!!!! So now here we are above most of the world, and we expect all countries, even ones worse off then we were back then...but here we still expect them to offer some kind of prestine working environment?

Okay, so you are actually defending child labor. Amazing. You're right about one thing... You SHOULD get heat for a barbaric opinion like that! When we were a young country we also sold human beings to one another to work the fields. Is that okay too?

Where would we be today, if some country commanded us to do that back then? What would we have thought about it? Our standards are not the worlds. Just because it is right here, it doesn't make it right everywhere.

So you are against the War in Iraq. Interesting.

I would fight to death to stop kids from working here that young, because it isn't needed. Lots of these families depend on the money their kids bring in, lots of these kids depend on that money...just like kids were depended upon to do work back in the days in are great country. If i remember correctly there is even organizations of these young workers that are fighting back against the people who "know whats best for the world".

What a double standard. Fight to the death to keep American kids from working, but if it's poor brown kids, then fine. Let 'em slave. When a company makes $245 BILLION in one year then child labor IS NOT NEEDED anywhere on the planet.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus

Originally posted by SKMDC1
What if they had slaves in chains working the check-out. Would you still shop there out of convenience?

Sure I would, see below.

Looking forward to seeing your theoretical justification for supporting slavery.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
So you *are* in favor of slavery. How interesting.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Sure, Jesus wasn't against slavery so why should I be.

That's a lie.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
In fact He made statements that in effect said you should be the best slave you can be if you are one already, just like if you are a master you should treat your slaves as God would treat you, by taking care of them and the old testament has rules for how to treat slaves if you have them. Most people forget that about the Word, all those socially uncomfortable verses.

Old Testament has nothing to do with Jesus and in fact the Covenant of Christ undoes all the Mosaic Law requirements so most of the "rules" in the Old Testament are meaningless after Jesus arrives and specifically frees his people from the legalistic theology of Moses. And to have Jesus in your handle you seem to not know much about what the man stood for. Why did he wash the feet of his disciples at the last supper? That was a slaves job. Why did Jesus do it? What point was he making? Besides, in the historical context of the Bible there were slaves, and that was part of the fabric of the culture. He aslo taught Zacheus to be the best tax collector he could be, does that mean we can cite those verses as Jesus's approval of tax collecting?

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Just that if the neocons were trying to do away with Unions they are shooting themselves in the foot, unions are by traditional definition a socialist group and as such part and parcel to the socialist movement of wealth redistrobution.

How is getting rid of a socialist group shooting neocons in the foot? You do know what a Neocon is, right?

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
And you know this how? I think just the opposite, He said we'd have the poor with us always, it is He who can change lives not me. Sure I can give of my time and money but it is Him who will change the heart of man.

What if He tries to change your heart? What will you say? Will you know it? What if he presents you with facts, evidence, witnesses, and proof. Will you know it?

Originally posted by OneGodJesus

Originally posted NOT by SKMDC1
Yes, Like an internment camp it rules.

Drama, drama, drama....

I never said any of this stuff... Get your quote tags right.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus

Originally posted NOT by SKMDC1
Excuse me? Jesus wasn't against slavery? Jesus was about compassion for your fellow man. Admittedly the bible references slaves during that time period, it was one of the major ways they did work back then. Doesn't make it right.

Slavery being right-wrong-middle of the road, makes no difference as long as the individual serves God but that is not the purpose of this thread is it? I think to discuss what I think or Jesus thinks of slavery is immaterial. I do not think that Wally world is engaged in wholesale "slavery", endentured servitude maybe...

Let's be VERY CLEAR. Do you think slavery is a) Wrong b) Middle of the road or c) right? I'm going on record with A. What's about you?

Originally posted by OneGodJesus

Originally posted NOT by SKMDC1
Perhaps you should be a slave in some third world country and see how much you like people using you like a commodity. You are part of the problem, and need to be removed. May you never breed, and if you have, then god have mercy on us.

And this forwards the discussion in a non-offending way how? I would have thought a mod would have stepped in at this statement and said "hey, I think that is uncalled for slander" the way they do everytime I say something off color. Guess not, I must be a slave to the thinking that life is fair all the time.

Again, I never said the above, so don't claim I did later. I agree that personal insults dont' forward the conversation at all, and I usually am of the opinion that someone's "opinion" can't be offensive. However, I'd have to say defending slavery and using Jesus to do it is about as offending an opinion as I've ever come across.

quote: Originally posted by SKMDC1
So you *are* in favor of slavery. How interesting.

OneGodJesus said:
Sure, Jesus wasn't against slavery so why should I be. In fact He made statements that in effect said you should be the best slave you can be if you are one already, just like if you are a master you should treat your slaves as God would treat you, by taking care of them and the old testament has rules for how to treat slaves if you have them. Most people forget that about the Word, all those socially uncomfortable verses.

Here we have someone who not spreads the word of god, but spreads the spirit of atheism and agnosticism. If this is the example of Christianity some christians want to spread, well, this is the beginning of the end for it.

I'm an agnostic, I don't follow religion, but I do have something that a lot of christians don't have, and that is morals.
I see and hear what christians (those who call themselves that) have to say about the state of the world and the level of ignorance makes me shake my head, I mean what are these people thinking (or not), it just seems like they are religious just so they can be filled with happiness knowing they have a spot saved for them in heaven next to god all the while spreading ignorance and intolerance coast to coast.
You may call yourself a christian, but from the outside looking in, I don't see any representatives of god whatsoever.
Either one is a christian or not, don't pretend to be.

If you have kids someday, perhaps they can put away that bicycle, leave those swings blow lonely in the wind, and go and work in that sweatshop down the road glueing souls to sneakers, yeah, seems souls were meant to be walked on.

Don't be mad at me, just look at what I said, and see what others see, and ask yourself if you are being a critically minded christian with reason.

Originally posted by Toadmund
Here we have someone who not spreads the word of god, but spreads the spirit of atheism and agnosticism. If this is the example of Christianity some christians want to spread, well, this is the beginning of the end for it.

I'm an agnostic, I don't follow religion, but I do have something that a lot of christians don't have, and that is morals.
I see and hear what christians (those who call themselves that) have to say about the state of the world and the level of ignorance makes me shake my head, I mean what are these people thinking (or not), it just seems like they are religious just so they can be filled with happiness knowing they have a spot saved for them in heaven next to god all the while spreading ignorance and intolerance coast to coast.
You may call yourself a christian, but from the outside looking in, I don't see any representatives of god whatsoever.
Either one is a christian or not, don't pretend to be.

If you have kids someday, perhaps they can put away that bicycle, leave those swings blow lonely in the wind, and go and work in that sweatshop down the road glueing souls to sneakers, yeah, seems souls were meant to be walked on.

Don't be mad at me, just look at what I said, and see what others see, and ask yourself if you are being a critically minded christian with reason.

Please don't confuse OneGodJesus with Christianity. His views are about as diametrically opposed to every denomination of Christianity I know of as the Ku Klux Klan's skewed view of Christianity. Despite what some will have the world believe, Christians are still believers in peace, love, and acceptance. At the very very core of Jesus's teachings is "love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek", "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"... and forgiveness. That's what it's all about. People will always try to pervert that message to suit their own agendas, and it seems strange to be saying this in an anti-Wal-Mart thread, but believe it or not it's on topic. The same "Christians" that would have you believe that the religion of Jesus is one of war and slavery are the ones that defend Corporations as being moral because they make lots of money. It's a skewed view of the world, in my opinion, one that has no compassion, no heart, and no love whatsoever. A view that Jesus would certainly be opposed to... In fact, Jesus was opposed to it when he entered the Temple and told the Pharisees they had turned his father's house into a den of theives. The only time Jesus is actually angry in the Bible is when he sees powerful men preying on the weak and innocent. So, people can defend a soulless corporation like Wal-Mart all they want, but to use Jesus in that defense is insulting to those that actually listen to what he taught.

You may even ask yourself just where are these people who call themselves christians are learning this stuff?
Pat Robertson maybe?

If I was a christian I would be on the lookout for false prophets and preachers and I would ask myself if they represent my view of christianity.

Jesus (if he existed) preached compassion and love, he did not condone slavery.

I do believe the new testament was re-written to downgrade the evil of slavery to suit the current rulers of the land (Constantine), to say that Jesus accepted slavery is just wrong!
I believe the bible was re-written and mis-translated many times skewing the original message beyond repair.

Is one supposed to use the bible to justify evil, or to fight it?

Is it so one can tolerate injustice with a smile?

Be a responsible christian, don't be a cog in the evil machine.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
1) Looking forward to seeing your theoretical justification for supporting slavery.

2) That's a lie.

3) Old Testament has nothing to do with Jesus and in fact the Covenant of Christ undoes all the Mosaic Law requirements so most of the "rules" in the Old Testament are meaningless after Jesus arrives and specifically frees his people from the legalistic theology of Moses. And to have Jesus in your handle you seem to not know much about what the man stood for. Why did he wash the feet of his disciples at the last supper? That was a slaves job. Why did Jesus do it? What point was he making? Besides, in the historical context of the Bible there were slaves, and that was part of the fabric of the culture. He aslo taught Zacheus to be the best tax collector he could be, does that mean we can cite those verses as Jesus's approval of tax collecting?

4)How is getting rid of a socialist group shooting neocons in the foot? You do know what a Neocon is, right?

1) I never said I did support slavery, just that in whatever you do do it well. If you are a slave be the best slave you can be.

2) No it isn't a lie, you really need to read and not take the CNN or common denom watered down Christianity as "absolute".

3) Since when is the Old Testament not applicable anymore? Jesus Himself (who was God BTW) said He came not to destroy the Old Testament but to fulfill it. And the New Testament says that not one jot or tittle will be taken away from the Word. And if He was the Word in the Old Testament as it plainly states the did He suddenly say "hey the stuff I was doing before...well that was my bad", nope, it says he is the same yestersday, today and forever the same God. His Word is settled and finished. He cannot change it even if He wanted to. And if you want to attack my faith get it right, I am an Apostolic Pentecostal. You might have grandparents who remembered by people as holy rollers, same folks. We don't handle snakes though, thats the crazies,lol.

******And to whom it may concern: I apologize for misquoting whomever has been misquoted....end broadcast.*******

4) By definition a neoconservative is the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and their lack of support for the "small government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.

The prefix "neo" can denote that many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism, but can also refer to the comparatively recent emergence of this "new wave" of conservative thought, which coalesced in the early 1970s from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II. It also serves to distinguish the ideology from the viewpoints of "old" or traditional American conservatism.

Modern neoconservatism is associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard and some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present), and are particularly noted for their association with and support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The term "neocon," while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied. They say it lacks a coherent definition, claiming that many so-called neoconservatives disagree on several major issues.

So as you can see the battle rages on in another round of He said/She said...

SKMDC1: I don't believe OneGodJesus is advocating for the evils of slavery, I think what they are advocating for is that it exists and it shouldn't matter that it does. They are arguing that it isn't anyone's business to try and abolish slavery wherever they find it.

As for why I made the statements I did, it is abominable to claim Jesus supported slavery, and I agree with you, it's one of the most offensive and anger-inspiring comments I have come across. I didn't think anyone was crazy enough to claim that the all-loving son of God was in favor of the suffering of the poor for the benefits of the wealthy.

As for Christ and the old testament, there is such a thing as the "NEW COVENANT" with God. That was Christ.

Oh, and God can change his word any day he wishes. HE'S GOD.

OneGodJesus: I will say it again, you are part of the problem.

To just let anyone and everyone be isn't the way one is supposed to live. It is wrong to turn your eyes from purposeful wrongdoing to others. It is wrong to condone Wal-Mart because it's a business that employs thousands and makes lots of money. Get your facts straight, most of what Walmart does is harmful not only to their employees, but to the economic market as well.

Walmart serves as an example to other companies, they are the biggest corporation in America. When they decide to screw the American manufacturers and build plants in third world countries, everyone follows their example. I will not shop at Walmart, I will spend my money elsewhere. I will spend more money elsewhere, but I will not let a corporation such as Walmart profit off of my money.

It seems that there are two groups of posters on this thread.

The first group doesn't like Wal-Mart because they do whatever they can to keep their costs down, and therefore are bad, and therefore we need the Government to make them stop being successful. I suppose that's because this first group thinks that most of us are too stupid to understand the Wal-Mart is "bad" so they want to have the Government force us to stop shopping there, or else they want the Government to make them raise their prices.

The second group may may or may not like Wal-Mart, but they figure people should have the right to shop wherever they please and to work at Wal-Mart or not work at Wal-Mart if they choose to do so.

I'm not a believer in a big powerful government which tells the people what to do; I believe that people should be free to make their own decisions.

That's why I'm with the second group.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus

Originally posted by SKMDC1
1) Looking forward to seeing your theoretical justification for supporting slavery.

2) That's a lie.

3) Old Testament has nothing to do with Jesus and in fact the Covenant of Christ undoes all the Mosaic Law requirements so most of the "rules" in the Old Testament are meaningless after Jesus arrives and specifically frees his people from the legalistic theology of Moses. And to have Jesus in your handle you seem to not know much about what the man stood for. Why did he wash the feet of his disciples at the last supper? That was a slaves job. Why did Jesus do it? What point was he making? Besides, in the historical context of the Bible there were slaves, and that was part of the fabric of the culture. He aslo taught Zacheus to be the best tax collector he could be, does that mean we can cite those verses as Jesus's approval of tax collecting?

4)How is getting rid of a socialist group shooting neocons in the foot? You do know what a Neocon is, right?

1) I never said I did support slavery, just that in whatever you do do it well. If you are a slave be the best slave you can be.

Which is germaine to the discussion of predatory employers how exactly?

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
2) No it isn't a lie, you really need to read and not take the CNN or common denom watered down Christianity as "absolute".

I actually have been raised and currently worship at an Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, which is about as conservative and dogmatic a demonination as you can get and yet still remain on the ranch of reasonability. And you are completely wrong about Jesus. Revisit the Word. You've lost your way in there somewhere.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
3) Since when is the Old Testament not applicable anymore?

Uh.... Since Jesus fulfilled the first Covenant. That's what all that fuss in the New Testament is about. Have you gotten that far yet? Jesus fulfills the Mosaic Covenant and we're no longer held by the laws of the Old Testament Jews. It's why Christians don't eat kosher.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Jesus Himself (who was God BTW) said He came not to destroy the Old Testament but to fulfill it. And the New Testament says that not one jot or tittle will be taken away from the Word.

Exactly. He FULFILLS it! All the Mosiac Laws of the Jews were what they had to do to fulfill the Covenant. Jesus did it in our place, died for our sins and freed us from that.

Originally posted by OneGodJesusAnd if He was the Word in the Old Testament as it plainly states the did He suddenly say "hey the stuff I was doing before...well that was my bad", nope, it says he is the same yestersday, today and forever the same God.

Yes, but it's not the same Covenant. Not the same rules. If it was, there would be no Christians, only Jews. We no longer have to live by the rules of the Old Testament Covenant. What I mean by that is not the Ten Commandments. I'm talking specifically of the Mosiac Laws like how to prepare food and how to "cleanse" onself and all that stuff. What denomination of Christianity are you if you still practice ancient Mosaic Law?

Originally posted by OneGodJesus And if you want to attack my faith get it right, I am an Apostolic Pentecostal. You might have grandparents who remembered by people as holy rollers, same folks. We don't handle snakes though, thats the crazies,lol.

Okay, so you *are* off the ranch, and exactly who I thought you were. I have no problem attacking the Apostolic Pentecostal and getting right, because me and my family have been a victim of their dangerous and frankly non-scriptural teachings my whole life. My Grandfather was a Pentecostal Minister in South Carolina for 60 years, so I know precisely where you're coming from. My Grandmother wasn't allowed to cut her hair for those 60 years because of those beliefs. My mom ran aways from home to get married because of those beliefs. There's a lot of literature out there on Spiritual Abuse and a great deal of it falls at the feet of denominations like yours who missed all the things Paul had to say about getting rid of the Legalistic side of things and understanding the true nature of what Jesus was teaching. Try reading his letter to the Galatians. Go argue with the Apostle Paul.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus4) By definition a neoconservative is ***snip*** a cut and paste definition from somewhere non-sourced...

But how on earth are NeoCons pro-Union? That's the part of your theory I dont' get.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
It seems that there are two groups of posters on this thread.

The first group doesn't like Wal-Mart because they do whatever they can to keep their costs down, and therefore are bad, and therefore we need the Government to make them stop being successful. I suppose that's because this first group thinks that most of us are too stupid to understand the Wal-Mart is "bad" so they want to have the Government force us to stop shopping there, or else they want the Government to make them raise their prices.

The second group may may or may not like Wal-Mart, but they figure people should have the right to shop wherever they please and to work at Wal-Mart or not work at Wal-Mart if they choose to do so.

You are right... there are two sides to this debate... as there are with most debates.

Your characterization of Group A is wrong tho. Group A doesn't think they should be regulated or investigated because they are successful. Group A believes they should be regulated or investigated because of the methods they employ to reach that success. That's entirely different and brings back to the core of this debate:

Do the ends justify the means?

That used to be a rhetorical question years ago. Nowadays it's actually debated, which is one of things I find disturbing about the morals of our current society.

i agree mostly with the second post but i also think that if the gov't gets involved then we will just show them how much bloody power we have given them and then once our idiot precident (america) figures it out we will be slaves... okay thats kinda extreme but you get the point

another problem with that (though) is that the people can't do it alone so we need some major power but (as previously stated) the gov't already has way to much power




---YOURS TRULY---

COOL DUDE 76

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
SKMDC1: I don't believe OneGodJesus is advocating for the evils of slavery, I think what they are advocating for is that it exists and it shouldn't matter that it does. They are arguing that it isn't anyone's business to try and abolish slavery wherever they find it.

Right. If God chooses to sway the heart of your master to release you then it is He who gets the glory not man.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
As for why I made the statements I did, it is abominable to claim Jesus supported slavery, and I agree with you, it's one of the most offensive and anger-inspiring comments I have come across. I didn't think anyone was crazy enough to claim that the all-loving son of God was in favor of the suffering of the poor for the benefits of the wealthy.

You are misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say He said "hey we should have slavery, let's go buy them up and exploit them", what I said was he didn't really address it as a bad thing, just that if you are a slave be a good slave and if you are a master be good to your slaves. So how is that saying what you said I said?

Originally posted by TheCrystalSwordOh, and God can change his word any day he wishes. HE'S GOD.

Ah, no He can't. It says so in Malachi 3:6 and again in Psalms 119:89. So again I say no He can't, it is settled.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword OneGodJesus: I will say it again, you are part of the problem.

Again YOUR take, but I can respect that as long as you don't keep on repeating it that way. More like "as long as you continue to shop at Wally world, it is my opinion, that you are contributing to the problemed business plan of Walmart". I would have figured all the PC people around here would have made adjustments already to the blame game speaches.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
To just let anyone and everyone be isn't the way one is supposed to live. It is wrong to turn your eyes from purposeful wrongdoing to others. It is wrong to condone Wal-Mart because it's a business that employs thousands and makes lots of money. Get your facts straight, most of what Walmart does is harmful not only to their employees, but to the economic market as well.

Walmart serves as an example to other companies, they are the biggest corporation in America. When they decide to screw the American manufacturers and build plants in third world countries, everyone follows their example. I will not shop at Walmart, I will spend my money elsewhere. I will spend more money elsewhere, but I will not let a corporation such as Walmart profit off of my money.

I am inclined to say that if sheeple want to go to Walmart or anywhere else that you think is exploitive that it is the people who have spoken and we DO live in a nation that is set with the premise of "by and for the PEOPLE", so it is up to THEM to determine if after a news story has uncovered wrong-doing whether they will continue to shop there. IMO.

SKMDC1: According to Revelation 10:7, I guess we'll know soon enough who is right and who is wrong about who Jesus is and who He isn't as the Godhead will be revealed. I'll pray for you and you can pray for me, deal?

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
I am inclined to say that if sheeple want to go to Walmart or anywhere else that you think is exploitive that it is the people who have spoken and we DO live in a nation that is set with the premise of "by and for the PEOPLE", so it is up to THEM to determine if after a news story has uncovered wrong-doing whether they will continue to shop there. IMO.

What is your opinon of Abortion? Pornagraphy? Prostitution?

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
SKMDC1: According to Revelation 10:7, I guess we'll know soon enough who is right and who is wrong about who Jesus is and who He isn't as the Godhead will be revealed. I'll pray for you and you can pray for me, deal?

I've already been praying for you.

sdkmdc says

Your characterization of Group A is wrong tho. Group A doesn't think they should be regulated or investigated because they are successful. Group A believes they should be regulated or investigated because of the methods they employ to reach that success.

It's the methods which make them successful. In any event, what they are doing is good, hard, and legal business. In a market economy, the very hallmark is competition. Wal-mart is not murdering its competitors' CEOs or hijacking their shipments of levi's; what they are doing is maximizing their profits by requiring their vendors to sell their goods at a low rate (which, by the way, they seem to pass along to their customers; otherwise, why does everyone shop there?).

Why do you big-government people think you have a right to "regulate" that? They certainly aren't breaking the minimum-wage laws or any Title VII laws as far as i can see.

That's entirely different and brings back to the core of this debate: Do the ends justify the means?

That's a philosophical argument, which is fun for a college dormitory bull session fueled by cold pizza and a couple cases of Budweiser, but you seem to be talking some sort of legal sanctions here.

That used to be a rhetorical question years ago. Nowadays it's actually debated, which is one of things I find disturbing about the morals of our current society.

I am not arguing "end justifying the means"; I am saying that people should be free to make choices.

If I am a supplier and I want the incredible market exposure that I get from being on Wal-Mart's shelves, I can pay for the privilege (and it is a privilege, not a right) by cutting my production and distribution costs back. Or, I can tell Wal-mart to go fly a kite. If my decision to not deal with Wal-Mart is a bad business decision, that's the way it goes.

If I am someone with no marketeable skills and Wal-mart is hiring at $6/hr, I can choose to take the job, find another one at McDonalds or Burger King, upgrade my skills so that I am worth more on the job market, or leave town and try to make a living somewhere else. Wal-Mart doesn't owe me a job at any wage, and they're certainly not going to pay me $10 plus their share of SS when I only add $6 to their bottom line.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
It's the methods which make them successful. In any event, what they are doing is good, hard, and legal business.

Maybe "hard" and "legal", but on what objective criteria are you claiming "good"?

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
In a market economy, the very hallmark is competition. Wal-mart is not murdering its competitors' CEOs or hijacking their shipments of levi's;

But they are hurting American citizens by a) putting other businesses under and then hiring their employees at a fraction of their previous salaries. And b) outsourcing jobs to sweatshops over seas that not only put MORE Americans out of work, but also promote questionable practices like child labor.

So, no they aren't murdering CEOs, but they are harming American citizens through business practices that should be illegal. Luckily Maryland is catching on, maybe the rest of the nation will too.

Originally posted by Off_The_Streetwhat they are doing is maximizing their profits by requiring their vendors to sell their goods at a low rate (which, by the way, they seem to pass along to their customers; otherwise, why does everyone shop there?).

So the ends justify the means. Provide me with an ethically valid argument that low prices and high profits justify human rights abuses and monopolistic business practices.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Why do you big-government people think you have a right to "regulate" that?

Who said I was a big government person? I'm a dyed in the gray wool Southern States Rights man myself, and so was my great-great-grandfather that fought hard for the right of States to do what they want? Unfortunately, he lost and here we are. Why do you small government people think BIG BUSINESS is less dangerous to an individuals liberty than BIG GOVERNMENT. In my view, promoting Wal-Mart is like promoting Communism. 65% of Wal-Mart employees are on Medicaid. So guess what, you're supporting big Government by defending Wal-Mart. They feed the welfare state.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
They certainly aren't breaking the minimum-wage laws or any Title VII laws as far as i can see.

That's entirely different and brings back to the core of this debate: Do the ends justify the means?

That's a philosophical argument,

But my point is it shouldn't even be an argument. Only the morally bankrupt argue that the ends justify the means. That used to be understood.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
which is fun for a college dormitory bull session fueled by cold pizza and a couple cases of Budweiser, but you seem to be talking some sort of legal sanctions here.

Sanctions? No. Let's start with what Maryland is doing and require Wal-Mart to provide health care for it's part-time employees. Make it anyone over 15 hours a week. That's a start. That will get them off Medicaid. Next, we need to investigate the outsourcing and put an end to imports that are created in factories that don't meet a minimum human rights standard. And I think this should be done for all US retailers, not just Wal-Mart. Is there something wrong with those requirements?

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I am not arguing "end justifying the means"; I am saying that people should be free to make choices.

You argued that in your first paragraph when you went down the worn out path of Wal-Mart being so profitable, and somehow arriving at "good" from "profit."

As for choices. I'll ask you the same thing. People should be free to make their own choices. So....

You're Pro-Choice.

You're Pro-Porn

You're Pro-Prostituion

You're Pro-Gambling

You're Pro-Dueling

You're Anti-Seat Belt Laws

You're Anti-FCC

You're Anti-FDA

Either all that's true or this is:

You're a hypocrite.

Which is it? Does our "choice" as Americans outweigh any harm those choices may do to others?

You can argue Pro-Wal-Mart from a "convenience" stand point, but don't try and make it an "ethical" or a "big governement" argument, because both of those are firmly on the anti-Wal-Mart side of the debate.

OneGodJesus said:

Right. If God chooses to sway the heart of your master to release you then it is He who gets the glory not man.

So, are you saying that it is up to god to abolish slavery and sweatshops, and not us?
With that way of thinking it will always continue.

Just ignore everything, carry on as normal, be happy, let god solve it! :shk:
It's no wonder this world is so screwed up!

Originally posted by SKMDC1
As for choices. I'll ask you the same thing. People should be free to make their own choices. So....

You're Pro-Choice.
You're Pro-Porn
You're Pro-Prostituion
You're Pro-Gambling
You're Pro-Dueling
You're Anti-Seat Belt Laws
You're Anti-FCC
You're Anti-FDA

Mmmn. While you and I are on the same side concerning Walmart, I think we are so for different reasons. I feel Walmart stifles human choice by putting forth an oppressive business model, ruthless in its strategy and aimed straight at the lowest dollar possible.

As for the above... I'd say yes to all of them. I don't do this lightly, because each category has intricate explanations as to why I am for them individually.

The only one I'm not sure about is the Pro-Dueling thing. Did you mean sword/pistol dueling?

I find that the most important thing to have is personal responsibility... that means being responsible for your own choices, bad or good. That means being allowed to make your own individual choices. I abhorr anything that covertly or through subterfuge removes those choices from you, and sadly, Walmart removes choices from people. That is their business model.