Maryland and Walmart

Originally posted by OneGodJesus

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.

I felt this needed to be addressed by itself. So, you are basically telling me specifically what an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent being of Divine power and absolute wisdom can and cannot do.

You are telling me that God cannot in effect nullify anything he said. You are telling me that God *CAN* make a rock he cannot lift.

If you believe in the all-mighty as an all-mighty, I think it would stand to reason that you realize he writes the RULES Of reality, and can break them at his whim and will and have both broken them and NOT broken them.

Paradox doesn't apply to a divine being. So I don't think you have a right nor any priviledged information to claim that God is incapable of something.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
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 did mean sword/pistol dueling.

The above list is just a random off the top of my head list of issues that come down to an individuals choice. I didn't construct that list as an illustration of any of my beliefs, and like you I see plenty of complexity in each issue. That list was merely there to respond to the posters who claim they are pro-Wal-Mart because they are pro choice, when in most cases the same people who defend Wal-Mart's right to step on others will be outraged at the thought of allowing prostitution to be legalized. It's one of the many pitfalls people fall into when the identify so closesly with a "party" and don't actually think about the issues.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
1) What is your opinon of Abortion? Pornagraphy? Prostitution?

2) I've already been praying for you.

1) I think that the sin is horrible but I still love the person and pray for them that God will draw on their hearts to make them stop the sin for themselves, which gets to the heart of the discussion we have between us about choice. If you don't like wally world do not use it and ask that others not do so either but to have government step in and regulate what is a free commerce practice available to centuries of capitalism is crazy and stiffling to business. Do I think it is right to exploit someone no. Do I think that the people who work in these "sweatshops" can earn better money elsewhere prolly not. This is the thing about regulation, it takes away from the natural balance of things when related to the standard of supply and demand. Supply and demand will dictate not only the cost of an item but also whether that item even get purchased.

2) Thanks for that bit.

Working in a sweatshop is acceptable natural balance?
You can't justify a wrong by wrapping it up in god and over explaining it to cloud the issue.
The issue is slavery is wrong, sweatshops are wrong and for people to have quality lives on the sweat and toil of broken lives, well, is wrong, and should be regulated.
You seem to be stuck on an accepted business model that is unacceptable, but you accept it, merely because its accepted.

Put yourself in the shoes of the poor, and start walking in them. (that's if they even have shoes of course)

[edit on 26-1-2006 by Toadmund]

Originally posted by Toadmund
Working in a sweatshop is acceptable natural balance?
You can't justify a wrong by wrapping it up in god and over explaining it to cloud the issue.
The issue is slavery is wrong, sweatshops are wrong and for people to have quality lives on the sweat and toil of broken lives, well, is wrong, and should be regulated.
You seem to be stuck on an accepted business model that is unacceptable, but you accept it, merely because its accepted.

Put yourself in the shoes of the poor, and start walking in them. (that's if they even have shoes of course)

[edit on 26-1-2006 by Toadmund]

I can try all day long but the fact of the matter is I can't because I am a middle wage earning American, thus rich in the eyes of the world. I have travelled the world over in my 18 years of military service and seen first hand poverty (can you say that?). When I was stationed in Panama we used to be deluged by the poor everytime we stepped foot out of a cab to get our drink on. The prostitutes would throw themselves at us to get us to marry them and take them back to the land of the big PX. I know very well of which you speak but this changes nothing. The facts are that all of the industialized world cannot contend with the menial wages and living conditions of the poor. We see it on TV all the time, how much money do you give out of your paycheck to stop it I would ask? 50%, I think not. Rant all you want, it changes nothing but let's you feel vindicated in yourself for having voiced on the world stage (i.e. the Internet) your "true" concerns for humanity by pointing out the obvious, that big business is bad for the poor, duh. Like we don't already know this, if you don't like it I say again, don't shop there.

[edit on 26/1/06 by OneGodJesus]

Do you ever re-evaluate what it means to be a christian?
What does christianity mean to you?

Are you one who believes that having faith is your ticket to heaven?
To believe in Jesus is all it takes?

To me that is a problem with christianity, one of today's biggest problems actually, to believe in Jesus, not what he taught.
Belief that he is the son of god is good enough, that's the bare requirement to 'admit one' into the pearly gates.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
I can try all day long but the fact of the matter is I can't because I am a middle wage earning American, thus rich in the eyes of the world. I have travelled the world over in my 18 years of military service and seen first hand poverty (can you say that?). When I was stationed in Panama we used to be deluged by the poor everytime we stepped foot out of a cab to get our drink on. The prostitutes would throw themselves at us to get us to marry them and take them back to the land of the big PX. I know very well of which you speak but this changes nothing. The facts are that all of the industialized world cannot contend with the menial wages and living conditions of the poor. We see it on TV all the time, how much money do you give out of your paycheck to stop it I would ask? 50%, I think not. Rant all you want, it changes nothing but let's you feel vindicated in yourself for having voiced on the world stage (i.e. the Internet) your "true" concerns for humanity by pointing out the obvious, that big business is bad for the poor, duh. Like we don't already know this, if you don't like it I say again, don't shop there.
[edit on 26/1/06 by OneGodJesus]

Money is not a solution to world hunger, poverty, and inequality across the world. It is wrong for companies to subvert american workers into menial service tasks, making them essentially into slaves for the corporate shills. It is wrong to pay a foreigner less than us but justify it only because you are paying more than their country. It is also wrong to infest the world with our disgusting consumerism.

There is a book titled "Ishamael" by Daniel Quinn that every person needs to read. It puts into perspective some things.

Back on money, money doesn't solve the problem. DONATING doesn't solve the problem of inequality in different countries. What exactly do we want the world to be like? 1% rich, 99% poor working class? I am all for progress and improving people's lives, but I'm unsure if destroying ourselves to ensure the future of others is a good plan.

The bottom dollar is the enemy of all people's everywhere. Human beings are more than just general goods which earn you interest via labor. I feel it is a responsibility for those who have no fear for their own place in the world and the place of their family to make the world a better place, rather than see how many ways they can rape the system for their own monetary gains.

Raping the system includes, but is not limited to, making the system say what you want it to say to make you seem like the good and moral character you are not.

Do you think the Unions are bad? I'd really like to hear why. Because they drive costs for business up and contribute to inflation? If businesses covered the needs of their employees there would not need to be constant inflation. If businesses didn't keep on useless people who are good at convincing others they are more useful than people with skills, there wouldn't be so much problems...

And... if businesses were willing to actually pay the costs of their production, rather than finding ways to race to the bottom of the spending valley, things might be manufactured with some semblance of durability.

I'm rambling, so I'll stop now...

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Money is not a solution to world hunger, poverty, and inequality across the world.

So all the BILLIONS of dollars we spend annually are for naught?

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
There is a book titled "Ishamael" by Daniel Quinn that every person needs to read. It puts into perspective some things.

I got one too, the Bible for one, but really a book call "The creature from Jeckle Island". It is about the federal reserve and the real power behind it all.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Back on money, money doesn't solve the problem. DONATING doesn't solve the problem of inequality in different countries. What exactly do we want the world to be like? 1% rich, 99% poor working class? I am all for progress and improving people's lives, but I'm unsure if destroying ourselves to ensure the future of others is a good plan.

The bottom dollar is the enemy of all people's everywhere. Human beings are more than just general goods which earn you interest via labor. I feel it is a responsibility for those who have no fear for their own place in the world and the place of their family to make the world a better place, rather than see how many ways they can rape the system for their own monetary gains.

Raping the system includes, but is not limited to, making the system say what you want it to say to make you seem like the good and moral character you are not.

Do you think the Unions are bad? I'd really like to hear why. Because they drive costs for business up and contribute to inflation? If businesses covered the needs of their employees there would not need to be constant inflation. If businesses didn't keep on useless people who are good at convincing others they are more useful than people with skills, there wouldn't be so much problems...

And... if businesses were willing to actually pay the costs of their production, rather than finding ways to race to the bottom of the spending valley, things might be manufactured with some semblance of durability.

I'm rambling, so I'll stop now...

While sympathize with you about the world inequalities and the feeling hopelessness, I can say that it is getting better from the perspective of time. With a great deal more monitoring and legal avenues that individuals and governments can take now, it seems to me that the world of only a century ago was much more barbaric in its business practices. Why you might ask? It is because of us even knowing about the "evil wal-marts" of the world in the first place. You'd never know about them a century ago, as it would not have made even a ripple in the grand scheme of things, it was business as usual. Thing always seem to be darkest before you step out into a bright sunny day. Keep your chin up and I promise it will get better. You just gotta have faith...

Originally posted by Toadmund
1) Do you ever re-evaluate what it means to be a christian?
2) What does christianity mean to you?

3) Are you one who believes that having faith is your ticket to heaven?
4) To believe in Jesus is all it takes?

5) To me that is a problem with christianity, one of today's biggest problems actually, to believe in Jesus, not what he taught.
Belief that he is the son of god is good enough, that's the bare requirement to 'admit one' into the pearly gates.

1) Sure I evaluate myself in Christ and compare myself to Him all the time (and I find myself lacking always) but He was perfect and I am striving for it. I have tried many religions. When I was 5, my dad at that time was a mormon and so was I, later when mom got he act together we moved in with a Jehovas witness and we went to church with her. I was an agnostic when I was 14, I talked with a guy when I was 15 and he convinced me that the devil was the way to go. At 17 I found repentance at a baptist church in Fowler California. When I came in the military I was automatically a protestant (although I was unsure of what I was protesting). When I got to Howard AFB Panama I became a Pentecostal (trinitarian). When I came back to the states (MS) I met my wife and was a catholic for about 6 month for our marriage had to be catholic (my wife was then a catholic). We moved to March AFB in California. I met a guy who convinced me to consider buddhism. So I sat around chanting nom rainghe kyooo to "align" myself with the universe. It wasn't for me, besides he wanted me to attend some kind of cult meeting called amway...lol. I pretty much gave up and thought about paganism. I read a book called the necronomicon and wanted to do some rituals (they are fake as I tried Reeeeeaaaaaly hard to summon ANYTHING), so I sold the gold and silver medalions and blocks I had invested in and gave up. I was an agnostic again. Just when all was dying I talked with a guy names Sebastian (Seb for short). He worked at the comm center and saw me one day down in the dumps and we talked for a bit. He didn't even talk about God. He was just there to listen and be friendly. The next day we had lunch and he still didn't even mention God, just talked about life and other things like football and military life in general. About two weeks later he asked if he could pray for me. I said sure. We prayed that I would have a better life and that was it. We went back to just saying hey in the hallways for the most part and sometimes catching lunch. I was approached by a guy from a independant fundamentalist baptist church. I went there for about two months and when they asked to see my paycheck stubs on my LES I left. They wanted my money!!! I knew that what I'd been missing was God shaped as this was the only place I have a touch from the Divine something or another. Another month goes by and Seb asks if I'd like to come to a church out in LA with him. I am white and he is black. I was thinking, hmmmm, what is his motive in this? I went and I was one of only five white people in the congregation, boy was I feeling wierd. I was used to being in the majority. The church was good in music and the preaching was pretty good. What struck me most was the tongues though. Everyone was talking tongues. I'd heard it before in a Pentecostal church but wow. It was like a scene from Blues Brothers. I was waiting for the guy to start doing backflips in mid air. Anyway that scared the bejezzuz out of me. He asked about two weeks later and I told him no thanks. A few months after that though I did attend a smaller PAW in Moreno valley called the first pentecostal church (ithink) with an Elder Bell leading the service. It was lively but not crazy. The man could preach though. I was the ONLY white guy there and I came on my own. I wasn't scared anymore because I didn't care what they thought of my intrusion. I found later that they were delighted I came at all, and not because I was the token white guy. I got the Holy Ghost after a few weeks and haven't looked back, except I backslid for about two and a half years, when we could find another church like the one I attended in California. I know it is an excuse, but I was used to black preaching and worship. I thought "white people have no musical talents and they can't preach the same". I was wrong, and now we are in a UPCI church with an even mix of races. The musicians are very good and it is mixed there too. I am happy and hope it never ends.

2) Christianity means spreading the Gospel message that Jesus was God, he came because there was no one here who was not tainted with sin and price was in need of payment to bring us back to Eden with God. He paid that price and now instead of a physical temple He will reside IN you if you let him. He commanded the Apostles and the laymen to preach this and He gave Peter the keys to tell people how to become born again. Peter did on the day of Pentecost by saying in acts how to redeem yourself by accepting Jesus' work on the cross. This is THE Christian mission. A byproduct of that mission is to work to establish friendships and change things by example to others. People will not change unless God draws on thier hearts, period. He can only do that if He has a living example to show them, that would be the Spirit filled Christian, who He then direct to preach the Word and salvation message. Life is choice, and free will.

3) I will tell you that the scripture says that without it we cannot please God and cannot enter Heaven. So yes I'd say that without it you'd not make it if you called yourself a Christian. The Word also says that you must be a believer of Him (Jesus the Christ) and He who sent Him (Jesus the Spirit of God) to enter in, so I'd call that faith by definition.

4) No, the Word says the devils believe and tremble and they are not going to make it. You can have all the knowledge in the world but if you do nothing with it then what are you? You must act on that knowledge. Turn back to God and say sorry for the sins you have committed "for all have sinned and come short of the glory" have those sins washed away in immerssion baptism (abosulutely a must) in Jesus name (for there is none other name under heaven whereby we must be saved), and you will get the Holy Ghost with the evidence of tongues (it is biblical and proof of a spiritual new birth even as a baby cries at its birth).

5) I would say you are partially right. But we are not the majority of Christianity. Even as Israel (the hebrew children) was not the majority where they were in the land promised to them by God. I would direct you to the scripture that says broad is the way to destruction and many there be the go that path, but narrow (narrow minded by todays standards) is the way and few there be that (wait for it) find it (it means you gotta work at it not just take the typical dogmatic watered down by political correctness and fashionable speaches) will enter into heaven (sorry paraphrasing here a bit as my browser is not letting me get to an online bible).

There you go. I know I am gonna get flamed for saying this but I don't really care. I know what I am talking about as I cannot have the devil take away my EXPERIENCE. He flees when I call on the NAME of JESUS, because he know who's child I am, and he is afraid of what I am going to do to this world, light it up with truth. Rejoice in HIM for He is WORTHY of our PRAISE!! For all He has done and who HE IS, dance and sing unto Him the almighty, omniscience, omnipresent, all knowing God!!

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
1) I think that the sin is horrible but I still love the person and pray for them that God will draw on their hearts to make them stop the sin for themselves, which gets to the heart of the discussion we have between us about choice. If you don't like wally world do not use it and ask that others not do so either but to have government step in and regulate what is a free commerce practice available to centuries of capitalism is crazy and stiffling to business.

So you don't think that the pornagraphy industry should be regulated? You don't think there should be a "drinking age"? At what point does the governments responsibility to protect the life and liberty of it's citizens supercede a private companies right to make a profit? Once again, I can't see where child labor or slavery laws fit into your rather simplistic view of capatilism.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Do I think it is right to exploit someone no. Do I think that the people who work in these "sweatshops" can earn better money elsewhere prolly not. This is the thing about regulation, it takes away from the natural balance of things when related to the standard of supply and demand. Supply and demand will dictate not only the cost of an item but also whether that item even get purchased.

All of that is fine on paper or discussing politics over beer in your dorm room but it ain't reality. In reality you have to figure in the human factor, and the rights and liberties of those humans. How did supply and demand end slavery?

OneGodJesus said:

I was an agnostic again. Just when all was dying I talked with a guy names Sebastian (Seb for short). He worked at the comm center and saw me one day down in the dumps and we talked for a bit. He didn't even talk about God. He was just there to listen and be friendly. The next day we had lunch and he still didn't even mention God, just talked about life and other things like football and military life in general. About two weeks later he asked if he could pray for me. I said sure. We prayed

Seems to me like typical christian predatory behaviour! Fish you in, then hook ya!
Beware! They tried to get me many times, but failed!
I fought them off with logic.

OneGodJesus, you seem quite intelligent when it comes to the bible, you seem to know it pretty well, now that you've opened up to the bible you should try to apply what you believe is good in the real world.

Which includes boycotting walmart.
-Resist temptation, just like it says in the bible, the temptation to get tainted sweatshop goods for a low price and convenience, when you know it goes against Jesus and the bibles teachings.
-The temptation to admire big business.

If Christians practiced what they preach from the book, perhaps christians wouldn't be under the spotlight, I think the real clincher was christians falling for GWB's crap, getting him re-elected on a holy-roller protector-psuedo-god platform.

Why are so many christians as gullible as they are when the bible teaches to be wary?
Maybe it's because they listen to the preacher only, while their bible's spine is still pristine and uncracked.

Originally posted by Toadmund
OneGodJesus said:

I was an agnostic again. Just when all was dying I talked with a guy names Sebastian (Seb for short). He worked at the comm center and saw me one day down in the dumps and we talked for a bit. He didn't even talk about God. He was just there to listen and be friendly. The next day we had lunch and he still didn't even mention God, just talked about life and other things like football and military life in general. About two weeks later he asked if he could pray for me. I said sure. We prayed

Seems to me like typical christian predatory behaviour! Fish you in, then hook ya!
Beware! They tried to get me many times, but failed!
I fought them off with logic.

OneGodJesus, you seem quite intelligent when it comes to the bible, you seem to know it pretty well, now that you've opened up to the bible you should try to apply what you believe is good in the real world.

Which includes boycotting walmart.
-Resist temptation, just like it says in the bible, the temptation to get tainted sweatshop goods for a low price and convenience, when you know it goes against Jesus and the bibles teachings.
-The temptation to admire big business.

If Christians practiced what they preach from the book, perhaps christians wouldn't be under the spotlight, I think the real clincher was christians falling for GWB's crap, getting him re-elected on a holy-roller protector-psuedo-god platform.

Why are so many christians as gullible as they are when the bible teaches to be wary?
Maybe it's because they listen to the preacher only, while their bible's spine is still pristine and uncracked.

No offense intended here but when you quote me take it all into context. I see that in the quote you only take the part that fits into your idea of what happened. This is the failure of most "Christina" denominations and the outside world looking into what "Christians" teach and preach sees as hypocritical and stupid.

You are absolutely right about most of us not reading enough to back what we think is truth. I contend that the scripture that states "study to show thyself approved" is not applied very much by most "Christians". While I do not claim to know it all, I do claim to know the path to salvation and a place of refuge that most will never know because of a stone heart.

BTW I am reading a pretty good book (so far) called the devinchi method. I think so far I am one but we'll see. It is already going into areas I am uncomfortable with but I am keeping an open mind. See I can be open minded, provided the approach is nice and not in my face.

Be blessed and do good work, Toadmund.

I didn't mean to imply you in particular as being a decieved christian, and that part about being fished in, couldn't help it, I've just had it happen to me so many times.
Some christians are easily mislead and therefore must be on the lookout for those who wish to decieve using faith as a door to allow the deception to take root.
It just makes a lot of people mad, and as a consequence they reject religion, because it becomes a problem.
Religion is supposed to be part of the solution, but psuedo-christians take it and screw it up.

I am not sure changing religions so often is an example of being well educated in religious doctrines. With all due honesty, it would seem more like a problem of weak will, particularly because of some of the extremes you ascribed to.

The quote is "Let no man come to the father but through me". As a GNOSTIC (Not Agnostic), it means that the behavior of Christ must be emulated, not that salvation is attained merely through belief. One must not just believe in godliness as much as act it out, to turn away the deceit of the material at every corner.

Christ himself concentrated a good deal on equality amongst people, "Do unto others as you wouldst do unto yourself"

"Love thy neighbor, and thy enemy equally," Is also something of a favorite. "Turn the Other cheek," Which works on an individual to individual basis, not on faceless corporate inhumanity. The concept is to make a friend of your enemy, to turn him from his hatred into loving you through your actions. Which I again state, doesn't work all that well for faceless corporations.

I really do think that the example of the Jewish Temple wherein Jesus kind of loses it is the perfect example in this case. The Exploitation of people through religion is not all that different from what is going on with big corporations like walmart... it's in some ways worse, as Walmart actually encourages Sloth in their customers and Greed in their management.

Maybe Sloth in their management too, come to think of it.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
I am not sure changing religions so often is an example of being well educated in religious doctrines. With all due honesty, it would seem more like a problem of weak will, particularly because of some of the extremes you ascribed to.

The quote is "Let no man come to the father but through me". As a GNOSTIC (Not Agnostic), it means that the behavior of Christ must be emulated, not that salvation is attained merely through belief. One must not just believe in godliness as much as act it out, to turn away the deceit of the material at every corner.

Christ himself concentrated a good deal on equality amongst people, "Do unto others as you wouldst do unto yourself"

"Love thy neighbor, and thy enemy equally," Is also something of a favorite. "Turn the Other cheek," Which works on an individual to individual basis, not on faceless corporate inhumanity. The concept is to make a friend of your enemy, to turn him from his hatred into loving you through your actions. Which I again state, doesn't work all that well for faceless corporations.

I really do think that the example of the Jewish Temple wherein Jesus kind of loses it is the perfect example in this case. The Exploitation of people through religion is not all that different from what is going on with big corporations like walmart... it's in some ways worse, as Walmart actually encourages Sloth in their customers and Greed in their management.

Maybe Sloth in their management too, come to think of it.

Not weaked willed just a curious mind that was seeking after truth.

As to extremity in my beliefs, well I could say the same for about 90 % of religions today. I mean really, is the burke of islam extreme? Or maybe the Hundu dress for women? What about the robes worn by the Buddhists, reminds me a dress and would not be suitable for men (my opinion). What about the Krishnas, feel like a good head shave? Pagans, well don't get me started on the whole piercing thing. So saying I subscribe to an extreme doctrine is silly, IMO. How many people, when they go to a sporting event, paint their bodies or get drunk and act silly? They are doing this for an entertainment event. Do you really think the players care about who is acting rediculous for them and the place they play for? Nope. My understanding of the Word is based on a literal reading. If I cannot take God at face value then what am I to go on? If He says don't kill is that figuratively, like maybe He didn't really mean that. I see the Word being pretty plain in what I've read of it about salvation and how to live and treat others. I don't claim to understand all of it, I'd be lying if I did. I intend to understand as much as I need to get to heaven and take as many as I can before we step into eternity. Because I'll tell you this in closing, once you leave this life you can't change your mind about anything. How you step out is how you will be judged. Does it break my heart to know that so many are being decieved by centuries of fables? Yes it does. And all because they will not just try and do it the way presented plainly in the text of His word. Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself. If you can honestly read the book of acts and not see salvation as we (Pentecostal Apostolics) see it, then I guess you never will. I mean really, no one was saved in the Gospels, because Jesus didn't die yet. From Romans to Revelation are letters to saints already in the body of Christ and saved if they remain living holy. So where do you find the transition, the book of Acts. I would challenge anyone to find one scripture to contradict this in the book of Acts.

Another scenario: I do some cool stuff and you start thinking of me as the messiah you've been prophecied to from the old days. If I said "y'know I want you all to do something for me. I want you to go into all the earth as we know it and dunk them in the name of the father, son and holy ghost". Would you not ask me "well what is that name?". If you didn't I'd wonder at your ability to "deny ignorance". If you later dunked people in anything other than "Father, son and Holy Ghost" would you be obeying my request? The Apostles sure didn't do it any other way than the name of Jesus. Again, if I said you have seen the father when asked to show them the father and after I die I say "I will send another comforter, I will come to comfort you", would you be able to say anything other than it was me who was coming again to comfort you from that statment?

SKMDC1 says:

quote: 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"?

"Good" in that it works to keep the enterprise going and supply am awful lot of goods to an awful lot of consumers, almost none of whom equate "SKMDC1" with "God Almighty".

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.

SKMDC1, I propose that you are not the arbiter of what is "good" or "harmful" to the American people. The American people seem to be able to do that just fine, thank you very much; and they seem to overwhelmingly like the idea of Wal-Mart.

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.

Look, kid, I don't have to provide you with any kind of justification for anything at all.

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?

You sure seem anxious for the government to step in and regulate us.

Why do you small government people think BIG BUSINESS is less dangerous to an individuals liberty than BIG GOVERNMENT.

Because we are not forced to shop at Wal-Mart. In a market economy, people can choose what to do. With your government "regulation", people must do what the government tells them to do -- or go to jail. Again, it boils down to choice: I offer it, you constrain it.

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.

Not at all! I am not promoting Communism or Wal-Mart. But I do believe that people have a right to make a choice, even if you or I may not agree with that choice -- as long as it doesn't constrain my choices!

However, if people vote for a communist state with their ballots (as they have done in several cases in the past) or for Wal-Mart with their pocketbooks (as they seem to be doing now), who am I to gainsay them?

And your argument about "employees being on Medicaid" is specious. Are you implying that if these peope didn't have a job at Wal-Mart, they' d magically get off Medicaid? I don't think so LOL!

(re: "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.

You're the one constantly talking about the "end justifying the means". I could say that your call for an intrusive government forcing regulations on American consumers (for their own good, of course) is also the "end justifying the means", but I'm not obsessing on that particular point one way or the other.

Sanctions? No. Let's start with what Maryland is doing and require Wal-Mart to provide health care for it's [sic] part-time employees. Make it anyone over 15 hours a week. That's a start. That will get them off Medicaid....

And the additional cost will be passed on to consumers who are also taxpayers; either way, we pick up the tab. Basic Macroeconomics 101 truism: There's no such thing as a free lunch.

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?

Right. If that's not economic imperialism, I don't know what is. You seem to want the United States of SKMDC1 to just go to all these countries and tell them that, regardless of their own culture, their own economy or lack of it, we will notdo business with them unless they play by SKMDC1's economic rules!

And if Wal-Mart does not agree to your meddling in their business, will you just ignore their deeds or do you propose punishing them for minding their own business?

That sure sounds like "sanctions" to me!

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

You're Pro-Choice.

Yes. I believe a competent adult should be free to do whatever he or she chooses, as long as his choices doen't interfere with my choices. This means if she wants an abortion, a handgun, a joint, a porn flick, the right to suicide, the right to marry someone of her own sex, and the right to dispose of her property as she sees fit, whether by donating it to the Society of Orphaned Cats, a hooker, or a blackjack dealer at Las Vegas, she should be able to do so.

Are some of those choices stupid? In my opinion, they are. But I try to avoid ordering people to follow my particular preferences.

In other words, I don't believe that I have the right to jam my morals down your throat ...

...and vice versa.

As it happens, I am a Vietnam-era veteran and a Born-again Christian; I am angered by burning the American Flag and think that abortion is a sin. But I also believe in free agency on the part of the individual and that he will reap whatever judgement he reaps from a higher Source than I, anyway.

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?

I guess I answered in favor of the first, right?

And yes, my choice as a human being overrides your desire to take that choice away from me. Remember, I'm not depriving you of any of your innate rights to life, liberty, etc. You're still free to make whatever choices you make.

Now quit arguing and go clean up your room.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by Off_The_Street]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
"Good" in that it works to keep the enterprise going and supply am awful lot of goods to an awful lot of consumers, almost none of whom equate "SKMDC1" with "God Almighty".

So not good in that it is a "GOOD" thing, so much as it is a CONVENIENT thing.

SKMDC1, I propose that you are not the arbiter of what is "good" or "harmful" to the American people. The American people seem to be able to do that just fine, thank you very much; and they seem to overwhelmingly like the idea of Wal-Mart.

You are also not arbiter of what is "Good" or "Harmful", so try not to use it if you are going to criticize others for doing so.

Also, the American Public's decisions aren't necessarily "Right" or "Good" for America. Unfortunately, selfishness rules the empire, so whatever is convenient and fortunate for the individual is best to them, no matter who it hurts. That doesn't make it "GOOD".

Look, kid, I don't have to provide you with any kind of justification for anything at all.

Firstly, calling him a kid is a direct insult, as you are trying to lower him to a subservient position in the conversation by referring to him as a "KID" and thus below you.

Secondly, You are required to provide reasons and justifications for your opinions if you are debating or discussing, otherwise your opinions do not matter. Substantiate and explain yourself, or Leave the conversation, do not play high and mighty and then refuse to justify your position, it's insulting.

You sure seem anxious for the government to step in and regulate us.

From what I've seen, you've ASSUMED that he was for Government Regulation. I personally think he was merely voicing his own personal hatred for Walmart and his own reasons that he wishes people would stop supporting the inhumane principles they promote.

Because we are not forced to shop at Wal-Mart.

You are, by the elimination of choices done by WALMART. WALMART limits your choices through business practice. Aren't you all about CHOICE?

Not at all! I am not promoting Communism or Wal-Mart. But I do believe that people have a right to make a choice, even if you or I may not agree with that choice -- as long as it doesn't constrain my choices!

People in a general sense are ill informed, and as I stated above, Walmart VOIDS people's choices by killing local business, giving them no choice where to shop. No, they don't do this accidentally, they do this ON PURPOSE. It is part of their business strategy, Manager's TALK about what stores they are going to kill before they open up the store.

You're the one constantly talking about the "end justifying the means". I could say that your call for an intrusive government forcing regulations on American consumers (for their own good, of course) is also the "end justifying the means", but I'm not obsessing on that particular point one way or the other.

He has never called for such, as has been stated by him. You are assuming and running with a false presumption that hasn't been claimed. As far as I've seen, the "END" being cheap goods and widespread distribution is not justified by the "MEANS" which is poor employee treatment and ruthless devastation of rural economies with a purposely malicious intent.

And the additional cost will be passed on to consumers who are also taxpayers; either way, we pick up the tab. Basic Macroeconomics 101 truism: There's no such thing as a free lunch.

GOOD. Make the consumer pay more, bring up the quality of employee care across the board, make the consumer pay an extra 25 cents. Make Walmart culpable for its behavior, every business should be culpable for its behavior in how they treat their customers. "FREE MARKET" Should never mean "DO WHAT YOU WISH TO EVERYONE".

Right. If that's not economic imperialism, I don't know what is. You seem to want the United States of SKMDC1 to just go to all these countries and tell them that, regardless of their own culture, their own economy or lack of it, we will notdo business with them unless they play by SKMDC1's economic rules!

We are AMERICA, sir! We should not endorse unamerican qualities just for the sake of cheap goods, no matter how cheap it makes things! It is hypocritical and wrong to espouse how free we are while our economy is built on the backs of the impoverished in other nations. I realize that we pay them more than they can make elsewhere in their countries, but we should also keep our own STANDARDS when dealing with others, otherwise we are disingenuous and two-faced.

Now quit arguing and go clean up your room.

You may be as old as you claim, but this is about as immature as any 16 year old I've met in my time on earth. You're again talking down to the person you disagree with, rather than engaging them in a fair discussion. You lower them to a level below you, saying that their words are meaningless because (I would wager) they just haven't LIVED as much as you have.

It is always surprising how older folks feel that the younger folks are so incredibly stupid, while they are the cause of why the world is the way it is, considering the younger folks don't have much say in government yet (Their generation hasn't reached the age of acceptable running for office).

The Crystal Sword says:

So not good in that it is a "GOOD" thing, so much as it is a CONVENIENT thing.

You define “good”, “bad”, or “convenient” how you choose; I’ll define it the way I choose. I’m not saying that what Wal-Mart does is “good" from whatever moral point you (or I) choose; I’m saying that people should be free to make their choices.

You are also not arbiter of what is "Good" or "Harmful", so try not to use it if you are going to criticize others for doing so.

I never claimed to be an arbiter; if I were, I suppose I’d be one of those people who want to control and "regulate" others.

Also, the American Public's decisions aren't necessarily "Right" or "Good" for America. Unfortunately, selfishness rules the empire, so whatever is convenient and fortunate for the individual is best to them, no matter who it hurts. That doesn't make it "GOOD".

Why do you keep on beating this “I think it’s bad, therefore it’s bad” thing? I’m not interested in any philosophical arguments; I’m making a case for freedom of choice. You could say that drinking alcohol or smoking pot is not “good” but I don’t think that gives you (or the Government) the right to forbid me from doing so.

”Look, kid, I don't have to provide you with any kind of justification for anything at all.”

Firstly, calling him a kid is a direct insult, as you are trying to lower him to a subservient position in the conversation by referring to him as a "KID" and thus below you.

Quit being a crybaby! Compared to me he is a kid, and so are you. I don’t cavil at some of his comments; if you (or he) can’t stand the heat of an argument, stay out of the kitchen.

Secondly, You are required to provide reasons and justifications for your opinions if you are debating or discussing, otherwise your opinions do not matter. Substantiate and explain yourself, or Leave the conversation, do not play high and mighty and then refuse to justify your position, it's insulting.

Don’t try to foist your rules on me, kid; it’s not going to work. I’m not “required” to do anything to satisfy your rules or guidelines; and if my opinions don’t matter to you, then why are you spending time trying to change them?

From what I've seen, you've ASSUMED that he was for Government Regulation. I personally think he was merely voicing his own personal hatred for Walmart and his own reasons that he wishes people would stop supporting the inhumane principles they promote.

Well, his exact words were: ”No. Let's start with what Maryland is doing and require Wal-Mart to provide…” Now where I come from, having the government requiring someone to do something is regulating them.

And your comment about your colleague SKMDC1 “...voicing his own personal hatred for Walmart” seems to me to be a bit insulting to him. Maybe he’s appointed you his spokesperson, but if he hasn’t, I think he might be a bit miffed that you’re denigrating his arguments by saying that he really didn’t mean what he said.

But that’s between the two of you, of course.

quote:
Because we are not forced to shop at Wal-Mart.

You are, by the elimination of choices done by WALMART. WALMART limits your choices through business practice. Aren't you all about CHOICE?

It doesn’t limit my choices at all. Where I live, in a city of about 400,000, there are many, many stores: specialty ones, grocery stores, and department stores. I shop in many of them; indeed, I don’t spend much time or money at Wal-Mart at all. I don’t know what it’s like where you live.

People in a general sense are ill informed, and as I stated above, Walmart VOIDS people's choices by killing local business, giving them no choice where to shop. No, they don't do this accidentally, they do this ON PURPOSE. It is part of their business strategy, Manager's TALK about what stores they are going to kill before they open up the store.

I am sure that you and your friends will be glad to “inform” the “ill-informed’ Americans with your superior knowledge. And although I suppose that there will be people who accept your completely unsubstantiated attack on Wal-mart doing this “ON PURPUSE” (horrors!) I don’t. Keep to the point; and don’t make allegations for which you have no substantiation.

He has never called for such (the end justifying the means), as has been stated by him. You are assuming and running with a false presumption that hasn't been claimed.

Actually, he was the only person using the term “the end justifies the means.” All I am saying is that if my championing freedom can be construed as “the end justifying the means”, then his statement about how we must remove freedoms (for the good of the ill advised people, of course) could be construed the same way.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

As far as I've seen, the "END" being cheap goods and widespread distribution is not justified by the "MEANS" which is poor employee treatment and ruthless devastation of rural economies with a purposely malicious intent.

As far as I’ve seen, the end of fostering your rules on a populace does not justify your means which, of course, is taking away their freedom to choose in the first place.

But then, perhaps I put a higher premium on freedom than you do.

GOOD. Make the consumer pay more, bring up the quality of employee care across the board, make the consumer pay an extra 25 cents. Make Walmart culpable for its behavior…

No comment.

We are AMERICA, sir! We should not endorse unamerican qualities just for the sake of cheap goods, no matter how cheap it makes things! It is hypocritical and wrong to espouse how free we are while our economy is built on the backs of the impoverished in other nations. I realize that we pay them more than they can make elsewhere in their countries, but we should also keep our own STANDARDS when dealing with others, otherwise we are disingenuous and two-faced.

Boy, you sure enamored with the word “hypocritical”, aren’t you?

I find it interesting that you are also enamored with the concept of “American” and un-American” qualities. Perhaps you should read about that bastion of American liberty and decency of the early 1950’s: The House Un-american Activities Committee. The facts of the matter are simple, no matter how you choose to spin them:

It is not “American” -- or it wasn’t when I was a young man -- to tell a Thai or an Indonesian that it is better for him to starve without a job than to take one which pays them a living wage, because The Crystal Sword says such a compensation is not "good enough" for him.

Our economy is not build on the “backs of the impoverished”, as tasty a sound-bite as that may be to you. The reality of life is that if American businesses are forced to pay the inflated salaries which you consider an absolute necessity, there will be no incentive for them to offer anything to a foreign country.

The result? The American company goes out of business because it can’t compete, American workers are out of a job because there is no more American company to employ them, American consumers are required to pay more for the same merchandise, and the people of Indonesia have their annual income cut drastically. But The Crystal Sword can feel good about things. Whee.

You may be as old as you claim, but this is about as immature as any 16 year old I've met in my time on earth. You're again talking down to the person you disagree with, rather than engaging them in a fair discussion. You lower them to a level below you, saying that their words are meaningless because (I would wager) they just haven't LIVED as much as you have.

It’s because you’re such a tempting target; it’s so easy to ‘get the goat’ of humorless, overly-earnest, self-important people, regardless of their age.

It is always surprising how older folks feel that the younger folks are so incredibly stupid…

My, my, my! Do I see a ... generalization .. here?

… while they are the cause of why the world is the way it is, considering the younger folks don't have much say in government yet (Their generation hasn't reached the age of acceptable running for office).

Hopefully, by the time they are of such an age, my wisdom (which I am trying erarnestly but so far unsuccessfully to impart) will have rubbed off on at least some of them.

One can only hope.


[edit on 30-1-2006 by Off_The_Street]

Not that I'm taking sides in the ongoing shoot 'em up , but off the street guy makes some VERY good points. Americans may be "lazy consumers" according to the latest sound bite but we are also one of the most innovative groups around the world. If Wal-mart wants to practice a business plan that ultimately helps people around the world because it infuses the economy of the employed country with a working populace, just to make a buck and provide us with toys then so be it. They ain't running prostitution rings out of the lawn and leaf section of the store or selling MJ in the pharmacy area, so I guess they are alright as a store of last resort (if your a mom and pop store supporter).

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
"Good" in that it works to keep the enterprise going and supply am awful lot of goods to an awful lot of consumers, almost none of whom equate "SKMDC1" with "God Almighty".

So, your subjective definition of "good" is okay, but if someone disagrees with that subjective definition, then suddenly they are acting like God Almighty. That's a double standard. I was actually argueing that there is NO objective definition of "good" at all, for me or you. We all have our own subjective view of what is good, and when you originally stated what Wal-Mart did was GOOD, you didn't qualify that with a statement that it's only GOOD to you, you implied it was a universal good, which unless you are God Almighty, you're not allowed to define.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
SKMDC1, I propose that you are not the arbiter of what is "good" or "harmful" to the American people. The American people seem to be able to do that just fine, thank you very much; and they seem to overwhelmingly like the idea of Wal-Mart.

Because they have no choice. Monopolistic business practices have nothing to do with the perceptions of "good" or "bad"... they simply limit an individual's choice. Wal-Mart limits an individuals choice by a) closing the competition and b) controlling prices. These practices are not economic policies I support, or indeed think this country should allow.

Originally posted by Off_The_StreetLook, kid, I don't have to provide you with any kind of justification for anything at all.

That's insulting. Please apologize.

You're right, you don't have to justify anything, but this is a debate and therefore if you dont' want to clarify your position, then you should go somewhere where everyone agrees with you.

Originally posted by Off_The_StreetYou sure seem anxious for the government to step in and regulate us.

That's a mistaken impression. Read my posts closer and think harder about the issue and you'll see that in this case government regulation of a big business isn't regulating US, it's free US from an opressive monopoly. Exactly the kind of thing any government (big or small) should do.

Originally posted by Off_The_StreetBecause we are not forced to shop at Wal-Mart.

Yes you are. When Wal-Mart puts all the competition out of business and literally controls the global market economy on products then you are controlled by Wal-Mart whether you shop there or not. They effect how EVERYONE does business. Please research this issue a little. It's not about not liking a store. It's about a corporation's effect on the global economy.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
In a market economy, people can choose what to do. With your government "regulation", people must do what the government tells them to do -- or go to jail. Again, it boils down to choice: I offer it, you constrain it.

You've got that exactly backwards. It's Wal-Mart constraining you, whether you shop there or not. Read the link posted earlier in the thread about the guy from Snapper doing business with Wal-Mart. Read ANYTHING about this issue as you seem to have it upside down.

Originally posted by Off_The_StreetAnd your argument about "employees being on Medicaid" is specious. Are you implying that if these peope didn't have a job at Wal-Mart, they' d magically get off Medicaid?

Yes. If they didnt' work at Wal-Mart they wouldn't be on Medicaid. Most of the mom and pops that Wal-Mart puts out of business offer health benefits. Do your research please.

Originally posted by Off_The_StreetYou're the one constantly talking about the "end justifying the means". I could say that your call for an intrusive government forcing regulations on American consumers (for their own good, of course) is also the "end justifying the means", but I'm not obsessing on that particular point one way or the other.

Explain how that is an "ends justify the means" argument. You don't seem to understand what the phrase means.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
And the additional cost will be passed on to consumers who are also taxpayers; either way, we pick up the tab. Basic Macroeconomics 101 truism: There's no such thing as a free lunch.

But you actually believe there's a such thing as "Low Prices Everyday"? Another interesting double standard. The Wal-Mart business practices are perfect examples of people thinking they're getting a free lunch when in fact there's much higher costs they don't see. Again, I'm not sure you understand what the "free lunch" truism really means.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Right. If that's not economic imperialism, I don't know what is. You seem to want the United States of SKMDC1 to just go to all these countries and tell them that, regardless of their own culture, their own economy or lack of it, we will notdo business with them unless they play by SKMDC1's economic rules!

Not MY rules... The rules of globally recognized international human rights. You do realize this already exists and it's already something the US does, right? Have you *heard* about the Cuba Embargo? There was this thing called the Bay of Pigs, and it... oh nevermind... I haven't the time or desire for a history lesson at the moment.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Now quit arguing and go clean up your room.

Another insult. I'll expect an apology.

Look, you're so turned around on this issue, you obviously have to do some research and get clear what it's about and what each side is standing for. In the long run I think we're ideologically the same... pro-individuals rights.