Antichrist Superstore (no Who)



Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 26 09:59:46 CDT 2004


> I don't 
> know whether they do or not, nor do I believe that
> you know either.

Alan:

I know it for here, and I'm sure it's not different
anywhere else. Why should this place be so any
special?

> simply note that all of them around here usually
> have a hefty number of 
> cars in their parking lots, patronized by a
> notoriously price-sensitive 
> clientele.

As Lazarus Long once said: Never underestimate the
power of human stupidity.

> by their dollars. this is a crucial pint which seems
> to mean nothing to you.

You mean selfishness is your counterargument? 
By the measure you present, you should be into Britney
rather than The Who, after all people have voted her
the best by their dollars.

> And in this great country, you're free to try to
> convince their customers of that.

And I always will.

> Careful you don't block the
> entrance while handing 
> out your flyers, I'd hate to see you trampled.

You get your Britney TShirt yet? I understand Walmart
has them on sale.

> Eminent domain is an immoral abomination, and should
> be eliminated, period.

I can't go with you there. You're thinking too black
and white. It's going to depend on the case. If it's a
road, hospital, police or fire station, then that's
what the law was made for. If it's a Walmart, it's not
justifiable.

> you don't have a leg to stand on when corporations
> take advantage of it 

Of course I do, don't be silly. Like most things in
life, it's not a black and white issue.

> Wal-mart is that 
> they will generate more tax revenue for the

I know that, and it's not a good case.

> for Wal-mart.  Your blaming the business instead of
> the law that makes 
> the rights violation possible indicates some
> single-track thinking.

My thinking is single track? You're the one here who
apparently doesn't think large corps like Walmart
influence the politicians! I'm blaming the people who
are responsible, which would include politicians but
is mainly the people who profit from it.
The law itself is certainly not to blame. It's meant
to help the citizens of this country, and was NEVER
intended to take land for private usage. The law is
not to blame...it's the greedy people who INTERPRET
and bend it to their will.

> I mean them, if you'll read my sentence, if they
> become single-issue 
> voters who think outsourcing is a national crisis. 

You mean like abortion has become?

> As to the 
> individual cases, I'm sorry they had to go to the
> trouble of finding a 
> new job, but that doesn't invalidate my statement

I'm sure those who are now unemployed appreciate your
understanding. As for your statement, well some of us
subscribe to the Barney Fife theory of "nipping it in
the bud." Outsourcing is increasing dramatically and
if no effort is made to stop it, it could become a
crisis.
Some people things will always stay the way they are
now, and some see that things are escalating.

> And how some people think citing a personal story
> falsifies a fact.

And how some think people's lives are just a statistic
to be bandied around. That's the TRUE legacy of
Reagan. Unfeeling, cold-hearted disregard for human
beings. It's like saying, "Oh, only a few troops have
died in Iraq compared to WW II." Tell that to a kid
who's now without his father.
I'm still amazed at how unfeeling people are in regard
to their fellow citizens. Forget that fact that when
we're all prosperous, it's good for everyone. No,
instead let's destroy a few (hundred thousand) lives
so we can get cheap tires.
Actually, I'd go so far as to say the damage Walmart
and outsourcing has caused is beyond measure...how
many people would be in better jobs today, making more
money, making this country more ecomomically sound?
"Hundred thousand" should probably be more like
"millions."

> They (or any other business) could, but it would be
> a failure as a general policy.

That's why it's been so successful for them, because
it's a failure.

> I don't see why you think that's so nefarious.

So, you don't think economic bullying is a bad thing.
You don't think Walmart forcing wholesalers to sell at
the price Walmart sets, as well as charging them a fee
for placing the item in a good location, and let's not
even mention economically forcing people to CENSOR
their music, you see all this as just good ol'
American capitalism.
Because this is what your argument indicates.
I'm sorry, I'm just a guy with a regular sense of
what's right and wrong, so I can't go there with you.
A store who decides to put people out of business as
policy is not getting my support, respect or money.

> I don't remember what it was...sorry.

Reaganomics "trickle-down" is the same damned utterly
foolish policy we have again. It's taken $700 billion
in deficit to create an "OK" economic recovery (which
is to say, few economists believe it's real and
sustainable).


"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is
a legacy, but I'll never see it."
   George "cuckoo for coco puffs" Bush

=====
Cheers         ML


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 




More information about the TheWho mailing list