« Dear God in Heaven | Main | It's about time... »

A sensitive topic

Maybe the most passionately divisive subject in American discourse today is neither abortion nor the war in Iraq. Maybe it's Wal-Mart. Anyway, next week will see the release of two competing DVDs on the subject. You can get some sense of the controversy by reading the reviews for both -- lots of "one stars" and "five stars" for each. Yep, we're a polarized nation.

Honestly, I don't enjoy shopping at Wal-Mart, and I do my best to avoid it whenever possible (although where I come from, it's one of the few places where you can still get an honest-to-God Icee.) But frankly, I don't understand all the ruckus.

To borrow an argument from the abortion debate: You don't like Wal-Mart? Don't shop there. Seems pretty simple.


Problem is when they put one right across the street from your neighborhood, like they're trying to do near me. There's a Wal-Mart SuperCenter 2.8 miles down the road. And they want to open a newer, bigger 24-hour SuperCenter in the middle of a middle-class residential community.

A nearby city sends 5% of their police calls to the Wal-Mart. I don't want that in my communicty. No thanks.

If Wal-Mart had their way, they would overrun every city in Amercia with their stores. How is that good for anyone but Wal-Mart?

> If Wal-Mart had their way, they would overrun every city in Amercia with their stores. How is that good for anyone but Wal-Mart?

Take that paragraph and replace "Wal-Mart" with the name of any retailer. It remains true.

Not true at all. There are tons of retailers that thrive on being a "boutique" shop. Anthropologie, the Apple Store, J Jill, etc. You'll never see a 193,000 sq. ft., slate gray Oilily looming over the horizon.

Besides the fact that 95% of retailers can't afford to dominate like Wal-Mart can. And none that could (say, Home Depot, Lowes or Best Buy) have as negative of an impact on the local community (crime, environment, property values) as Wal-Mart does.

I'm not saying Wal-Mart should go out of business, I'm saying they should expand where reasonable and in areas that are appropriate. And it's up to the community to decide what is reasonable for their particular area, not Wal-Mart.

Yeah. Don't put Wal-Mart out of business. I may not enjoy going there, but being a college student, you can't really afford places like Target or HEB for groceries. I know it sounds sad, but it's true. Also, where else can I get Krispy Kreme cruellers at 3 AM. Oh yeah, th Krispy Kreme place. nevermind....


Maybe you should stop thinking about economic interests and personal choice, and start thinking about the cuddly little kittens and poor paraplegic children with little tears trickling down their faces.

Did you think about them, Barry? When you were defending your so-called "Wal-Mart"?

I always try to support local merchants, but all too often the item I need is out of stock. The little guys can't maintain that kind of inventory. Service and quality don't matter when you can't find what you're looking for.

Yeah, to my snobby taste, Wal-Mart sucks. It's dim and dank in a lot of the ones in Atlanta (in the black neighborhoods in the east and southside) for whatever reason. But, especially in the poorer communities, if you see what those folks had to shop at BEFORE WalMart got there.....yikes.

Other than that I support WalMart just because they've been so successful at irritating the hell out of the left. It's just fun to watch em fume, especially those that also shop at Target and Publix.

I read a great article about how Wal-Mart is actually keeping inflation in check because of the inexpensive imports provided from China. I want a Wal-Mart on every corner.

The misguided notice of self-correcting greed -- "capitalism" no neocons -- is exactly what WalMart epitomizes. The trouble is that coupled with corrupt politicians (all of them) it is a recipe for disaster. Your city is going to give your tax money to Wal-Mart. Your state is going to give your tax money to Wal-Mart. And yes, your federal government is going to give your money to Wal-Mart. All this through welfare. The employees need food stamps, medical care, and Wal-Mart helps them get it -- through the government, using your tax dollars!

If you don't shop at Wal-Mart, you STILL pay for their profits! The stupid neocon argument is that we should ALL, for high moral reasons, stop shopping at the place that has the best prices thanks to greed and corruption.

Woo hoo! Go neocons, go!

I find it interesting that virtually every numbskell uses the artificial construct "neocon" when discussing things they don't understand, like economics. Every bad idea is now a "neocon" idea.

Well there are few certainties in life, but one certainty is that anyone who lines up against free market economics is pretty much economically illiterate.

Charles Krauthammer (one of the very few self-proclaimed "neocons") recently called for $4 and $5 a gallon gasoline to disuade more people from driving.

Yes, Krauthammer, who occasionally does have a few lucid moments, is about as sane on this issue as are Bailey and Blue Wind, which is to say not at all.

High petro prices = higher inflation, as they raise the costs of everything. That is everything transported, everything packaged in plastic and other polymers, everything made by machines that require energy, and sold in stores that use electricity, must be lighted, heated, air conditioned, etc.

Yes Charles Krauthammer is an economic illiterate...probably hates Walmart too and for the same reason Bailey and Blue Wind do - "Just because."

Bailey claims that tax breaks given to Walmart are disastrous (perhaps), but mistakenly sees that as part and parcel of the Free Market system!

Errrrr! WRONG.

Tax breaks and government subsidies are part and parcel of Corporatism, the prevailing economy of Europe, America and Japan todaay.

Gosh, those Hankins are just so darn cute at that age.

Free market economics is the economy of freedom/liberty (as personal responsibility), but free markets don't allow government to protect any large Companies (a/k/a EMPLOYERS) and so, in a truly free market there is virtually no job security, as new technologies wash up over the landscape at irregular intervals, wiping out prevailing technologies almost overnight, along with all the jobs those prevailing technology based companies provide. For that reason, the free market is rife with a series of booms and busts, with little of no economic security for the common worker.

Since Socialism cannot exist without horrific violence (see Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, etc) and cannot provide any lasting prosperity, Corporatism is the ONLY viable alternative to the free market.

I am the opiate of the masses!! And hey, who doesn't like a little opiate every now and then.

The fact that employees of WalMart take advantage of free government assistance does not prove that WalMart is subsidized by the Government. Sorry, but those employeees have access to health care for VERY cheap ($150/mo for FAMILY coverage) through WalMart. Who can blame them for bypassing that and just getting it for free from the Gov?

When you make something free....

So, now you are stupid enough to make the argument that it is those LIBERALS who are handing out taxpayer money to Big Business???

Amazingly enough, this only got out of hand after the Republican Revolution, and Bush has pushed hard for every single corporate giveaway I meantioned, ya nattering neocon.

The Bush Tax Hike has been enormous on the middle class. He supports undermining the wages of everyone who isn't a corporate executive. He created doubled oil and gas prices. He helps companies steal money directly out of your pocket to build, for one thing, oil refineries!

What a blind retard you are. I'm not even a Democrat, stupid. I actually voted for Bush the first time.

Give up on the man if you have any honor. Bush is scum.

Bailey, you are clearly having a rough go here. Take a breather.

Heh, all I'm seeing are Neocon meltdowns. When are you going to ban me? I know you will, because in your hearts, Neocons are Neo-fascists.

I second Bailey's motion to have herself banned.

See? Come on, just hit the mute button with your flabby fat finger like Rush Limbaugh does when a caller starts tearing him to pieces!

No, no, don't ban her. She amuses me.

dammit, I've had my e-mail address wrong. *feels retarded*. Anyway, it's fixed. My bad.

Banning? I want to be banned! Then I can be cool!

Jill banned me. And I wasn't even being imflammatory, I was just backing CRB up, and she said I was being a hater. Liberals and hateful libertarians all need some prozac. I don't see any hateful lather being worked up by mainstream conservatives. And during Clinton's presidency we certainly never saw a hatefest like the one liberals have been trwoing since Bush was elected. What is it about liberalism that causes such conniption fits?

> Jill banned me. And I wasn't even being imflammatory, I was just backing CRB up, and she said I was being a hater.

It's called "projection."

Actually, now that I think about it, we should sic Bailey on Jill. ;-)

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think Jill might have been hacked. From her home page:
The Bush sucks!! Bush sucks!! of the Bush sucks!! is Bush sucks!! Bush sucks!! the Bush sucks!!'s Bush sucks!! to hell.
"We face a Bush sucks!! Bush sucks!!" that "Bush sucks!!," Bush sucks!! a Bush sucks!! of Bush sucks!!. He Bush sucks!! a Bush sucks!! of Bush sucks!!, led by the Bush sucks!! Bush sucks!! of the Bush sucks!!, Bush sucks!! Bush sucks!! and Bush sucks!! Bush sucks!! Bush sucks!! the Bush sucks!! in Bush sucks!!."

Or maybe she just decided to cut her prose down to the bare essentials.

Nah, check the URL. She worked some extra HTML crap into her domain name from the link to her site from this one. And yeah, projection sounds about right, Barry.

Ohhhh...I get it!

Funny thing is, I read half the page before I realized anything was amiss.

I think I finally understand all the shrillness and deep terror I seem to strike into you Neocons -- you think I'm female.

I'm older. Bailey was once more popular as a man's name. I bet you thought you had some young feminist who was never going to give you any, just like in high school and college. It's upsetting being a dorky Neocon, I know. You never get laid.

Well, I'm not that girl who won't have sex with you. I'm a guy. You can relax now.

"I think I finally understand all the shrillness and deep terror I seem to strike into you Neocons -- you think I'm female.

I'm older. Bailey was once more popular as a man's name. I bet you thought you had some young feminist who was never going to give you any, just like in high school and college. It's upsetting being a dorky Neocon, I know. You never get laid.

Well, I'm not that girl who won't have sex with you. I'm a guy. You can relax now." (BH)

Sure Miss, but everyone else around here seems pretty relaxed to me already.

BTW, "Jill" is a short, heavy-set, singularly unattractive girl who, on another boad, went by the name of Hackwriter. The picture I once saw of her resembled the Seinfeld character George Costanza in drag.

N.B. This post is not meant to offend or smear any actual person. I'm just commenting about my own perceptions of a picture associated with an online character.

BH, you have to make actual arguments in favor of what you believe to actually get the goat of even the most committed idealogues, but since you haven't offered a single fact to back up your inane views, that doesn't happen.

You must take the disagreement backed up by facts as "temper tantrums" and "melt downs."

They're not.

To paraphrase the late, great Harry S Truman, no one here is "giving you hell" BH, they're just telling you the truth and you just think it's hell.

LOL! Facts? You mean repeating what you heard Rush Limbaugh say?

Here is a fact: Bush lied. He intentionally misled gullible Americans into war by painting ominous pictures of mushroom clouds above our cities, when all he really wanted was a chance to get Halliburton and other Big Oil companies into that country to steal -- and at taxpayer expense!

They rushed in to protect the oil fields, not the people, not the alleged nuclear/bio/chemical weapons sites.

It's a sad day when the people who post at a site called CynicalNation turn out to be so childishly naive when it comes to Big Daddy Our Lord and Savior Dumb Dubya.

Again, WMDs are NOT the reason Iraq was invaded.

In fact, the ONLY official reason for the invasion of Iraq was its violation of UN Resolution 1441.

The WMD argument, one supported by the CIA, MI-6, Italian, Czech, FRENCH, GERMAN, RUSSIAN, Spanish and Israeli Intelligence was an "add on."

If there were some uncaring/under-informed Americans who didn't follow why we must now, and for the forseeable future, exert control over the Middle East and its oil supply, a little over-selling in the form of WMDs, links to al Qaeda, etc were all fair game. None of them were lies, at least none of those have been proven to be lies as of yet.


There were indeed stockpiles of nerve agents and biological weapons recovered, and there were also some 3,000 tons of UNenriched Uranium, which could've been enriched and made weapons capable very easily. And there was the pesky fact of Iraq's supporting and cooperating with the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps in northern iraq - both Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda shared a coomon enemy in the Kurds.

Consider the worst possible global disasters;

(A) California sinking into the Pacific along with 10 or 12 million American lives.

(B) China being wiped off the face of the earth by a horrific flu pandemic.

(C) Continental Europe falling under Muslim rule.

(D) America losing control of the world's strategic oil reserves.

And yes, by far, the worst possible worldwide disaster would be choice (D). It's the only one mentioned that would end in a series of "limited nuclear exchanges" and the destruction of over 60% of the earth's population, while eradicating much of the West's global sustaining economy.

People who don't understand that, or why that would be, probably shouldn't be debating the efficacy of America's current forays in the Middle East.

The West has faced three major threats to "freedom" over the last seventy years - the Nazi menace, the Communist menace and now the Islamo-fascist menace.

In order of how dangerous and threatening to America those three movements were, the most dangerous was the Communist menace, a close second is the current Islamo-cultist menace and the third most dangerous was the Nazi menace.

If the start date for America's global war on terrorism is given as Fall 2002 (Afghanistan), then we've got at least another fifteen years to go! There's an awful lot of fighting and killing that's yet to be done.

Syria and Iran have yet to be dealt with!

Post a comment