WalMart refuses to sell Playboy or Maxim but sells guns

[opebo]

WalMart is run by a bunch of christian intolerants, and most of the customers are the same type.  Please, everyone, abuse their 90 day return policy - to the max!

[opebo]

WalMart is run by a bunch of christian intolerants, and most of the customers are the same type.  Please, everyone, abuse their 90 day return policy - to the max!

Do you think that actually hurts the stock holders and owners, or the minimum wage student they have working there that interacts with the annoying customers?

It is impossible to hurt that minimum wage person (she is typically an adult), as she cannot fall any lower.

[opebo]

Why is this hypocrisy?  Walmart should sell whatever it wants to sell.

And we should all buy it and return it 90 days later.  Never, ever keep anything from that junk-shop.  (I'm saying this only partly as a political statement - the stuff does usually break after just a little over the 90 days anyway).

[opebo]

WalMart is run by a bunch of christian intolerants, and most of the customers are the same type.  Please, everyone, abuse their 90 day return policy - to the max!

lol  You are so full of sh**t.  Hillary Clinton used to be on the board of directors.

Proves my point, eh?

[opebo]

WalMart is run by a bunch of christian intolerants, and most of the customers are the same type.  Please, everyone, abuse their 90 day return policy - to the max!

Do you think that actually hurts the stock holders and owners, or the minimum wage student they have working there that interacts with the annoying customers?

It is impossible to hurt that minimum wage person (she is typically an adult), as she cannot fall any lower.

Heh, obviously you've never worked for minimum wage.  If lots of customers treat you like sh**t and give you trouble, it makes your day so much worse.

What you're advocating doesn't hurt the managers or stockholders.  It hurts those that you "care" about.

How does returning something 'hurt' the slave-wage employee?  I'm unfailingly polite in all my dealings, including those returns.

[opebo]

Yes / Yes.
Why would you vote againts selling guns in Walmart unless you oppose selling guns anywhere?

Why would anyone oppose selling Playboys at Wal-Mart unless they oppose selling Playboys anywhere?

Because we want to maintain a level of decency in society.

Hah hah, I'm sure your allies would find dragging the likes of you behind a pick-up truck an even better way of promoting 'decency'. 

The concept of 'decency' is nothing more than subjective preference as there is no objective morality.  You're an intolerant for attempting to impose your preferences on others, and so is Walmart.

[opebo]

I believed that Wal-Mart was in the business of selling the necessities and incidentals of life (food, clothing, hardware, etc.) at bargain basement prices. In some parts, a gun qualifies as a necessity; in others parts, a nice incidental piece of hardware used for sport and recreation. I see no harm in it.

That goes for the sex recreation as well: Wal-Mart sells lubricants and such as well, in addition to condoms.

So I don't see what you're complaining about, unless your imagination is so impoverished that you cannot use the sex items Wal-Mart offers without printed stimulation.

word.

still, if I were a playboy afficionado, I'd be upset too.  If you're a fan of walmart and a fan of playboy, then this must be disappointing.  I'm only a fan of one of those two, so it really doesn't bother me.  Unless, of course, this causes WMT stocks to tank.  As I read it, and I think I read it correctly, stocking guns is a good call.  Bound to be good for business, given the demographic.  As for not stocking nudie mags, well, so long as they still sell Hustler (which has much more entertaining reading and cartoons), then I don't see it's a problem.  Hey, even with a bazillion square feet, you still have to make choices about what you can stock and what you can't, and Playboy always struck me as the sort of higher-end nudie mag that wouldn't be the choice of the Wal-Mart demographic anyway. 

angus, I assume you are joking about Hustler, as I would assume you are aware that the religious that own Walmart would not sell any porn.  It is a decision based upon intolerance, not what sells.  By the way, why should there be a Walmart in Manhattan?  I suspect the prevailing wage is above $6.50 an hour, which would incense the Arkansans sense of fairness, and Manhattanites may be less amenable to cheap junk than people trapped in suburbia and rural areas.

storebought, the lubricants and condoms and so forth are useless to many in America, as it is a purritanical land where sex is not redily available to many.  In this miserable place, masturbation is all that many men can hope for, and porn is their only sexual enjoyment.

[opebo]

It's gonna be okay, boys and girls.  (unless, of course, you're in the blue-collar industries being crowded out by Walmart and Target and their chinese cohorts.  Ah, well, can't win 'em all.)

Cheaper labour (particularly slave labour) always 'wins'.  You may congratulate yourself that you are not among thouse affected, but over the long term nearly everyone will be.  It most emphatically will not be 'ok', for the vast majority of people - either in China or the US.

[opebo]

today on my trip to wal mart i nabbed some spicy brown mustard for 86 cents.  beenie weenies were  66 cents.  i also got a package of ball park franks for $2.50

who cares about hustler and guns?  im eating the all american lunch.

Wow, that is very disgusting.  Are you stupendously flatulent, Mitty?

[opebo]

tough call, I realize.  on the one hand, discount stores which send their finance people to high-pressure meetings in Hong Kong in order to bid down the cost of production have the effect of offering products at a lower price.  (often, it's a forgone conclusion that the chinese are the only ones who can, which is why the meetings are conveniently held in East Asia in the first place.)  These lower prices allow consumers to get a bigger bang for their buck.  The US census department defines a parameter it calls "standard of living" which is inversely proportional to the aggregate cost of all goods and services in a given market, and directly porportional to the average income in that given market.  Normalized such that Los Angeles standard of living is at 100, for comparisons and referencing I suppose.  (NYC, for example is about 85, reflecting not lower salaries, but higher prices)  Thus by decreasing costs of consumer goods, outfits like Target, Walmart, Kmart, etc., offer us a higher standard of living by decreasing the denominator in the "standard of living" ratio.  But, bear in mind that many US manufactures have closed in recent years because they simply cannot compete with the cheap chinese labor.  (And you're right, the chinese people aren't getting rich, but only a handful of chinese entrepreneurs are.)  Thus the numerator in the "standard of living" ratio also decreases because of these practices.  You can probably do a careful analysis of this situation and optimize the US standard of living using the quotient rule for determining first derivatives for this quotient function.  Of course many assumptions would have to be made.  Moreover, it is certainly not universally agreed-upon that the duties of government should include optimizing the "standard of living" for the People.  Presumably, on one end of the spectrum we have the Socialists, who would argue that it is a reasonable function of our government.  But, on the other, you have the Libertarians who would argue that it is not, as that is a private sector/free market matter.  Democrats and Republicans, of course, fall somewhere between those two extremes. 

Actually one can have one's cake and eat it too if one simply abandons the old-fashioned notion of employment as the key to economic security and comfort.  Simply allow the free trade which does tremendous damage to the bottom 80% while enriching the top 1-5%, and then redistribute through a generous welfare state.  So you still have the slave-made products you love so well, angus, while the working-class americans made destitute by this trade are saved by the State.

Of course that leaves the chinese slave-workers holding the bag, but I suppose if they want to improve their lot they should rise up and slit the throats of their oppressors (like they did in 1949). 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense my man, individual effort and decision making is highly exaggerated in importance.  Nearly all of one's economic future is determined by birth class.  I for example have little money to invest, and will only have large amounts such when (and if) I inherit.  So there is nothing I can do to gain investable funds, except.. well maybe I'd better not type that...

[opebo]

You sure shop for groceries and such a lot angus.  I must admit I never enter grocery stores - prefer to dine in restaurants.

Visiting a normal grocery store (in St. Louis the Shnucks chain) is only mildly depressing, but going into Walmart is such a display of America's new third-world standard of living - fat poor people struggle through the aisles of garbage - that I really can't manage it more than once every few months.

Your figure that a majority of American's over $24,700 voted for Bush is dismaying.  I think the cut off at which it would make sense to vote for him would be about $150,000-200,000 or so.  One wonders when people will notice their own self-interests.

[opebo]

You sure shop for groceries and such a lot angus.  I must admit I never enter grocery stores - prefer to dine in restaurants.

Visiting a normal grocery store (in St. Louis the Shnucks chain) is only mildly depressing, but going into Walmart is such a display of America's new third-world standard of living - fat poor people struggle through the aisles of garbage - that I really can't manage it more than once every few months.

Your figure that a majority of American's over $24,700 voted for Bush is dismaying.  I think the cut off at which it would make sense to vote for him would be about $150,000-200,000 or so.  One wonders when people will notice their own self-interests.

Yes, I'm sure everyone beloew $150000 is interested in living in a stagnated economy.

Hah, what a baseless claim!  Besides, the economy is stagnant for the bottom 90% even in the current laissez-faire system.

[opebo]

You sure shop for groceries and such a lot angus.  I must admit I never enter grocery stores - prefer to dine in restaurants.

Visiting a normal grocery store (in St. Louis the Shnucks chain) is only mildly depressing, but going into Walmart is such a display of America's new third-world standard of living - fat poor people struggle through the aisles of garbage - that I really can't manage it more than once every few months.

Your figure that a majority of American's over $24,700 voted for Bush is dismaying.  I think the cut off at which it would make sense to vote for him would be about $150,000-200,000 or so.  One wonders when people will notice their own self-interests.

Yes, I'm sure everyone beloew $150000 is interested in living in a stagnated economy.

Hah, what a baseless claim! 

I learned from the master.

How do you explain the fact that both the American and European economies grew much faster during the more Keynesian redistriubutionist post-WWII era than in the laissez-faire era of the last 25 years?

[opebo]

You sure shop for groceries and such a lot angus.  I must admit I never enter grocery stores - prefer to dine in restaurants.

Visiting a normal grocery store (in St. Louis the Shnucks chain) is only mildly depressing, but going into Walmart is such a display of America's new third-world standard of living - fat poor people struggle through the aisles of garbage - that I really can't manage it more than once every few months.

Your figure that a majority of American's over $24,700 voted for Bush is dismaying.  I think the cut off at which it would make sense to vote for him would be about $150,000-200,000 or so.  One wonders when people will notice their own self-interests.

Yes, I'm sure everyone beloew $150000 is interested in living in a stagnated economy.

Hah, what a baseless claim! 

I learned from the master.

How do you explain the fact that both the American and European economies grew much faster during the more Keynesian redistriubutionist post-WWII era than in the laissez-faire era of the last 25 years?

Reconstruction.

Pshaw.  Redistribution.  We could recreate the same conditions with the stroke of a pen right now.

(admittedly redistribution and 'reconstruction' are part of the same overall function - taking from the owning class and giving to the working class)

[opebo]

It is definitely working for Europe.

Yes, the working class is much better off in Europe than in the United States.

[opebo]

I prefer daily shopping to weekly, as bread and vegetables are fresher that way.  And I rarely enter restaurants, as I prefer food that tastes good and my wife and I are, respectively, the second-best and the best cooks I know.  But when I am into the weekly shopping, Wal-mart can't be beat.  Fat people struggling through garbage is more synonymous with those lazy bastards who pay extra and let others cook for them, and take taxis and pay whores to f**ck them, rather than those who shop for fresh foods and prepare it themselves, and walk or bicycle, and generally out-alpha the nerdy guys for the best lay.  Strange mind you have there, boss.  But I suppose we all have our own definition of "depressing."

We must be going into different Walmarts, as the ones here in Missouri are full of fat poor people.  But I meant that as no reflection on you, angus.  Obviously you have the world by the tail.

I will certainly admit that restaurant food in the US is very poor, though since I cannot cook (and don't wish to learn) the best I can do is carefully select the least bad.  And wait for my return to paradise..

Lastly, I hardly think being depressed by Walmart is 'strange'..  nor is the belief that it contains fat people.  Such is a very commonplace view of the chain.. nearly a stereotype.  I'm reminded of many Simpson's-esque cartoon shows in which a character experiences big-box despair while wandering those aisles.

[opebo]

hell, I've probably even seen judgemental, narrow-minded, illogical, whoremongering, pathetic weasles who spend most of our time in third world countries with women they have to pay to talk to just because they don't have any idea of how carry on conversations with intelligent westerners.

LOL, that was classic.

Yes, actually it was pretty funny.. except for one thing - I don't pay them to carry on conversations.  And oddly enough I have lots of 'intelligent conversations' with female friends in the US.  There seems to be little connection between the two things.

[opebo]

It's really exacerbating to actually try to have an intelligent conversation with you opebo.  And it's particularly frustrating since I know you cannot possibly be as dense, or as insensitive, or as hypocritical as you put on.  You're toying with me and all the rest of us.

That used to piss me off too, angus, until I realized that he's just g with us. That knowledge puts his posts in a new light, and now I can expect a good chuckle when reading his posts.

You guys are talking about two separate issues.  Do I enjoy a fine argument, some banter?  Sure I do.  But I believe everything I say, and particularly my comments on sexual matters.

[opebo]

Sure you do.

Any tolerant person would.

[opebo]

Sure you do.

Any tolerant person would.

youre tolerant?

you bash religious people constantly.

Yes, theirs is a bash-worthy ideology of intolerance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only for living badly and abusing non-Americans (as well as poor americans).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, they are fat, and I saw them in Walmart.  What am I supposed to say?  They were reubenesque?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said I'm not very prone to attraction to black girls..  I don't know why you keep misquoting.  And most poor smell bad, it isn't really fair to say black poor smell worse than white poor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it is true.

[opebo]

Walmart has done more to increase the standard of living - through cheap prices - than any other single organization of the last 20-30 years.

Priceless!

Well, my statement is obviously true, though it only applies to those who have money in the new laissez-faire society - the owners.  The working class have had their wages reduced comparably to the lowering of prices provided by walmart.

[opebo]

Walmart has done more to increase the standard of living - through cheap prices - than any other single organization of the last 20-30 years.

Priceless!

Well, my statement is obviously true, though it only applies to those who have money in the new laissez-faire society - the owners.  The working class have had their wages reduced comparably to the lowering of prices provided by walmart.

Real compensation has been consistently rising over past decades.

Aha!  But its distribution has become so much more unequal that the great majority of people are much worse off.