senseamp
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
I will buy wherever it's cheapest.You will if Amazon changes their business model.
I will buy wherever it's cheapest.You will if Amazon changes their business model.
I will buy wherever it's cheapest.
Nope. Consumer is not there to solve social problems, that's what government is for.And that's what's wrong with America.
It’s pretty easy to pick sides. On one side is a guy who probably is an asshole. On the other is a criminal.
You didn't I did.Maybe you can stop sucking any dick you see and point out where I ever mentioned either of those things.
You are one stupid son of a bitch.
I was not referring to the retail locations, TJ just opened a DC in our area about 16 months ago, it's staffed primarily by temp workers. This is hardly unique to them however, many Co's go this route because temp workers are not eligible for a benefits package. I agree with you in that our politicians should have addressed this long ago, it should not come down to how lucky you are that a particular Co you work for has health insurance.BTW, Trader Joe's is known for some of the best benefits in the grocery business. I would double check your information before you paint them with too broad of a brush.
I usually do as well, but I will make an exception or two. As an example I have ans Ace Hardware, Lowes, Home Depot all nearby but I choose to use Ace 90% of the time, there is always someone there to assist me and they know their stuff vs Home Depot where I've actually had someone tell me "I'm clocking out" as I asked for the location on something.I will buy wherever it's cheapest.
I will buy wherever it's cheapest.
And that's what's wrong with America.
Nope. Consumer is not there to solve social problems, that's what government is for.
Agree, but is that worse than businesses getting preferential treatment from the government because they hire the right lobbyists?
The money went to the top. They should be taxed to pay for health care, not average Joe who hasn't got a raise in ages spending more on purchases he can barely afford.I mean, if I had the money then maybe I would make a statement by ripping myself off on higher prices. To support made in America, or whatever cause this is about. But anyone who is not rich is going to be struggling. Trickle down's income inequality has destroyed America's Middle Class. Beggers cannot be choosers. The nation shops at Walmart. We have become dependents on the cheapest prices.
You are paying more for service that benefits you. That's not same as paying more to solve social ills that the rich should be taxed to solve.I usually do as well, but I will make an exception or two. As an example I have ans Ace Hardware, Lowes, Home Depot all nearby but I choose to use Ace 90% of the time, there is always someone there to assist me and they know their stuff vs Home Depot where I've actually had someone tell me "I'm clocking out" as I asked for the location on something.
Nope. Consumer is not there to solve social problems, that's what government is for.
But let's face it, shoppers are more concerned with convenience, price, value. Everyone knows Walmart pays crap wages and little to no benefits but how many have actually refused to shop there because of that fact?, few.So an authoritarian then because if you can't behave it's the government's responsibility to make you do what it wants. I'd wondered. The citizen has no responsibility for their actions, that's for someone else to make me and others do. You can shop as you wish but the government should tell you how to think? Nope.
The government should take care of societal problems by taxing the rich, who got all the benefits of growth over the last 40 years, not expect consumers with stagnant incomes at best to pay more to pay more.So an authoritarian then because if you can't behave it's the government's responsibility to make you do what it wants. I'd wondered. The citizen has no responsibility for their actions, that's for someone else to make me and others do. You can shop as you wish but the government should tell you how to think? Nope.
U ok? This seems out of the ordinary for you. You're intertwining the roles an individual plays in our society. First, foremost IMO, is the tax paying citizen, who looks to the government to maintain a level of harmony in our lives. Second, being a consumer, who looks to save what they can when purchasing items. Obviously, this is a broad overview, and the two can and will intersect like voting g with your wallet over social issues.So an authoritarian then because if you can't behave it's the government's responsibility to make you do what it wants. I'd wondered. The citizen has no responsibility for their actions, that's for someone else to make me and others do. You can shop as you wish but the government should tell you how to think? Nope.
What i don't understand about this is why don't Bezos and other fight back? These people have enough money to lobby corrupt republicans and make them do what they want. Instead, they whine about the treatment they get and keep stuffing their pockets and bank accounts.
I don't think Bezos gives a crap what Trump does or how it affects the stock price. Bezos has more money than a person could spend in 50 lifetimes. Losing a few billion here or there is nothing to him. He probably just thinks "Trump will be gone soon and I will still be here".
Article II alleged in part that Nixon:
repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
U ok? This seems out of the ordinary for you. You're intertwining the roles an individual plays in our society. First, foremost IMO, is the tax paying citizen, who looks to the government to maintain a level of harmony in our lives. Second, being a consumer, who looks to save what they can when purchasing items. Obviously, this is a broad overview, and the two can and will intersect like voting g with your wallet over social issues.
There's other roles, but these seem to be the two being conflated
If the consumer wants to conflate the two roles, and purchase items based on their moral compass, that's fine, it's up to them. I do that on a regular basis, but I dont anywhere this being required to buy things.I'm fine, thanks. How are you?
"The consumer has no responsibility..." That's what I was addressing. That's wrong. The consumer, AKA citizen at least at the age of majority does not surrender responsibilities for their actions, claiming that it's for government to handle society.
I'm in strong disagreement. The individual has freedoms to make choices but surrendering responsibility for their actions. In fact it's very Trumpian. It's perfectly legal to go bankrupt and screw your investors time and again. To cheat within the law those who worked for you. After all it's for the government to stop him and others, so there's nothing morally wrong here.
Lol, what? Buying cheap is cheating?I'm fine, thanks. How are you?
"The consumer has no responsibility..." That's what I was addressing. That's wrong. The consumer, AKA citizen at least at the age of majority does not surrender responsibilities for their actions, claiming that it's for government to handle society.
I'm in strong disagreement. The individual has freedoms to make choices but surrendering responsibility for their actions. In fact it's very Trumpian. It's perfectly legal to go bankrupt and screw your investors time and again. To cheat within the law those who worked for you. After all it's for the government to stop him and others, so there's nothing morally wrong here.
Lol, what? Buying cheap is cheating?
It's the government's role. If we need consumers to take care of social ills at the point of sale, that's a failure of government.You can buy where you want, never said otherwise. My point of contention is that it's government's job to fix things, leaving you with no responsibilities for your decisions, however you brought up government fixing society or words to that effect. Government has roles it properly plays, but how we act is our ourselves and the consequences too.
I'm fine, thanks. How are you?
"The consumer has no responsibility..." That's what I was addressing. That's wrong. The consumer, AKA citizen at least at the age of majority does not surrender responsibilities for their actions, claiming that it's for government to handle society.
I'm in strong disagreement. The individual has freedoms to make choices but surrendering responsibility for their actions. In fact it's very Trumpian. It's perfectly legal to go bankrupt and screw your investors time and again. To cheat within the law those who worked for you. After all it's for the government to stop him and others, so there's nothing morally wrong here.
Well, yeh, but conservatives contend that what we need is smaller govt even less capable of dealing with fraud & thievery at an international scale. You know, that rugged individualism & hard work & blah, blah, blah will somehow address the power disparity of wealth over ordinary people.
