Survivalist Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
301 - 320 of 324 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
And it’s obvious that you have no ideal who you are speaking with ... see how that works?
You keep posting here time after time about how you dislike their policies...but by your own admissions...you keep shopping there
You talk big on here...talk about rights and crap. But you don’t practice it
If I felt that strongly ....no one would force me to do business with that company....and the wife would support me on that decision
So....yes...you should check your manhood
Your attempt at "WIT" points is falling short. A hand full of you keep repeating the same questions, even after I have clearly answered them. It goes something like this.

Q. Why do you shop at Walmart if you don't like their policies?
A. Because I should be able to shop there AND not be abused with their BS corporate policies that do not trump my personal policies.

Q. Why do you shop at Walmart if you don't like their policies?
A. We are EQUAL in the buyer/seller transaction and they cannot impose policies on me as if they are laws.

Q. Why do you shop at Walmart if you don't like their policies?
Avoiding Walmart and their policies, instead of confronting them, is like fleeing California's gun laws instead of confronting them. When the abuses follow you to the NEXT location, I guess your solution would be to avoid or flee again.

I am doing more than talking big on here. I am confronting Walmart on their BS. The wife was with me today at Walmart as we bought groceries. I made it clear to her during checkout that we would not be showing our receipt on the way out. She, like some of you started saying I should just show the receipt if they ask for it. I told her, if I show it, it will be while returning this entire basket of groceries to the customer service desk. The door person was checking someone else, and as we passed, my wife actually slowed down to volunteer our receipt to the door person who seemed to be totally oblivious to our presence. I nudged my wife toward the exit and asked her, "what the hell are you doing? Why are you volunteering yourself to that abuse?"

You, on the other hand are just looking for openings to poke at repeating the same stupid questions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
When you undercut LE with blaming the same for the curtailment of freedom, without delving deeper into the root causes, you aren't adept at stating your position.

You just did it again. You flatly rejected everything I have posted and claimed to be the authority. It doesn't work that way. You don't win a debate by simply claiming victory. Your rejection of my arguments or inability to understand them, or unwillingness to accept them, does not default to sockpuppet being right.

You fail to mention the number of different avenues with respect to property rights too.

Not true. You fail to understand my arguments regarding property rights. That's your issue, not mine.

If you don't wish to abide with a corporate policy that you know exists, then I fail to understand why you insist upon conducting business upon their premises. Everything from Walmart is available to you, without your having to step foot upon the property.


Who is more ridiculous? The person who stands up to the corporate bullies, or the person who keeps asking the same stupid question? I have answered this ad nauseum. Again, the failure here is yours.

LEOs only violate their oaths if they intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and/or negligently violate the law; or unethically conduct themselves within the bounds of professional conduct.

As when they ignore their oath to the constitution and side with a corporation in violating an individuals rights? Don't believe it happens? Youtube has the video evidence.

A contract within itself, doesn't violate the law, but a conflict of interest, does potentially exists in any agreement. This is why there are lawyers to create language to prohibit such.

That's a totally BS statement. Our governments often recognize contracts as legally valid, while ignoring the conflicts of interest, such as having our police departments contracting with corporations. An example was when a large number of people entered a Bank of America in New York to withdraw their money, and they were evicted from the bank by the contracted police, to protect the banks interest. The people were not allowed to withdraw their own money.

There are legal remedies for anyone with standing to pursue.

Like legally exercising your rights and refusing to be abused?

Contracts are also how business is conducted. Such are statutorily required for any number of scenarios and for any number of reasons to prevent the very appearance of misconduct.

Huh? More psycho-babble? When the act of making a contract it's self is a conflict of interest, the language is pretty much a moot point. But let's all stick our heads in the sand, or talk in circles around the issue with irrelevant points. Police should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to contract with corporations. It is a conflict of interest from the onset, because the LEOs are bound to their oath. The instant a contract is made with a corporation, it is impossible to serve both the interests of the public (constitution) and the corporation. It pits the two against one another with the cops in the middle. Police are extremely fast to side with the corporations, often ignoring their responsibility to the public. You know, as well as I do, that when a corporation calls the police on a member of the public, more often than not, the cop will automatically side with the corporation, and assume the individual is in the wrong. The individual's side of the story is often not heard, dismissed, or ignored, regardless of the true facts. Claiming there are legal remedies is not justification for these abuses. It places the individual under burdens they should never have to endure to begin with. That's why we have the Bill of Rights, and exactly why police have to swear an oath to protect and defend those rights. That takes precedence over any corporate contract. It is the SUPREME law of the land
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Post #287 shows nothing about Wallmart employees "groping and raping" our children as you referred to several times on this thread. By your own words you talked about how you wife kept telling you that you better not screw this up at the airport. This obviously must be a life pattern for you. I have no issue for standing up for my rights or the next person. I just think you are making much to do about nothing.

There is page after page of you discussing the injustices of those Wallmart people checking your receipt and the horror of it all. What you might want to do is take a look at what's being written. Very few agree with you and you are not going to change their minds. Myself included. I could care less if an employee asks for my receipt and checks my grocery bags. It's a few minutes out of my day and my rights aren't being violated because I'm consenting to it. I don't care truth be known and I'm surely not going to give them any grief about it.

Maybe you can find another thread to fall on your sword or perhaps you just like to argue? If that's the case fine continue on but at this point you are just screaming into a forest.
But post #287 DOES explain how rights can be eroded over a long period of time. It doesn't necessarily mean that the end result will be the exact same. So whether our children are getting molested, or it's some other undesirable result, the point remains that ignoring the seemingly inconsequential abuses today, can lead to some very nefarious and undesirable abuses later. It's the old adage, exercise your rights or lose them. It's not a difficult concept for most people, but apparently there is a contingent in this forum that struggles mightily with that.

Standing up for my rights IS a life pattern for me. My wife being a compliant sheep is also an ongoing struggle for a sheepdog like me. It's just one of many dynamics in our relationship. Like most married couples, we don't always agree.

You are wrong about there being pages of me complaining about the injustices of Walmart checking my receipt. They don't check MY receipt, because I don't allow it.

It's not true that very few agree with me. Admittedly, a few have disagreed and chosen to attempt to score some WIT points by attacking with their silly, cutesy comments. Likewise, they keep asking the same stupid question that I keep repeating the same clear and concise answer to. The question is, why do you shop at Walmart if you don't like their policies? The answer is, once again, because I should be able to shop ANYWHERE and not be accosted by corporations who assume their rights and policies trump my rights and policies, and choose to use their contracts with police to subvert my rights. Avoiding the conflict is paramount to Californians leaving the state over gun restrictions instead of fighting back. When the same problem follows them to their next location, is it reasonable to just keep avoiding the abuses, or does it make more sense to confront the abuse at it's source?

You may not care to show your receipt or to take a few minutes to comply, and that is where we differ. The 'go along to get along' crowd is largely to blame for many of the injustices we face today. I never cared about owning a bump stock, but now the door is opened for more abuses and restrictions to our gun rights. The FUDS and complacency of the NRA are similar examples. A lot of Jews compliantly walked to their own death instead of fighting to the death.

I know, I get it when some of you smarty pants say, Walmart is not trying to put you on a train to the death gulags. The analogies I use have the same point. Compliance to abuse may be seemingly harmless today, like when the Jews walked to the trains, but surrendering the slightest amount of your rights today, only leads to further erosion of your rights tomorrow. It seldom goes from zero to 60 in 6 seconds, but when you get to 60, and suddenly there is a brick wall in front of you, it's too late to go back to zero.

I may be screaming into a forest, but it seems more like a turnip garden. I guess it is somewhat useless to argue with vegetables.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
You may not be aware of this but it is completely possible to disagree without using words like ignorant, etc.

I never said, in fact never even thought, that things like that can "never" happen here. Nor do I think they can never be eroded. However just because something could lead to an erosion of rights does not mean it will lead to that erosion. That is why the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

I'm well aware of what life is like in totalitarian societies, but I argue that what we see in North Korea did not begin with people checking receipts at the local Walmart. Assuming that we CAN'T lose our rights is ignorant and shortsighted as you say. Assuming that we WILL because of a receipt check is ignorant and fear-mongering. Receipt checking degenerating into much more extreme things is not a logical progression and if such happens there is much more going on there.

By the way, if you are upset about the milk and french maid comment it was just a laugh at the slippery slope argument in the context of the milk conversation. I have no doubt you would never wear a french maid outfit and that was really not intended as a slight against you, only a laugh at the absurdity of the slippery slope argument.
I'll give you extra credit for recognizing that we can have our rights eroded, but I'll have to deduct points for the fear mongering comment. If you surrender your rights to ANY degree, further erosion of those rights WILL occur. To what degree, over a period of time?...only time will tell. I'm certain that once upon a time, in North Korea, they lived rather normal lives. Obviously, someone, or a group of someones was able to erode their rights, and now look at them. Maybe it started with a stop and frisk, and now they can be executed for exercising what we assume to be rather mundane and ordinary freedoms. do i think the government will be executing people for not showing their Walmart receipt? Absolutely not! But general public compliance may lead us to another level of abuse, which many of us will compliantly profess to be the norm and acceptable, until the next level of abuse arrives, however slight it may seem. If you keep stacking them, you will eventually have a skyscraper of abuses. The abuse at Walmart is only one small example of how we gradually surrender and comply. The bliss-ninnies are trying to downplay this simple point by making ridiculous statements that I'm fear mongering that we will go from receipt checks to executions. Go ahead and show your receipts, and live blissfully until the next demand is made, and the next, and the next. When you look at it in this broader context, the slippery slope analogy is not so absurd, is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Locations may vary, all I can vouch for is what I have experienced and who I've talked to as I have mentioned each time in my posts. Have at it and share your rage, make sure too, as its really high on my list. I just scooted past them again today because there were 2 in line. If you or others stop that is your choice.
I don't stop, and I scooted past them again today. My beef is that the attempted abuse exists, and I should not have to be concerned with confronting it,...because it should not occur. Before the next person asks me why I shop there if I don't like their policies, I just answered that question. I should be able to shop anywhere I choose, free from abuses that corporations think they can unlawfully impose on me, while trying to intimidate me into compliance. We are on equal footing. Their policies do not trump my policies. I have a personal policy that no corporate policy is a law unless the policy is based on law already established.
 

·
Only politics *****.
Joined
·
5,495 Posts
You should be able to shop anywhere you choose yes. If you choose to go to walmart, you choose to possibly be asked for your receipt. They shouldn't adapt their policies because you choose to shop there. You have a choice. You are asking everyone to give up their rights on their properties, to protect your rights ... not to be annoyed by someone asking you a question? Not sure that's a basic right.
 

·
Wile E Coyote, Genius.
Joined
·
33,454 Posts
Discussion Starter #308
I guess part of the reason I don't like this practice, is that it sort of preys upon the ignorant and fearful people. They see some type of authority figure and just blindly obey.

Nobody reads them their rights. It conditions them to submit and comply.

Now if the door checker began their contact with,
"You have the right to keep walking and ignore me...
Will you volunteer to wait a minute and show me your receipt, even though you have no obligation to do so."
And then repeat this in Spanish, French, italian, german, Chinese, Eskimo, Russian, Portuguese, esperante, Pig Latin, Swahili and Klingon.

And wear a respirator.

Then, I might be OK with it. :)
 

·
Possum Lover
Joined
·
15,594 Posts
Locutus.

I actually named Spot after Data's cat. :)

CP, you must have a lot of time on your hands. I have found, since I am a regular at my walmart, they wave me past when I approach with my receipt. I believe security will indicate various persons of interest and ask to have them searched, no proof of that.

I really doubt you politely spoke to the employee. The registers have a cash drawer, which must be counted and restocked. Obviously they hadn't had time to do it, AGAIN if you had any experience working retail you would know this.

Yesterday I had to go shopping after 1 PM because I worked in the morning and they took a while to do my medication refills. I understood that and went into the store with a clear expectation it would be crowded, noisy, and have long waits. I was correct, but I wasn't upset because I expected it.

The right attitude will get you far in life. I enjoy having a good life and not getting worked up about everything, having realistic expectations for those around me. It is a good way to live.

You will be assimilated.

You are the kind of customer I loathe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Locutus.

I actually named Spot after Data's cat. :)

CP, you must have a lot of time on your hands. I have found, since I am a regular at my walmart, they wave me past when I approach with my receipt. I believe security will indicate various persons of interest and ask to have them searched, no proof of that.

I really doubt you politely spoke to the employee. The registers have a cash drawer, which must be counted and restocked. Obviously they hadn't had time to do it, AGAIN if you had any experience working retail you would know this.

Yesterday I had to go shopping after 1 PM because I worked in the morning and they took a while to do my medication refills. I understood that and went into the store with a clear expectation it would be crowded, noisy, and have long waits. I was correct, but I wasn't upset because I expected it.

The right attitude will get you far in life. I enjoy having a good life and not getting worked up about everything, having realistic expectations for those around me. It is a good way to live.

You will be assimilated.

You are the kind of customer I loathe.
I'll sum it up quickly. You believe I should assimilate quickly to Walmart refusing to staff their main registers and relegating us to self-checkouts, where we are expected to wait in line because Walmart closes all the self-checkouts because they don't want to pay anyone to check and count the cash drawers. How long before Walmart has only one employee and customers have to also stock the shelves?

Now,let's address who has so much time on their hands. Open almost ANY thread in this forum, and you will see comments by Purple Kitty and Sockpuppet.

You doubt I didn't yell at her, and I doubt you have a clue about it.

You are kind of retail worker I loathe.
 

·
Only politics *****.
Joined
·
5,495 Posts
I'll sum it up quickly. You believe I should assimilate quickly to Walmart refusing to staff their main registers and relegating us to self-checkouts, where we are expected to wait in line because Walmart closes all the self-checkouts because they don't want to pay anyone to check and count the cash drawers. How long before Walmart has only one employee and customers have to also stock the shelves?

Now,let's address who has so much time on their hands. Open almost ANY thread in this forum, and you will see comments by Purple Kitty and Sockpuppet.

You doubt I didn't yell at her, and I doubt you have a clue about it.

You are kind of retail worker I loathe.
Lets sum it up quickly yes: you believe Walmart should assimilate to you, and cater to your personal needs. They should open a line when they see you, and give you your personal cashier and escort out past the stormtroopers who tackle the elderly and grope everyone's kids. All this while you have a choice not to shop there, and choose to shop there. You disagree with their business practices and demand they adapt to you.

How about voting with your wallet, and not visit the store whose policy you disagree with? Or would that be too much hassle and your principles are worthless and only for when things aren't slightly inconvenient for you?
 

·
SBs Resident Non Prepper
Joined
·
7,127 Posts
Yes Cherokee Prepper you have too much time on your hands
You make all these long responses.....but say Nothing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
You should be able to shop anywhere you choose yes. If you choose to go to walmart, you choose to possibly be asked for your receipt. They shouldn't adapt their policies because you choose to shop there. You have a choice. You are asking everyone to give up their rights on their properties, to protect your rights ... not to be annoyed by someone asking you a question? Not sure that's a basic right.
As I have clearly explained before, It's not just about the policy. The policy is just the starting point of so much chaos and abuse. One day, it's an overzealous employee who cannot take no for an answer, and a major ordeal follows, sometimes involving police and further abuses by police who often wrongly side with the corporation. I have said no to them and all I got was a pathetic, "just doing my job sir". But when you have seen how so many of these interactions can unnecessarily go badly wrong, it begs to question if it is a good practice. Compliance encourages continuance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Yes Cherokee Prepper you have too much time on your hands
You make all these long responses.....but say Nothing
Thanks for your opinion. How I spend my time is none of your concern. Let's not forget, you spent the time reading it all, so what does that say about you? That you got nothing from it, may say even more about you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Lets sum it up quickly yes: you believe Walmart should assimilate to you, and cater to your personal needs. They should open a line when they see you, and give you your personal cashier and escort out past the stormtroopers who tackle the elderly and grope everyone's kids. All this while you have a choice not to shop there, and choose to shop there. You disagree with their business practices and demand they adapt to you.

How about voting with your wallet, and not visit the store whose policy you disagree with? Or would that be too much hassle and your principles are worthless and only for when things aren't slightly inconvenient for you?
Kinda slow on the uptake, aren't you? I've responded to each of those points repeatedly, and you keep asking the same questions. It's all answered in my previous posts. You can read them again,..or not,...I don't really care.
 
301 - 320 of 324 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top