• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats boycott Coke, Walmart over voter ID laws

There it goes again. Another claim of "improving" people because they need to live more like us. I'd rather our economies and governments be focused on improving our lives and standards first and foremost. If they want to be more like us, then they need to raise their standards to ours. Instead we apply free trade policies which lowers out standards to meet theirs. I'm not on board with you there.

I just want them to be able to feed themselves, without struggling.
A basic human requirement for life, is eating enough to not die of disease.

So yea, I want them to "live like us."
If you call eating, "living like us." :lol:

My humanistic views aren't limited to people, who're born in the same arbitrary land borders, that I am.
 
I realize this has turned into an anti-WalMart rant, but I'd like to address the OP issue. It is absolutely ludicrous to boycott any company because they agree with legislation passed by any state. Ludicrous. I don't even get this ID-to-vote flap in the first place. Of course people should present valid photo ID to vote, just like they have to present one to fly, open a bank account, verify a check, any number of things that ordinary citizens and legal immigrants have to do in everyday life.

I mean, dude! Are "democrats" trying to say that unless we give every warm body that shows up at the polls a ballot, we are "oppressing" people? Come on! We might as well send absentee ballots to every adult in this hemesphere and half of Europe so they too can have a say in who we elect.

As for WalMart, boycott if you want. WalMart won't really feel it. My sister-in-law has worked for WalMart for 20 years, ever since she grew old enough that nobody else would hire her. She's been given good benefits, including health insurance (which she has frequently needed, since she's much older than my husband and still must support herself) and a regular paycheck. When she wanted to move closer to her eldest daughter's family, WalMart accommodated her with a transfer to the nearly store. So y'all do what you want, but villainizing a single corporate outlet while ignoring tens of thousands of others doing business in similar fashion is just dumb, IMHO.

Who says I am not villianizing anyone else too? Walmart is by far the worst. But I dont give any money to businesses that dont help the economic growth of America.
 
Why should money stay local?
What does it matter?

Oh I think keeping local economies strong is rather important.

If everyone did as you say, local economies couldn't grow, nor could they have access to resources outside of local access.
Your view is incredibly short sited.

More straw man hyperbole. Who the hell said "everyone should do like this". I sure as hell didn't and it is impossible to keep 100% of all money locally so all that is just ridiculous fantasy clap-trap that does nothing for your point.
 
Eggggzactly. Great post!

Sure didn't effect voters in Georgia...

So how come there aren't protests because you need an ID for welfare, medicare, food stamps?

Are you telling me that there are people living on the streets hungry because they don't have an ID for food stamps and welfare? Wow, that seems like a much more pressing issue than voting... Wouldn't you say? So could you link me to what must be the hundreds of protests in support of those starving people who don't have ID's?
 
I just want them to be able to feed themselves, without struggling.
A basic human requirement for life, is eating enough to not die of disease.

So yea, I want them to "live like us."
If you call eating, "living like us." :lol:

My humanistic views aren't limited to people, who're born in the same arbitrary land borders, that I am.

And your premise for "living better" to eat better is to make more money rather than actually grow the food. You are not thinking rationally. You are only thinking fiscally.
 
Oh I think keeping local economies strong is rather important.

Good, then you should avoid the "local only" fallacy.

More straw man hyperbole. Who the hell said "everyone should do like this". I sure as hell didn't and it is impossible to keep 100% of all money locally so all that is just ridiculous fantasy clap-trap that does nothing for your point.

You said it's good to keep the money in the local economy, did you not.
If we extend this to every other local economy, because you said it was good, what would the net effect be?

Stop saying stupid things, then trying to dodge by calling out my supposed, "straw men."
 
And your premise for "living better" to eat better is to make more money rather than actually grow the food. You are not thinking rationally. You are only thinking fiscally.

People with limited resources can't always acquire these resources without capital investment, aka money.
So a poor person in Bangladesh, with no money and no land to grow more food, should just grow more food?

Capital investment, especially from sources outside the local economy, can grow the local economy.
 
Good, then you should avoid the "local only" fallacy.



You said it's good to keep the money in the local economy, did you not.
If we extend this to every other local economy, because you said it was good, what would the net effect be?

Stop saying stupid things, then trying to dodge by calling out my supposed, "straw men."

You are fabricating stupid scenarios that are straw men. You cannot keep 100% of all local money locally. You extrapolating it to that it would be 100% is pointless. I never implied anything so nonsensical. Every town cannot make everything that everyone in that town purchases.

Buy locally when you can. That doesn't mean the irrationally silly 100% crap you are trying to... yes... strawman into this discussion.
 
People with limited resources can't always acquire these resources without capital investment, aka money.
So a poor person in Bangladesh, with no money and no land to grow more food, should just grow more food?

Capital investment, especially from sources outside the local economy, can grow the local economy.

Wow. I guess mankind never lived before money. I guess when God built the world 6,000 years ago, he put a few grand into Adam's fig leaf pocket.
 
You are fabricating stupid scenarios that are straw men. You cannot keep 100% of all local money locally. You extrapolating it to that it would be 100% is pointless. I never implied anything so nonsensical. Every town cannot make everything that everyone in that town purchases.

Buy locally when you can. That doesn't mean the irrationally silly 100% crap you are trying to... yes... strawman into this discussion.

You haven't demonstrated why someone should buy locally, when they can.
Why, why, why?

What reason should I buy locally?
Why is the local merchant more deserving of my money, than a distant merchant?
It's not 100% strawman, you keep stating that buying locally is better/good, why is it?
 
Wow. I guess mankind never lived before money. I guess when God built the world 6,000 years ago, he put a few grand into Adam's fig leaf pocket.

Sure mankind has, however, money is a more efficient medium of exchange, than bartering goods or trying to grow everything yourself.
Efficiency can have people lead richer lives.
 
Wow. I guess mankind never lived before money. I guess when God built the world 6,000 years ago, he put a few grand into Adam's fig leaf pocket.

Good lord, man. Now who's creating ridiculous strawmen? How about an honest debate, instead of constantly moving the goal posts and taking things to their more ridiculous ends?!
 
Sure mankind has, however, money is a more efficient medium of exchange, than bartering goods or trying to grow everything yourself.
Efficiency can have people lead richer lives.

Prove it is more efficient.
 
Good lord, man. Now who's creating ridiculous strawmen? How about an honest debate, instead of constantly moving the goal posts and taking things to their more ridiculous ends?!

You disappeared for a while only to eventually drop in and say this? Come on now. It was rather pertinent to where it appeared his argument was going. I'm not moving the goal post. You just aren't keeping up with what's being said and replied to.
 
Last edited:
Prove it is more efficient.

Get job --> earn money ---> buy pot, chicken ---> cook it

no job ---> scrounge around for something of value ---> find somebody with a pot and chicken who wants item of value ---> trade for pot, chicken ----> cook it

or..

no job ---> scrounge for something of great value ---> find somebody with land who wants item of great value ----> trade for land ----> scrounge for other items of value ----> find somebody with seeds/farming equipment who wants items of value -----> trade for seeds/farming equipment -----> spend 6 months growing/harvesting food ----> eat food

Gee...
 
You disappeared for a while only to eventually drop in and say this? Come on now. It was rather pertinent to where it appeared his argument was going. I'm not moving the goal post. You just aren't keeping up with what's being said and replied to.

I've read the back and forth and every time you respond to him to take the point he makes and push it all the way to the most extreme ends you can come up with. You then post vague ambiguous statements posed as "facts" and act incredulous when you're called out for it.
 
Get job --> earn money ---> buy pot, chicken ---> cook it

Raise a chicken. Eat it.

Don't make me break out that beloved libertarian quote of teach a man to fish thing.

no job ---> scrounge around for something of value ---> find somebody with a pot and chicken who wants item of value ---> trade for pot, chicken ----> cook it

or..

no job ---> scrounge for something of great value ---> find somebody with land who wants item of great value ----> trade for land ----> scrounge for other items of value ----> find somebody with seeds/farming equipment who wants items of value -----> trade for seeds/farming equipment -----> spend 6 months growing/harvesting food ----> eat food

Gee...

Just because you live in a monied economy doesn't mean it's the only way or the best way to live.

How come your schpeil isn't converting the Amish into day traders?
 
Last edited:

The reason I like to purchase locally is because my money goes to people who are in my area, who's kids go to schools where my taxes are collected, and hopefully (if they're successful) get to improve their lives like my parents and I improved mine. When I can, I buy local - pizza from my local guy, bakery from my local bakery, plumbing supplies from a local plumbing supply place instead of Home Depot or Lowes. I go to privately owned (but franchised) pharmacy. Sometimes I can't and I go to the big box stores. I used to go to a small bookshop until they closed and now go to B&N... I go to a local farmers market where I get fruit & veggies fresher, local (in season) and cheaper than in the box stores / supermarkets. These people are trying to make a go of it... I'd hope they'd do the same for me and lots of times it's more convenient, I have a better experience and it's closer. So why not?
 
I've read the back and forth and every time you respond to him to take the point he makes and push it all the way to the most extreme ends you can come up with. You then post vague ambiguous statements posed as "facts" and act incredulous when you're called out for it.

I think we've had a rather good debate. I don't know what you are talking about. When he starts going into assumptions about my position that I never made, that's when I call straw man.
 
Sure mankind has, however, money is a more efficient medium of exchange, than bartering goods or trying to grow everything yourself.
Efficiency can have people lead richer lives.

Even Marx pointed out that capitalism's achievement was in creating more than mere survival.
 
Prove it is more efficient.

Working for money, rather than growing and building everything you need, is more efficient.
Instead of spending lots of time, specializing in every thing, creating materials of varying quality, it's more efficient to make one type of thing with superior quality and sell it for money.

In turn, you can buy other superior quality materials, with your cash.
There's a reason money has replaced bartering, it's simply more efficient, the world over.
 
The reason I like to purchase locally is because my money goes to people who are in my area, who's kids go to schools where my taxes are collected, and hopefully (if they're successful) get to improve their lives like my parents and I improved mine. When I can, I buy local - pizza from my local guy, bakery from my local bakery, plumbing supplies from a local plumbing supply place instead of Home Depot or Lowes. I go to privately owned (but franchised) pharmacy. Sometimes I can't and I go to the big box stores. I used to go to a small bookshop until they closed and now go to B&N... I go to a local farmers market where I get fruit & veggies fresher, local (in season) and cheaper than in the box stores / supermarkets. These people are trying to make a go of it... I'd hope they'd do the same for me and lots of times it's more convenient, I have a better experience and it's closer. So why not?

Exactly. Somehow Guerilla is saying you aren't helping your local community at all by doing this and your community would magically do as well if not better if you just went to walmart for all of that. Doesn't make sense to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom