• 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!

Wal-Mart Bans Customer for LIFE!

so you didn't bother reading it?
Why?

Let me ask you this - why the **** should I read "he vs she" nonsense???

Besides, you think threatening someone either is a crime or should be one.

For sake of argument lets just say the customer did threaten him that is STILL NOT JUST CAUSE TO ARREST HIM.

What's next arresting people for being dicks or hurting others feelings?

The customer didn't do anything wrong except exploit Walmarts advertising stupidity, that isn't a crime either...

I don't know what your problem is....
 
lol, yes?

Then that makes you a an authoritarian.....

You do realize threats are subjective???

Who decides what's a threat?

LOL, you? LOL?
..

Should I be arrested for hurting your glass feelings too?

LOL

Guess what? I'm going to blow the moon up - then we all die...

Maybe I can be arrested for that? Do you have any evidence to suggest that's not possible?
 
Then that makes you a an authoritarian.....

You do realize threats are subjective???

Who decides what's a threat?

LOL, you? LOL?
..

Should I be arrested for hurting your glass feelings too?

LOL

Guess what? I'm going to blow the moon up - then we all die...

Maybe I can be arrested for that? Do you have any evidence to suggest that's not possible?

or you could simply not make sense and be rambling incoherently as you are prone to do: Threat: An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, or punishment

Guess what? I'm going to blow the moon up - then we all die...

Maybe I can be arrested for that? Do you have any evidence to suggest that's not possible?

Yes, it's unlikely you have either the know how or capabilities to do such. But regardless of that, here we are talking about threats made towards an individual
 
Does anyone realize that any store can ban anyone from it's premises for any reason at any time?

Ever saw one of these signs?

41305iBHC9L.jpg

No, you cant do that........

For example:

you cannot advertise that you will be giving away 100 TVs to the first 100 customers and then not give any TV's away just to draw a crowed and attention to your store.

The same concept applies here - Walmart promoted price matching, and if they didn't meet their own advertisement - they're liable for a foot in their ass.... Banning someone from a store because they're keen on prices as a hobby does NOT justify a booting or libel or slander...

As a libertarian I generally agree with you but in this case you're absolutely wrong.
 
or you could simply not make sense and be rambling incoherently as you are prone to do: Threat: An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, or punishment



Yes, it's unlikely you have either the know how or capabilities to do such. But regardless of that, here we are talking about threats made towards an individual

Rambling?

I'm not the one that has a difficult time understanding the difference between an action and talking ****...

You do realize that words don't beat your ass?

A threat is protected under the First Amendment, and until an individual acts on that threat THEY HAVE BROKEN NO LAWS....

The best part is that concept is too difficult for you to understand...

Do you have any idea how many times tolerant progressives have threatened my life on other boards I frequent? A lot..... It's all words tho - those clowns are to soft to kill a fly and too faint to choose a method and too coward to act as an individual..

Most people have more bark than bite...

That's NOT a crime...

Making good on your threat is a crime...

Regulating speech our First Amendment IS A CRIME...

Your ideas are tyrannical de facto.
 
A threat is protected under the First Amendment, and until an individual acts on that threat THEY HAVE BROKEN NO LAWS....

actually threats are not protected by the first ...
 
actually threats are not protected by the first ...

In what universe is this?

No, instead the cops just pull out their magic "I can arrest anyone whenever I want at my discretion card" and call it disorderly conduct like the ****ing authoritarian tyrants they are.

No, it's NOT against the law.....

At the same time if you don't blow a cop when he tells you - that is disorderly conduct...

But you don't know that, yet you probably want to be a cop now don't you? so you can abuse the power?

Right up your ally (no pun) if you believe someone should be arrested for talking ****....
 
Last edited:
In what universe is this?

Defendants in both criminal and civil cases can use the First Amendment as a defense, arguing that their speech should be protected. However, the free speech clause of the Constitution has never been read to protect all speech.[12] Speech such as obscenity, fighting words, child pornography, incitement, and "true threats" is considered outside the protections of the First Amendment.[13] Therefore, the defendant cannot use the First Amendment as a defense for statements which are deemed true threats.
Even though the Supreme Court has made clear that true threats are punishable, it has not clearly defined what speech constitutes a true threat. The only Supreme Court case to elaborate a holding on the basis of the true threats exception to the First Amendment is United States v. Watts,[14] a per curiam decision which made clear that a law "which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech."[15] However, the Supreme Court did not provide a specific test for making this distinction.
To determine when speech is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore not punishable as a threat, most circuits have adopted either a reasonable speaker or a reasonable listener test. Both these tests essentially boil down to an evaluation of whether or not a reasonable recipient of the statement would believe it constituted a true threat.[16] The Supreme Court has never reviewed the differing circuit court tests to determine their constitutionality or the validity of the circuits' interpretations of Watts.
Most circuits have allowed for the admission of the alleged victim's reaction as evidence of how a reasonable person would interpret the statement. Combined with the reasonable speaker/listener test this makes it possible for people who did not purposely, knowingly, or even recklessly make a threat to be punished for making one. For example, even where the speaker had no expectation that the alleged victim would hear the statement, the speaker can be held liable or convicted of making a threat in most courts.

I
 
Defendants in both criminal and civil cases can use the First Amendment as a defense, arguing that their speech should be protected. However, the free speech clause of the Constitution has never been read to protect all speech.[12] Speech such as obscenity, fighting words, child pornography, incitement, and "true threats" is considered outside the protections of the First Amendment.[13] Therefore, the defendant cannot use the First Amendment as a defense for statements which are deemed true threats.
Even though the Supreme Court has made clear that true threats are punishable, it has not clearly defined what speech constitutes a true threat. The only Supreme Court case to elaborate a holding on the basis of the true threats exception to the First Amendment is United States v. Watts,[14] a per curiam decision which made clear that a law "which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech."[15] However, the Supreme Court did not provide a specific test for making this distinction.
To determine when speech is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore not punishable as a threat, most circuits have adopted either a reasonable speaker or a reasonable listener test. Both these tests essentially boil down to an evaluation of whether or not a reasonable recipient of the statement would believe it constituted a true threat.[16] The Supreme Court has never reviewed the differing circuit court tests to determine their constitutionality or the validity of the circuits' interpretations of Watts.
Most circuits have allowed for the admission of the alleged victim's reaction as evidence of how a reasonable person would interpret the statement. Combined with the reasonable speaker/listener test this makes it possible for people who did not purposely, knowingly, or even recklessly make a threat to be punished for making one. For example, even where the speaker had no expectation that the alleged victim would hear the statement, the speaker can be held liable or convicted of making a threat in most courts.

I

You're obviously ignorant to criminal law...

You do realize every state has it's own criminal code and state statute?

You have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about and are just posting whatever suits your argument.

Sorry posting random nonsense doesn't legitimize your argument - you're not even posting a statute - you're posting a general synopsis of "threat" - nothing even remotely close to a criminal code or statute.

You will never find one- that that you could even if one existed given the notion that you posted this and think it's some sort of citation...

The charge would be disorderly conduct - in Illinois it's the lowest criminal offense in the books outside of the bizarre... A step below this is traffic tickets, which in Illinois - they don't arrest people for, and don't issue warrants for.

Learn Something Today!
 
you claimed threats were protected under the first amendment. I cited a document indicating otherwise.

Pretty straightforward
 
It appears Walmart doesn't mind banning people. Now mind you they weren't banned for being falsely accused of shoplifting but for being ticked off about it. So, moral of story....don't get mad at Walmart even if they are in the wrong. You may say something they don't like and ban you.

Walmart levies lifetime ban against gay couple - DailyFinance
 
Smaller stores where prices are higher? What exactly are you buying at higher prices in smaller stores? I get my food shopping done in smaller stores because they regularly beat Wal-Mart on just about everything. I'd say the only thing Wal-Mart regularly beats smaller stores in is electronics and things like coke. And hey, I've got the studies to back it up:

Key Studies on Big-Box Retail & Independent Business | Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Institute for Local Self Reliance, eh?

Sorry, but it's all bunk. All of it. I call BS on the whole thing.

I don't know what small stores you have to shop to get cheap prices. The Salvation Army Thrift Store, maybe?

Walmart, for example, does ad matching. They will match or beat anyone's prices.

Look, I know you have a problem with small businesses. You wouldn't be a right winger if you didn't. However, I prefer them for the fact that the money spent in them stays in the community and doesn't go into the pockets of some guy who's never even been to the town. It's a fact, locally owned businesses benefit the community by - prepare for shock - reinvesting the money into their locality. How much does Wal-Mart reinvest in the community?

You make the argument political? Really? What is liberal about small stores, and why does Obama punish them so much if they are liberal? The idea that big stores don't benefit the community is just another ignorant canard.

The snobs all came out and protested a new Walmart being built on York here in Houston. The first day the store opened it was packed with customers. It has been packed every day since. It's the people's choice, and I guess that's what liberals don't like about it.
 
Institute for Local Self Reliance, eh?

Sorry, but it's all bunk. All of it. I call BS on the whole thing.

I don't know what small stores you have to shop to get cheap prices. The Salvation Army Thrift Store, maybe?

Walmart, for example, does ad matching. They will match or beat anyone's prices.

If you had bothered to actually read the link, you'd see the studies are conducted by respected researchers and universities. You not liking the messenger is another story. :shrug:

You make the argument political? Really? What is liberal about small stores, and why does Obama punish them so much if they are liberal? The idea that big stores don't benefit the community is just another ignorant canard.

The snobs all came out and protested a new Walmart being built on York here in Houston. The first day the store opened it was packed with customers. It has been packed every day since. It's the people's choice, and I guess that's what liberals don't like about it.

None of this debunks anything I have said. Walmart's problems:

1. It doesn't reinvest in the community. It actually makes them poorer.
2. It's a corporatist enabled entity.
3. It's destruction of community environments is well documented.

Got anything to debunk it? I'll wait.
 
No, you cant do that........

For example:

you cannot advertise that you will be giving away 100 TVs to the first 100 customers and then not give any TV's away just to draw a crowed and attention to your store.

The same concept applies here - Walmart promoted price matching, and if they didn't meet their own advertisement - they're liable for a foot in their ass.... Banning someone from a store because they're keen on prices as a hobby does NOT justify a booting or libel or slander...

As a libertarian I generally agree with you but in this case you're absolutely wrong.



Are you fully aware of what happened? He wasn't even banned for price matching, he was banned for threatening an employee. But that being said, you are wrong. If I am giving away free TV's it can be to who I want. You can't TELL ME whom I have to give TV's to. Now, I would be a jerk to give it to the first 100 black people that walked in, or 100 whites, but I can do it. What I can't do is CHARGE YOU MORE because of your race, etc. But I can decide not to let you in if I want. It's my business. Those signs are in lots of places, and yes, they are true.

False advertising is different than refusing service to someone. You're stretching, stop it. Refusing service doesn't mean false advertising. You're adding circumstances to your example to make you right that I did not mention in my original post on this topic. Don't do that, it makes your argument look weak.

We still have freedoms in this country. And freedom in our own private businesses is one of them.
 
Last edited:
Smaller stores where prices are higher? What exactly are you buying at higher prices in smaller stores? I get my food shopping done in smaller stores because they regularly beat Wal-Mart on just about everything.

[snip... rest of social justice impact rant]

By shopping at (15?) different (local?) retail outlets, and carefully comparing prices, then one, indeed, might save a few dollars on a cart load of goods. Is saving $.12 on a handful of tomatoes worth a separate trip to the local mom & pop store? Once you figure in the value of the time and fuel costs added by this "thrifty" shopping behavior then you may actually lose money.

Obviously, a store buying goods by the entire cargo container or semi trailer load, will get a better unit price than the mom & pop shop that buys 10 cases at a time. The Walmart low price guarantee also allows that special $.12 savings on tomatoes to be recovered on some other item(s), if one actually bothers to research all the ads to take advantage of that policy.
 
By shopping at (15?) different (local?) retail outlets, and carefully comparing prices, then one, indeed, might save a few dollars on a cart load of goods. Is saving $.12 on a handful of tomatoes worth a separate trip to the local mom & pop store? Once you figure in the value of the time and fuel costs added by this "thrifty" shopping behavior then you may actually lose money.

The contention here is that people actually had to travel to get to these mom and pop stores before. I simply doubt that is true. The average small town use to have all of these services near each other. Hardware store nearby a grocery store next to a butcher shop, and so on and so forth. Some cities still preserve this. Example: In San Fran, Chinatown can regularly almost anything Walmart sells and you don't even have to drive around to get it.

Source: I've done it.

Obviously, a store buying goods by the entire cargo container or semi trailer load, will get a better unit price than the mom & pop shop that buys 10 cases at a time. The Walmart low price guarantee also allows that special $.12 savings on tomatoes to be recovered on some other item(s), if one actually bothers to research all the ads to take advantage of that policy.

You're speaking about the general American here. The over consuming, over spending, indebted American who will be bankrupt 700 thousand times this year.
 
If you had bothered to actually read the link, you'd see the studies are conducted by respected researchers and universities. You not liking the messenger is another story. :shrug:

Sorry it's still bunk. Or, I should say, especially still bunk. As everyone who still actually shops brick and mortar knows full well.

None of this debunks anything I have said. Walmart's problems:

1. It doesn't reinvest in the community. It actually makes them poorer.

BS. A small part of the money spent at Walmart less wholesale costs goes to the corporation. The rest goes to the community in the form of wages, taxes, etc.

2. It's a corporatist enabled entity.


So, you guys hate corporations? Figures. Market success in any form is despised by the left.

3. It's destruction of community environments is well documented.

More quasi-religious snobbish bull****.

Got anything to debunk it? I'll wait.

What? Debunk politically motivated crap studies? What a waste of time.

I'll just use my common sense, thanks.

And don't discount the convenience of having it all in one place. I myself have been known to pay a premium for the convenience of ordering online. All that much better if the prices are low.

Again, Walmart is very popular with the people. You know, the masses -- all those folks left wingers claim to be trying to help.
 
Sorry it's still bunk. Or, I should say, especially still bunk. As everyone who still actually shops brick and mortar knows full well.

You saying so doesn't make it so :shrug:

BS. A small part of the money spent at Walmart less wholesale costs goes to the corporation. The rest goes to the community in the form of wages, taxes, etc.

Prove it. Every piece of evidence shows communities where Wal-Mart operates have businesses destroyed and generally lose income.

So, you guys hate corporations? Figures. Market success in any form is despised by the left.

Your complete ignorance as to what corporatism means is funny:

Corporatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

Now tell me how this doesn't fit into that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/business/walmart-bribes-teotihuacan.html

After years of study, the town’s elected leaders had just approved a new zoning map. The leaders wanted to limit growth near the pyramids, and they considered the town’s main entrance too congested already. As a result, the 2003 zoning map prohibited commercial development on Mrs. Pineda’s field, seemingly dooming Wal-Mart’s hopes.

But 30 miles away in Mexico City, at the headquarters of Wal-Mart de Mexico, executives were not about to be thwarted by an unfavorable zoning decision. Instead, records and interviews show, they decided to undo the damage with one well-placed $52,000 bribe

More quasi-religious snobbish bull****. What? Debunk politically motivated crap studies? What a waste of time.

When the evidence is against you, dismiss the evidence. It doesn't make it go away though. You got any studies to back up your claims yet?

I'll just use my common sense, thanks.

Too bad that has already been shown to be a colossal failure.

And don't discount the convenience of having it all in one place. I myself have been known to pay a premium for the convenience of ordering online. All that much better if the prices are low.

Again, Walmart is very popular with the people. You know, the masses -- all those folks left wingers claim to be trying to help.

Only it's not better if it puts other people out of business entirely. Purposely impoverishing small business owners in the area is a economic net loss for the community. Wal-Mart puts out of business a butcher shop, a convenience store as well as a clothing store. Then, it puts the former employees of those stores to work for substantially lower wages. Does that enrich the community or make it poorer? ;)
 
It appears Walmart doesn't mind banning people. Now mind you they weren't banned for being falsely accused of shoplifting but for being ticked off about it. So, moral of story....don't get mad at Walmart even if they are in the wrong. You may say something they don't like and ban you.

Walmart levies lifetime ban against gay couple - DailyFinance


Meh, story is obviously biased garbage from the simple point they needlessly injected sexuality into the story.
 
Meh, story is obviously biased garbage from the simple point they needlessly injected sexuality into the story.

Perhaps, their flaw was thinking Walmart's crap handling of the situation and then the ban was in place because they were gay. I agree that assumption on their behalf is probably incorrect. Walmart just has crap policies in place for consumers and employees, taxpayers, and competitors alike.
 
Perhaps, their flaw was thinking Walmart's crap handling of the situation and then the ban was in place because they were gay. I agree that assumption on their behalf is probably incorrect. Walmart just has crap policies in place for consumers and employees, taxpayers, and competitors alike.

So don't work, or shop there.
 
Back
Top Bottom