What brands/companies do you boycott?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I am but at the same time I can understand why he is acting in the way that he is (him and to a greater degree his bouncers). I thought I made it clear, I don't have a problem with the group, but I do have a problem with the gangs, and I would be willing to restrict access to a few in order to keep the rif-raft out, and that goes for everyone no matter what their ethnic background is. If there is a white guy that is dressed in gang colours or is acting in a manner that would suggest he is a member of a gang, don't let them in, the same thing goes for an asian, a native, or a black individual. I don't really think I am agreeing with Vickers, but more understanding where he is coming from.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Feb 9 2005, 10:43 PM
I am but at the same time I can understand why he is acting in the way that he is (him and to a greater degree his bouncers). I thought I made it clear, I don't have a problem with the group, but I do have a problem with the gangs, and I would be willing to restrict access to a few in order to keep the rif-raft out, and that goes for everyone no matter what their ethnic background is. If there is a white guy that is dressed in gang colours or is acting in a manner that would suggest he is a member of a gang, don't let them in, the same thing goes for an asian, a native, or a black individual. I don't really think I am agreeing with Vickers, but more understanding where he is coming from.

I agree that obvious gangsters and criminals should be kept out. That's an easy one.

That doesn't seem to be the case with these establishments though. Judging by the anecdotal evidence in this very thread and from what I've read in the paper, the discrimination goes beyond dress/behaviour/suspicion and it sounds like people are barred entrance due to the color of their skin.

Reading your comments I think we agree but you also include disclaimers like "I can understand why he is acting in the way that he is" and that makes it more complicated.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Feb 9 2005, 05:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Feb 9 2005, 05:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Well Sammie worded it pretty strangely but I think what he was trying to say is that romantic leftists like you, CBC and LP cannot stomach when socialism of all shades is branded for what it is – a criminal ideology.

Really? Cause that's not even close to what he said, so either you're taking a massive leap, or he worded his phrase completely wrong, and didn't correct it.

You also show your lack of ability to 'debate' a topic when you 'brand all shades of Socialism' as a 'criminal ideology'. Talk about beyond biased.

Thats the biggest load of BS I've seen come out of you. At least debate the issue, instead of spouting that crap. [/b][/quote]
I don’t know whether you realize that or not but you just proved my point. You cannot grasp that socialism is a criminal ideology and IMO this is what Sammie meant – to you it is a `conspiracy of the right` to call socialism criminal. Correct me if I’m wrong – but don’t you think socialism is a good idea gone wrong in practise? The ideals are OK but the execution went wrong? When the right says this is BS and socialism is wrong at its very core you say that the right `lacks the of ability to 'debate' a topic.`

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Feb 9 2005, 05:09 PM
Seems pretty obvious. Companies get around labour rights and human rights in North America by going to places where those rights dont' exist. If you're hurt here, or die on the job, you're entitled to compensation. You're also protected from wrongful firing, like your boss hitting on you and then canning you. In fact, there are hundreds of little 'socialist benefits' that all of you (in N. America) are taking advantage of right now, whether you like it (or know it) or not.

I suppose if you think you're entitled to these benefits and protections, and other peoples in other places aren't, then there's no conscience issue here. For you.

So what if those companies get around little socialist labour laws? Good on them. Protection against wrongful firing is a human right? It might be `a right` in Canada thanks to collectivist thinking but it has nothing to with individual rights that truly exist. No one has a right to work for me if I don’t want to employ him. Whatever terms of contract two parties (based on their respective property rights) agree upon is considered a valid contract. If both you and your employer agree you are entitled to compensation when you are hurt, then you have such entitlement. If you and your employer don’t agree on that then you don’t have such entitlement. End of story.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Feb 9 2005, 05:29 PM
Well, thats sort of why I brought up the concsience issue.

If you knew a guy who was a real bas**rd... say... he raped someone, but he sells DVD's real cheap, cheaper than anyone else... would you buy from him? Wouldn't you have an issue with that, even though the value of the DVD's are completely separate from the negative acts this person has committed?

I suppose its seen in the same light. If you don't agree with the practise itself, then why support an indirectly related product, _purely_ based on price?

Like I said, if you don't believe that corporate exploitation of cheap labour in the 3rd world is 'bad', then you dont' have a problem, Wal-Mart away. I'm not here to pass judgement, you do what's good for you, and I'll do the same.

Seeing things a different way isn't a crime, it just comes down to what matters most to you, saving 30 cents or feeling good about your choice. Clearly the poster who avoids Wal-Mart 'feels good' about their choice. I don't see the problem. Do you?

Nonsense. Transplant is right.

Are you comparing a rapist to a multinational company? Are you kidding me? Do you realize that Nike is giving their workers better offer than anyone else on earth? Not me, not you, not any other company are offering those workers more money and better working conditions. Yet you slay Nike for what they do – offering those poor peoples the best alterative they realistically have.

It is true that from our point of view they might be offering more. But the thing that is allowing them to keep wages low is lack of competition, i.e. lack of other companies doing business in SE Asia. But I can imagine you will scream bloody murder if more western companies were to invest in SE Asia (see the public outcry when it comes to outsourcing). Talk about hypocrisy.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Ro@Feb 9 2005, 10:00 PM
-The notion that EPZs (when I use the term Economic Processing Zone, consider it to mean Free Trade Zone, Industrial Free Zone, or any similar term) have increased employment substantially is false. Sure, the number of total jobs may have increased, but the effect on the national figures of joblessness are not significantly increased, save for a few extreme examples. In other words, yes, jobs are created. But are they the right jobs?

Am I the only one who finds this quote mind-boggling? Number of jobs has increased but the number of unemployed stays the same? Huh? Even if new graduates get those jobs (not people previously unemployed) does that not mean total number of jobless people will not increase? Anyway, numbers of people entering workforce is (almost) negated by numbers of people who retire.

And finally, what do you mean by `right` jobs?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Feb 10 2005, 01:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Feb 10 2005, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Really? Cause that's not even close to what he said, so either you're taking a massive leap, or he worded his phrase completely wrong, and didn't correct it.

You also show your lack of ability to 'debate' a topic when you 'brand all shades of Socialism' as a 'criminal ideology'. Talk about beyond biased.

Thats the biggest load of BS I've seen come out of you. At least debate the issue, instead of spouting that crap.

I don’t know whether you realize that or not but you just proved my point. You cannot grasp that socialism is a criminal ideology and IMO this is what Sammie meant – to you it is a `conspiracy of the right` to call socialism criminal. Correct me if I’m wrong – but don’t you think socialism is a good idea gone wrong in practise? The ideals are OK but the execution went wrong? When the right says this is BS and socialism is wrong at its very core you say that the right `lacks the of ability to 'debate' a topic.` [/b][/quote]
Well I DO realize that you're out to lunch on most topics.

I like debating with right-wingers. They might be right, and I might be right. I believe in my cause, and they their's. I respect their right to that opinion, and would never say its 'fundamentally wrong'... because it might not be.

You, of course, don't share that opinion. My ideology is 'criminal' because you say so. You've provided no evidence to prove the 'criminality' of socialism. That is your opinion, and, believe it or not, its not as widely accepted as you seem to believe.

Sammie said "The Liberal Party... believe Communism is a right-wing conspiracy".

You're changing what he said, and then explaining it.

Your ideology isn't BS, the way you present it is.

[Agamemnon]

Nonsense. Transplant is right.

Nonsense, you're wrong.

If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd see where I say that I didn't try to portray exploited labourers as rape victims, but rather was trying to explain the reasons why one might boycott a company, even if it didn't 'directly' benefit the labourers. If you don't want to see the point, then you can't.

Do you realize that Nike is giving their workers better offer than anyone else on earth? Not me, not you, not any other company are offering those workers more money and better working conditions. Yet you slay Nike for what they do – offering those poor peoples the best alterative they realistically have.

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen someone come out as strongly in favour of international exploitation of human beings as you. Nike gives a better offer than anyone else on earth? Until I see a shred of evidence supporting that, I'll assume its a massive mistatement, shooting from the hip.

It is true that from our point of view they might be offering more. But the thing that is allowing them to keep wages low is lack of competition, i.e. lack of other companies doing business in SE Asia. But I can imagine you will scream bloody murder if more western companies were to invest in SE Asia (see the public outcry when it comes to outsourcing). Talk about hypocrisy.

This paragraph doesn't make sense, or is worded poorly.

[Agamemnon]

Last year Nike paid 1.5 million bucks last year as a result of labour practises in one legal case.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sw.../nike/1631.html

"If I don't complete my daily target within regular work hours I have to work overtime without pay," Indonesian factory worker Fatima was quoted as telling researchers. "

http://voice.paly.net/view_story.php?id=2236

"A sweatshop is a factory that disregards more than one of the fundamental U.S. labor laws, which include paying minimum wage, paying overtime and respecting the workers’ right to organize independent unions.

“I spend all day on my feet, working with hot vapor that usually burns my skin, and by the end of the day, my arms and shoulders are in pain,” Alvaro Saavedra Anzures, a Mexican worker, said to the Global Exchange. “We have to meet the quota of 1,000 pieces per day. That translates to more than a piece every minute. The quota is so high that we cannot even go to the bathroom or drink water or anything for the whole day without risking our jobs.”

The present global economy allows sweatshops the mobility and flexibility to conceal themselves in areas of extreme poverty, giving the companies every advantage over the impoverished people and keeping their costs in check. Today, millions of dollars flow daily into the hands of corporations with leading roles in the sweatshop industry. These companies include the Gap, Forever 21, Old Navy, Target, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Sears and J.C. Penney. These retailers are supplied by a number of sweatshops, with documented abuse, dispersed around the world.

[Flame Of Liberty]

My ideology is 'criminal' because you say so. You've provided no evidence to prove the 'criminality' of socialism. That is your opinion, and, believe it or not, its not as widely accepted as you seem to believe.

Socialism is based around the idea that individual rights should be sacrificed to ensure `common good.` If violating individual rights is not criminal I don’t know what is.

Sammie said "The Liberal Party... believe Communism is a right-wing conspiracy".
You're changing what he said, and then explaining it.

I thought that’s what he tried to say. If not, then that’s what I am saying.

Your ideology isn't BS, the way you present it is.

Really? Care to elaborate?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Nonsense, you're wrong.

If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd see where I say that I didn't try to portray exploited labourers as rape victims, but rather was trying to explain the reasons why one might boycott a company, even if it didn't 'directly' benefit the labourers. If you don't want to see the point, then you can't.

Yes I bothered to read the thread and you explained nothing. Workers in factories who are there voluntarily are not victims. Boycotting their company makes them worse off. If you don't want to see the point, then you can't.

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen someone come out as strongly in favour of international exploitation of human beings as you. Nike gives a better offer than anyone else on earth? Until I see a shred of evidence supporting that, I'll assume its a massive mistatement, shooting from the hip.

Nowhere have you proved those laborers are being exploited. Second, no one gives them better working environment than the factory they currently work for does. Otherwise they would quit and work for someone else. Why don’t you boycott companies which don’t invest in poor countries at all and don’t pay laborers 10 dollars per hour? Nobody pays those laborers more than their current company (i.e. Nike) yet you slay Nike. Why?

This paragraph doesn't make sense, or is worded poorly.

OK I confess I kind of messed this one up. So let me rephrase it.

It is true that from our point of view multinational companies should be offering more money and better working conditions to their workers. But the reason why they can keep wages low is lack of competition. That means lack of other companies doing business in poor countries. Outsourcing increases competition in those areas. Therefore it will increase wages as well. So if you want to improve lives of working poor in those countries, you should be in favor of outsourcing. Yet a vast majority of people who declare they care about those poor laborers are against outsourcing, purely for their own benefit. Talk about hypocrisy. Better now?

[Agamemnon]

Socialism is based around the idea that individual rights should be sacrificed to ensure `common good.` If violating individual rights is not criminal I don’t know what is.

People are put into prison every day, violating their 'right to freedom'. Violation of individual rights 'sacrificed' for the common good happen all the time. Everyone has the right to freedom, but, in clear and obvious circumstances, those rights can be 'violated'. You may think this is criminal, I call it justice.

Really? Care to elaborate?

Sure. I've been to the Libertarian home page, and know a couple of people who espouse the philosophy. The problem with your presentation of it is you dont' bother to connect the philosophy with reality.

The reality is, the world is impovershed, suffering and violence are rampant, and selfishness is a way of life. Is that a good way to live? Probably not. Should things be changed? Absolutely. The issue here is that you dont' provide 'practical' opinions on almost any subject. You pointed out recently that some kids were being educated poorly in public schools, your solution? Abolish public education. That's not exactly a 'practical' idea to the problem. A reasonable Libertarian would pose a reasonable solution. You tend to find a problem with the system, and then demand its destruction. Not viable, not practical, and not adding to debate. You sound as unrealistic as a communist might, demanding worker's councils and universal healthcare/pension/social security for every human on earth. Unrealistic and impossible, and not adding to discussion at all.

This would be much better suited to a philosophy debate, as opposed to anything resembling the 'real world' or political science.

QUOTE
Sammie said "The Liberal Party... believe Communism is a right-wing conspiracy".
You're changing what he said, and then explaining it.


I thought that’s what he tried to say. If not, then that’s what I am saying.

Communism as a 'right-wing' conspiracy is inherently false and wrong. Communism is left-wing, and you'd be hard pressed to prove that it is, in fact, a right-wing conspiracy. I have no idea why I'm even still presenting this, it should be obvious to a Grade 9 Social Studies student.

Nowhere have you proved those laborers are being exploited. Second, no one gives them better working environment than the factory they currently work for does. Otherwise they would quit and work for someone else. Why don’t you boycott companies which don’t invest in poor countries at all and don’t pay laborers 10 dollars per hour? Nobody pays those laborers more than their current company (i.e. Nike) yet you slay Nike. Why?

The obvious problem with the idea that 'because Nike employs impovershed 3rd world people, it is good' is that it seems to assume that all of these people were living in a state of misery and poverty until we (Nike and TNC's) came along and lifted them out of their mud-hut lifestyles into the wonderful and glamorous world of hard labour. I'd suggest the international economic community goes a long way to ensure poverty exists in these regions, precisely to keep labour costs low and profits high. Investing in poor countries does not _have_ to = working them 12-16 hours a day for less than a buck an hour, forcing them to work without pay if they don't achieve quotas, giving them _zero_ ability to negotiate _anything_ with their employers (safe work environment, free from harrassement, etc.) Nike posts fairly huge revenues, and decent profits. Is it right to make large profits while working labourers over 12 hours a day? I'm sure if you lifted your fingers for two seconds and looked around, you'd find _hundreds_ of examples of labour exploitation. Of course, because they call it 'exploitation', these examples are immediately dismissed as false, as a matter of course, I assume.

It sounds like you think Nike is god's gift to the developing world. I doubt we'll find consensus on this issue in a thousand years.

The 'proof' I presented as to 'exploitation' is in the quote of the Mexican worker above, and in the links I provided.

[Andrew]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Feb 7 2005, 04:22 PM
I boycott Radioshack

Well radioshack... you know the old joke... dunno if they still do it. Why do they need your phone number/address when you buy a battery???? I always wonder that. I think technically if you pay with visa or any credit card... they have no right to ask that.

Stores I would boycott...

telus-horrible customer service... but really have limited choice. Primus and sprint are worse.
Techtronics in calgary.... some computer store, i had some problems with the manager there over a simple problem, broken part in less than 7 days.
Soundsaround.... extended warranty there is a rip as with any other place. Yet my warranty was still good, took them 3 months to replace a good or repair it.


most places where they get excessively.... bothersome about helping you. Too much pressure from salespeople is stupid.





THE STORE I BOYCOTT IN EDMONTON. IT is across from the casino in west ed....
Honest story...

Never buy sh*t from a store that sells weed pipes. I was buying some rock and roll memorabilia from this store... they do have some cool t-shirts i bought these t-shirts... no change room.I kinda eye it and purchase the good... She gives me a recent and i go home and realize it doesn't fit. In 1 hr i go back... She says "no REFUNDS ORRRR exchanges." I was like... "commmon this was one hour ago and where is this written on the receipt.. or anywhere in the store. ""Nope Nope .... you bought it. You keep it." "but common.... you didn't tell me anything nor did it say that anywhere" Then she slides this shelf out of the way... and behind the shelf... guess what it says "NO REFUNDS OR EXCHANGES".... shouldn't this be a little bit more visibile, not hidden behind a some shelf, where you can't see it. Obviously i got a bit mad...

"Thats it... you give me a refund... or else"... "NO!!!" Then I was like "just give 50% back then... " i was getting kinda annoyed.... "YOU WANT ME TO CALL SECURITY.... you come in this store... you obey my rules. LEAVE NOW. NO REFUND... get out!" She seriously picked up the phone and started dialling. What an idiot. So then I gave her the finger and just walked out screaming obscenities... Down 60 bucks after this incident.
Part of this...
The lady working their had this minority accent, thats what made it more humourous... and i was laughing my so hard afterwards. It was closest thing to the "soup nazi" on seinfeld.

[calf]

Originally posted by Andrew+Feb 11 2005, 09:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Andrew @ Feb 11 2005, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Feb 7 2005, 04:22 PM
I boycott Radioshack

Well radioshack... you know the old joke... dunno if they still do it. Why do they need your phone number/address when you buy a battery???? I always wonder that. I think technically if you pay with visa or any credit card... they have no right to ask that. [/b][/quote]
marketing purposes - see where people buying are from, and see if they should open new stores somewhere, direct flyers to an area, etc.
- either way, no matter how you pay, if they ask for your information, you have the right to refuse doing so. You can also ask exactly how they're using your information, for what purposes, etc. Most people just go ahead and give it to avoid the hassle of not giving it.

[Resolute 14]

My list...

Travelodge hotel chain. Worst hotel chain in the world.

Future Shop in Northland Villiage: A manager that blatantly lies to me gets put on the boycott-for-life list.

McDonalds in Spruce Grove and Leduc: Two of the worst run fast food resteraunts in the province. In both cases, I was lucky if they got my order right once every five times I was there.

Though all of fast food in general is mostly off my list now due to health reasons.

Companies on my shyte list, but havent been boycotted yet:

McCain foods: Any company that advertises on the premise that french fries are better than sex does not deserve my buisness. The only time I ever buy their products is if the resteraunt I am in happens to buy from them.

Telus: Perhaps the single most arrogant company in Canada. Service (residential and commercial) is attrocious.

Royal Bank: Worst bank in Canada. I only deal with them because my company gave me a RB corporate credit card.