I'm just mocking all of the Bernie supporters I know who love this kid. CH is one of the few who sees through him.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Shots fired at leash.

_________________

You mean the old leash.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

How comfortable were you to search for a Peter North gif?

_________________
Elections have consequences.

That's who Hogg has reminded me of since February.
It's the hair and the candy corn shaped head, I think.

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

Which head?

_________________
Elections have consequences.

and there was a little movie called "bowling for columbine" that led to kmart stopping the sales of ammunition at their stores. i'm sure there were walkouts, but there was definitely a ton of coverage of parents demonstrating against the NRA following columbine. plenty of outrage.

Yes.

Fucking millennials like leash forget all that.

_________________

i wonder what would have to happen to lead kmart to stop....and pick up all the dirty diapers in their parking lots.

Things have gone swell for Kmart since then

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Some things are apparently more important than the bottom line.

Yeah, but school shootings are down since the 90s and not even a big deal any more.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

If you're a big box store that sells firearms and ammunition, it's a wise idea not to cease the sale of them as that is one of the few products which you can sell that Amazon doesn't.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

I understand the economic side.

What if Swastikas were all the rage and selling them made a huge profit?

Again, some things are more important than the bottom line.

Well some companies do sell them. About 10 seconds of searching will direct you to them. Same with Confederate Flags.

Now most large companies opt not to sell them because the sale of them would discourage more shoppers from going there than would be brought in to buy said product. Once again, that decision goes down to the bottom line, not taking some moral stance.

If you're a big box store like Kmart, Walmart, etc. then demographics show that your clientèle is probably more pro-gun and thus you should carry such items.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Equating ammunition to swastikas.
Great thread today.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I think this gets to the heart of how my own perspective has changed a little bit. The reality is that people would sell those Swastikas if it made them a buck. Is that evil? I don't know. If there was a guy with no money who was trying to feed his family, I'm sure he'd happily sell swastikas to eat. I realize that's an absurd example, but it illustrates my point that morality is dictated by circumstances. There is one thing that has always driven animals and humans, and there will always be one thing: resources. The way we interact with other people all eventually boils down to economics, and that will never change.

A lot of the things we discuss like "social justice" are just side effects of living in a society that is so wealthy (in some places - not all) that we can pretend that economics and resources aren't our true main concern. Would it be great if everyone got along and bakers would sell gay cakes and JLN and Rick wouldn't argue and there was no tribalism in the world? Of course, but that world doesn't exist, and it never will. If we suddenly ran out of food one day in America, you can bet that things like "social justice" or "fairness" would be thrown out the window, and not according to race and gender... but just who had survival skills.

I guess my point is that a lot of the ideas that people today tend to categorize as "Liberal" are great... but not realistic. We are not perfect creatures, and we are almost exclusively driven by the accumulation of scarce resources. It's just hard to see that today because of how well-off we've become.

_________________

Don't be lazy, that wasnt a comparison of ammo to swastikas. It was an extreme example to show that there are some things people just won't do, even if it makes sense financially.

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

We keep running into this. You seem to worship the bottom line and the responsibility to stock holders.

You question why companies do things. I just point out that some people and companies owned by those people might make a choice that is not the best for their bottom line. (Like a chicken place that is closed on Sundays for Religious reasons)

Then you always come back and argue the finance side, which is not what Im saying.

I might open a baseball store on the south side and sell no Sox gear because I dont approve of that sort of thing knowing full well that Id make more money the other way.

I know it's rare and seemingly a quaint outdated idea but some people open businesses to serve the public or work with their passion and not 100% just to make money.

Of course. As my dad used to say, if the networks got ratings by airing church, it would be on 24 hours a day.

But that's not what I'm saying.

Ogie seemingly attempts to spike the football on companies that make decisions that might be more on the moral side and not best for the bottom line. I just point out that there are some companies/people who are ok with losing a few bucks in the name of what they consider right. So the spiking of the ball is lame because you haven't scored on them.

Do we really believe Kmart thought stopping the sale of guns or Starbucks inviting non paying customers in to their stores were going to INCREASE profits? I strongly doubt it.

Call me a cynic, but I highly doubt either of these efforts were strictly for some moral reason. At the very least, they wouldn't have done it if they thought it would lose them money.

_________________

You know that the large companies which are closed on Sunday (Chik Fil A and Hobby Lobby) are privately owned companies and not publicly held. This means they do not have the fiduciary responsibility that their publicly held competitors have. If they were publicly held, they would have shareholders voting in a board who would install a CEO who would force them to open on Sunday.

Just as your swastika comparison was a poor one to make, the Chik Fil A one is equally poor for this reason. In fact, the being closed on Sundays is cited by their founder/owner as the reason he will never take the company public. He knows that as soon as they go public, they will have to open on Sundays. This is a company that would probably be a very successful IPO, yet they have chosen not to issue one. In fact, the founder put such terms in his will. http://www.businessinsider.com/chick-fi ... lic-2016-1

If a publicly company makes a decision, even one which is sold as being altruistic, it's generally made because they believe it will improve their performance. A corporation owes nothing to you or the public. They do however owe a great deal to their shareholders.

I will also point out on Hobby Lobby that if they were publicly held, then they certainly would not have sued the government over Obamacare's birth control requirements. 1: such a publicly divisive move would not be approved by a board which is responsible for shareholders and 2: being publicly held would almost certainly ensure that the case would have been decided the other way. In fact, if you read the decision, you will see they only won the case because they were privately held. The ruling in fact only applies to privately held companies and not to public companies.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Like I said, you are a worshiper of the bottom line. Most people are. It's fine.

The point that you missed or intentionally ignored is its possible for a business (public or private) to be happy about making a decision while knowing it might cost them profits. Are you going to disagree with that? I don't think you will.

And my swastika comparions was perfect. You dont like it because it proves the point that you are arguing against.

Again, this is very simple

Subject A makes decision knowing outcome Z is likely

Subject B (you) comes along and says "haha, look at this Z outcome" as if you know something they dont.

It just makes you look silly.

Most companies and business owners are in the Ogie mode of being 100% about profits, agreed there.

But if someone like the Chick Fil-a guy makes a decision based on morals knowing they will probably lose money, its pretty stupid to say HAHA, YOU'RE LOSING MONEY.

The swastika example is a very poor one as a company that sells it is likely to lose more business via the backlash from doing so than it gains by selling it. So yes, not selling a swastika is good for the bottom line of a large publicly traded company.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

No, it's a great one and it's two fold because it shows your blind spot, too.

Believe me, there are people who would not sell swastikas no matter what the effect on the bottom line is. You seem to believe that every business is 100% for making profits and would murder children if it were legal and helped the bottom line. I know it's hard to believe for you and some others but there are people in the world who take principled stances. Mocking their stance because it cost them money (which they knew) makes you look silly.

especially when a chickfila franchise is the most profitable store on a individual basis.

You're completely ignoring the fact that a publicly held company selling swastikas would end up turning away far more shoppers than they would gain and thus would be harming their bottom line if they sold such products.

Come up with a better analogy and try again. Companies try to avoid controversy as controversy turns away customers. Not selling swastikas is hardly controversial, but selling them would be

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson