Why don't conservatives use leftwing methods - like econimc pressure?

[Rick]

Really long-time listeners of Rush will remember when he had florida orange juice as a sponsor. The feminazis decided to start a boycott of florida orange juice till they stopped sponsoring. This is standard leftwing practice - they know they can't win in real debates, so they try to shut down opponents.

They started with a demonstration at some store in florida, asking people not to buy orange juice. Rush followers showed up, bought lots of prange juice, and had a good time drinking it in front of the feminazis. A few warned the store owner that they would be back tomorrow and the next day, planned to buy orange juice, and expected it to be in stock. The feminazis retreated.

But so did the growers - they didn't want any "controversy" associated with their brand. The same excuse was offered when Rush tried to buy a part interest in a NFL team. Rush has a long association with the NFL. The leftwingers screeched, and the NFL scotched the deal. This is the same NFL which keeps players who are wife beaters, use illegal drugs, run illegal dog fights, convicted of manslaughter, etc, and manage to stay employed.

There's lots else they've done, like create the seeds of the worldwide economic collapse when ACORN pioneered the idea of intimidating banks into giving home loans to unqualified minority applicants.

Why don't conservatives try this? One example I suggest is a boycott of a company that is too cozy with the leftwing - shouldn't be hard because most of the big ones are.

Two criteria for the target:

- The majority or most of its income is from consumer goods or services that are widely used.

- Is already shakey financially because of the recession.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

you show those non polluting non gay bashing companies who help the poor,...make them pay!

 

[Stalin]

There's lots else they've done, like create the seeds of the worldwide economic collapse when ACORN pioneered the idea of intimidating banks into giving home loans to unqualified minority applicants.

As Rick has so ably demonstrated, it is of course the poor who are responsible for the financial meltdown, not Wall street or the creators and manipulators of the counterfeit products such as futures, derivatives and credit swaps.

Comrade Stalin

 

[Rick]

As Rick has so ably demonstrated, it is of course the poor who are responsible for the financial meltdown, not Wall street or the creators and manipulators of the counterfeit products such as futures, derivatives and credit swaps.

Comrade Stalin

You're too stupid to live! And imagine the mentality of a person who would call himself "Stalin".

 

[Gipper]

You're too stupid to live! And imagine the mentality of a person who would call himself "Stalin".

Yes. It is most difficult to imagine.

How could anyone with at least a 6th grade education think this way?

 

[TruthSeeker]

You're too stupid to live! And imagine the mentality of a person who would call himself "Stalin".

PFOS and Stalin are related. No doubt in my mind. The only difference between the two of them is that Stalin is a pretty good speller, which means that Stalin probably has at least a junior high school education.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

As Rick has so ably demonstrated, it is of course the poor who are responsible for the financial meltdown, not Wall street or the creators and manipulators of the counterfeit products such as futures, derivatives and credit swaps.

Comrade Stalin

I was interested to note that this post was greeted with 3 personal attacks and not one thing of substance.

My suggestion for a right wing boycott is Walmart since it is "a company that is too cozy with the leftwing" as "...most of the big ones are."

 

[Centrehalf]

I was interested to note that this post was greeted with 3 personal attacks and not one thing of substance.

My suggestion for a right wing boycott is Walmart since it is "a company that is too cozy with the leftwing" as "...most of the big ones are."

I noticed that too. In fairness, the OP hasn't been addressed with any substance either.

You know why the right doesn't do boycotts? Because they don't work. The Left doesn't really do them either. A few whack-a-doodles on both ends of the political spectrum try to get them going, but they don't work.

 

[Rick]

I noticed that too. In fairness, the OP hasn't been addressed with any substance either.

You know why the right doesn't do boycotts? Because they don't work. The Left doesn't really do them either. A few whack-a-doodles on both ends of the political spectrum try to get them going, but they don't work.

You are UTTERLY uninformed, and I gave examples which worked in the OP.

With just the threat of boycotts, the leftwing has gotten corporate america to:

- implement a widespread regime of anti-white male racial discrimination

- give marriage benefits to gays who are merely shacked up

- donate to leftwing causes

- donate to leftwing foundations

- implement the extremist feminazi version of sexual harassment provisions

- shut down religious expression in the workplace

- extirpate all signs and symbols of the dreaded christmas holiday

- accede to suprime home loans to unqualified minorities

- reserve subcontracts to minority companies protected from competitive bidding

 

[Centrehalf]

You are UTTERLY uninformed, and I gave examples which worked in the OP.

With just the threat of boycotts, the leftwing has gotten corporate america to:

- implement a widespread regime of anti-white male racial discrimination

- give marriage benefits to gays who are merely shacked up

- donate to leftwing causes

- donate to leftwing foundations

- implement the extremist feminazi version of sexual harassment provisions

- shut down religious expression in the workplace

- extirpate all signs and symbols of the dreaded christmas holiday

- accede to suprime home loans to unqualified minorities

- reserve subcontracts to minority companies protected from competitive bidding

Rick, I was defending you. The poster I quoted was saying that Stalin had been smeared. I brought up the fact that your point had not been addressed either.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Rick, I was defending you. The poster I quoted was saying that Stalin had been smeared. I brought up the fact that your point had not been addressed either.

I think its funny someone would attack gays for just being "shacked up" yet at the same time is in favor of not letting them get married....Basicly a attack for not being married...while saying it should be illegal for you to marry ...odd...yet not shocking.

But some protests do work..Target Corp donating money to Emmer running for Gov here in MN, targets home, and got alot of flak for it. For one its giving money to a guy running for office who does not view people who Target employees as humans with rights...and wants to keep them from enjoying the rights of others because of who they are , even if they have done no crime. Also my state has a fairly good liberal population, and also a very independant one ( my own party is full of former Republicans who are with us in part because they don't toe the line of social conservitives who hate gays) ...they protested...I know many who did not go for a few weeks until target say they where sorry...they did not take the money back or anything, but they did start doing more work to look at how they donated money to people running for office. so it did have some effect.

If the Right wants to stand outside stores and get all pissed that a company gives gay workers rights, and is such a horrible company they would even give them the same rights they would give a married couple...so be it...let them stand out there and protest a company choosing to give someone health care....that looks real nice, I am sure its what Jesus would do.

that said , if the left was to go proorest the Koch Bro's companies, I don't think they would get much...because they don't care about what the left says...

And if the right wants to hate Target or something for it, they can go to WalMart who upholds there family values ...of profiting off old peoples death, screwing workers out of legit wages, and looking the other way on workers rights when ever possible.

 

[Rick]

Rick, I was defending you. The poster I quoted was saying that Stalin had been smeared. I brought up the fact that your point had not been addressed either.

I saw that you did, but then you said boycotts don't work. Rethinking that a little on my part, on second thought, the pressure from the leftwing has as often been with threats of lawsuits, presented to a sympathetic leftwing judge. Then the company agrees to a consent decree, which usually gives some unfair advantage to one of the leftwing constituencies at the expense of other employees, customers, subcontractors, and stockholders

 

[Rick]

I think its funny someone would attack gays for just being "shacked up" yet at the same time is in favor of not letting them get married....Basicly a attack for not being married...while saying it should be illegal for you to marry ...odd...yet not shocking.

Your typical erroneous take on things. What if employee Bill wanted to marry his horse that he was shacked up with, and demanded benefits too? You'd say I'm contradictory for opposing both, only because your weak intellect tells you it must be either/or.

If the Right wants to stand outside stores and get all pissed that a company gives gay workers rights,

Those who expect PFS to give an argument as to how marriage is a right for gays, will (as usual) wait in vain.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Your typical erroneous take on things. What if employee Bill wanted to marry his horse that he was shacked up with, and demanded benefits too? You'd say I'm contradictory for opposing both, only because your weak intellect tells you it must be either/or.



Those who expect PFS to give an argument as to how marriage is a right for gays, will (as usual) wait in vain.

simple a horse can't consent ...
typical stupid response though....take away rights from millions because of some far off extreme made up example. Its like me saying you can't go to a gun range becuse what if someone wants to test a nuclear weapon there...therefor all guns must be banned form being used even at a gun range...thats the logic you have.

But its good to know you can pull out the same ideas that where behind why blacks could not marry whites not long ago as well...But you belive that its the goverments job to decided who can consent to marry who between legal adults....no not the church...becuase you know what...there are churches who have no problem with it and will marry a gay couple....

So you think that its the govements place to say who can marry who...based on what...the Bible? so now the goverment law is based on one Religion..and not only that..one specific sect of that Religion? My God that sounds like something you would find in say Saudi Arabia...where the Law and the Religion are the same.

you know what the real easy way to show that getting married is a right is? Make it Illegal for Christians to get married....or is this one of those rights that only special select Americans get based on your Religion?

If Marriage is a Right for all Adults...then you can't take it away from anyone...if its not, then we can take it away from anyone...Christians included....But maybe just to realy piss you off...only White Christians will be banned after all...its not a Right.

see the funny thing is you think its up to gays or me..to prove they have a right...should it not be the side that wants to take away something from a citizen to prove they have the right to not let them do something?

 

[Rick]

simple a horse can't consent ...
typical stupid response though....take away rights from millions because of some far off extreme made up example. Its like me saying you can't go to a gun range becuse what if someone wants to test a nuclear weapon there...therefor all guns must be banned form being used even at a gun range...thats the logic you have.

That was a humorous example, but the point remains that you have used an unsupported assertion that one of two propositions must be true. It's like saying it's contradictory for both a bank to refuse give $1000 to someone as a gift just because they ask for it, and also arrest them if they rob the bank to get it. Neither of your propositions are necessarily true ipso facto - to show they are true, you have to support them both separately. Now go read a logic book starting oin page one.

But its good to know you can pull out the same ideas that where behind why blacks could not marry whites not long ago as well...

Straw man. That prohibition of such marriages was overturned was based on arguments particular to that issue, namely the equal protection clause which doesn't apply to homosexuals. "Gay marriage" has to be supported by it's own justifications, not invalid crude analogies to unrelated court cases.

But you belive that its the goverments job to decided who can consent to marry who between legal adults....no not the church...becuase you know what...there are churches who have no problem with it and will marry a gay couple....

The idea of "gay marriage" is a novel one unprecedented in anglo-saxon jurisprudence. Sorry, I just don't believe in the leftwing practice of inventing "rights" every other tuesday.

So you think that its the govements place to say who can marry who...based on what...the Bible? so now the goverment law is based on one Religion..and not only that..one specific sect of that Religion? My God that sounds like something you would find in say Saudi Arabia...where the Law and the Religion are the same.

No actually, it's been a part of government for a very long time. If you want to change the precedents of thousands of years, propose a constitutional amendment. Good luck - it didn't even work in liberal californua.

you know what the real easy way to show that getting married is a right is? Make it Illegal for Christians to get married....or is this one of those rights that only special select Americans get based on your Religion?

Go ahead - have your friendly neighborhood leftwing representative propose that in the legislature. And for your info, I happen to be an agnostic.

If Marriage is a Right for all Adults

It isn't.