Ok ya got 1, how about we just wait and see shall we? Or are you willing to make a bet no law suits will be filed against walmart?Chou wrote:
Bill Mitchell, a former Walmart employee who was shopping Wednesday at the store, said that he was saddened to hear about the announcement but that "as a black man, I've heard worse things."
It has happened before and he took it a little too seriously?
it's an opportunity so all bets are onlowing wrote:
Ok ya got 1, how about we just wait and see shall we? Or are you willing to make a bet no law suits will be filed against walmart?Chou wrote:
Bill Mitchell, a former Walmart employee who was shopping Wednesday at the store, said that he was saddened to hear about the announcement but that "as a black man, I've heard worse things."
It has happened before and he took it a little too seriously?
oooooooooooooook lets give it a few days.Chou wrote:
it's an opportunity so all bets are onlowing wrote:
Ok ya got 1, how about we just wait and see shall we? Or are you willing to make a bet no law suits will be filed against walmart?Chou wrote:
Bill Mitchell, a former Walmart employee who was shopping Wednesday at the store, said that he was saddened to hear about the announcement but that "as a black man, I've heard worse things."
It has happened before and he took it a little too seriously?
Keep an eye out for Oprah.lowing wrote:
oooooooooooooook lets give it a few days.Chou wrote:
it's an opportunity so all bets are onlowing wrote:
Ok ya got 1, how about we just wait and see shall we? Or are you willing to make a bet no law suits will be filed against walmart?
So I take it you agree, the entitled will swarm over this?Spark wrote:
it would be a pathetic and worthless opportunist who filed over this.
sadly we have plenty of those...
Entitled?lowing wrote:
So I take it you agree, the entitled will swarm over this?Spark wrote:
it would be a pathetic and worthless opportunist who filed over this.
sadly we have plenty of those...
Entitled: one who expects something to be provided for nothing. One who considers your wealth something they have a claim to and will do what they can to relieve you from it through litigation, or legislationChou wrote:
Entitled?lowing wrote:
So I take it you agree, the entitled will swarm over this?Spark wrote:
it would be a pathetic and worthless opportunist who filed over this.
sadly we have plenty of those...
para-friggin-noia.lowing wrote:
Entitled: one who expects something to be provided for nothing. One who considers your wealth something they have a claim to and will do what they can to relieve you from it through litigation, or legislation
you show how much ypu know with this post.ruisleipa wrote:
para-friggin-noia.lowing wrote:
Entitled: one who expects something to be provided for nothing. One who considers your wealth something they have a claim to and will do what they can to relieve you from it through litigation, or legislation
the whole world is out to get you lowing. It's personal.
Oh, and if you're entitled to something it generally means you have a legal or moral claim to it. I think the term was 'moocher' for someone who wants something for nothing wasn't it?
lol paranoia. Yeah, welfare is paranoid delusions doesn't exist, so are frivolous lawsuits, nothing but a figment of my imagination.ruisleipa wrote:
para-friggin-noia.lowing wrote:
Entitled: one who expects something to be provided for nothing. One who considers your wealth something they have a claim to and will do what they can to relieve you from it through litigation, or legislation
the whole world is out to get you lowing. It's personal.
Oh, and if you're entitled to something it generally means you have a legal or moral claim to it. I think the term was 'moocher' for someone who wants something for nothing wasn't it?
Do you have a problem with English? If they're entitled then they have a legal or moral claim to something. I think you mean something else, like people who..are NOT entitled to anything but still get it. Or something.lowing wrote:
the entitled and moochers goes hand in hand, you said you didn't like moocher, so I give you the entitled.
LOL hahahahaDo me a favor, go play somewhere, the adults are talking.
Maybe you have a problem with English, if they litigate or legislate in order to take from another, it then becomes legal.ruisleipa wrote:
Do you have a problem with English? If they're entitled then they have a legal or moral claim to something. I think you mean something else, like people who..are NOT entitled to anything but still get it. Or something.lowing wrote:
the entitled and moochers goes hand in hand, you said you didn't like moocher, so I give you the entitled.LOL hahahahaDo me a favor, go play somewhere, the adults are talking.
you're so superior aren't you. hehehehehe that made me laugh. http://smilies.newcastlebeats.com/smilies/eeklaugh.gif
regardless, the point being, there will be people looking for compensation over this. and why? because Walmart has money for the takingtuckergustav wrote:
Argument about what entitled means aside....
I think there would only be lawsuits if it is found that an employee made the announcement. If it turns out that is was a rogue customer then I could see Walmart handing out $25 gift cards to anyone who complained.
It's legal to sue someone for something...yeah...so what? If they get what they're suing for then, er, I guess it's still legal? No-one is suing anyone as far as I know in this case, yet anyway, so what's your point exactly? no-one said you are "entitled to remove wealth from one person for no other reason than because you want it." Where did that come from? What has that got to do with your OP? Certainly no-one is removing wealth from YOU, personally, at all. Bit weird tbh.lowing wrote:
Maybe you have a problem with English, if they litigate or legislate in order to take from another, it then becomes legal.
Now I will still wait for your moral example of when you are entitled to remove wealth from one person for no other reason than because you want it.
oh, for sure. No argument there. Also..although I don't want to turn this into a "walmart is bad" thread...but the average walmart shopper may tend to be the type of person who it looking for something for nothing...so it could go without saying that a large percentage of people in that store would be looking for some sort of emotional damage compensation.lowing wrote:
regardless, the point being, there will be people looking for compensation over this. and why? because Walmart has money for the takingtuckergustav wrote:
Argument about what entitled means aside....
I think there would only be lawsuits if it is found that an employee made the announcement. If it turns out that is was a rogue customer then I could see Walmart handing out $25 gift cards to anyone who complained.
Might wanna calm down a bit and read what has been posted.ruisleipa wrote:
It's legal to sue someone for something...yeah...so what? If they get what they're suing for then, er, I guess it's still legal? No-one is suing anyone as far as I know in this case, yet anyway, so what's your point exactly? no-one said you are "entitled to remove wealth from one person for no other reason than because you want it." Where did that come from? What has that got to do with your OP? Certainly no-one is removing wealth from YOU, personally, at all. Bit weird tbh.lowing wrote:
Maybe you have a problem with English, if they litigate or legislate in order to take from another, it then becomes legal.
Now I will still wait for your moral example of when you are entitled to remove wealth from one person for no other reason than because you want it.
you are 100% correct.tuckergustav wrote:
oh, for sure. No argument there. Also..although I don't want to turn this into a "walmart is bad" thread...but the average walmart shopper may tend to be the type of person who it looking for something for nothing...so it could go without saying that a large percentage of people in that store would be looking for some sort of emotional damage compensation.lowing wrote:
regardless, the point being, there will be people looking for compensation over this. and why? because Walmart has money for the takingtuckergustav wrote:
Argument about what entitled means aside....
I think there would only be lawsuits if it is found that an employee made the announcement. If it turns out that is was a rogue customer then I could see Walmart handing out $25 gift cards to anyone who complained.
I am just wondering where Al Sharpton is at already...
I am very calm thank you!lowing wrote:
Might wanna calm down a bit and read what has been posted.
Do you support welfare? then you support removing wealth from one person by force, to give to another, for no other reason than because you think they deserve it more than the person who earned it.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-18 07:51:10)
the way you ramble on in your posts it is hard to imagine you calm at all.ruisleipa wrote:
I am very calm thank you!lowing wrote:
Might wanna calm down a bit and read what has been posted.
Do you support welfare? then you support removing wealth from one person by force, to give to another, for no other reason than because you think they deserve it more than the person who earned it.
I'm just wondering how your OP about an announcement in a Wal-mart that black people should leave the story gets onto you moaning about people having money stolen from them by welfare. You're starting to sound quite racist tbh.
And no-one is taking money BY FORCE are they? You don't have a gun at your head do you? You just pay taxes, part of which go to fund welfare, as well as all kinds of other stuff that other people might not want to pay for, like defence for example. The point is you can't choose what your taxes pay for, which is just tough shit. It's the same for everyone. Except the rich people and businesses who have offshore accounts and don't have to pay any taxes at all.
