[Lee978]

Originally Posted by SmileyPSU

Real Katrina hero? Wal-Mart, study says - MSN Money

I guess all corporations aren't greedy blood suckers

[Sinatra]

Originally Posted by SmileyPSU

Real Katrina hero? Wal-Mart, study says - MSN Money

There was future profit involved. Of course they helped. Thanks for helping prove my point.

Where's Wal-Mart in Myanmar?

[SmileyPSU]

Originally Posted by Sinatra

There was future profit involved. Of course they helped. Thanks for helping prove my point.

Where's Wal-Mart in Myanmar?

Future profit involved? I'm assuming you mean from the goodwill they'd accumulate by doing this? If so, you're an idiot.

Nobody associates Wal-Mart with the Katrina aftermath, and nobody gets warm and fuzzy feelings thinking that Wal-Mart is sooooooo nice, and soooooooo sweet, and sooooooo friendly.

[Sinatra]

Originally Posted by SmileyPSU

Future profit involved? I'm assuming you mean from the goodwill they'd accumulate by doing this? If so, you're an idiot.

Nobody associates Wal-Mart with the Katrina aftermath, and nobody gets warm and fuzzy feelings thinking that Wal-Mart is sooooooo nice, and soooooooo sweet, and sooooooo friendly.

No, I'm talking about the future customers they cultivated. It was a marketing project.

You didn't asnwer my question about Wal Mart in Myanmar. Where's the help there?

[SmileyPSU]

Originally Posted by Sinatra

No, I'm talking about the future customers they cultivated. It was a marketing project.

You didn't asnwer my question about Wal Mart in Myanmar. Where's the help there?

How did their actions cultivate future customers? How could it have been a marketing project when nobody knows what they were doing down there during the storm's aftermath?

Why, just because they assisted with recovery efforts in Katrina, would Wal-Mart be obligated to to help out whenever there is a massive natural disaster? I was merely pointing out but one example as to why you sound like a dopey teenager when you bitch about corporations doing no good unless it will lead to higher profits.

[1000 yrd. stare]

We didn't aide in Katrina, why in Myanmar?

[Maximinus Thrax]

No, because the military will only allow aid that it can confiscate - no human workers, just goods and money. How much of this will reach the people who need it? Goose egg.

Now, about all of those people who actually live in the U.S. and have been getting thrashed by tornadoes...

[Sinatra]

Originally Posted by SmileyPSU

How did their actions cultivate future customers? How could it have been a marketing project when nobody knows what they were doing down there during the storm's aftermath?

Why, just because they assisted with recovery efforts in Katrina, would Wal-Mart be obligated to to help out whenever there is a massive natural disaster? I was merely pointing out but one example as to why you sound like a dopey teenager when you bitch about corporations doing no good unless it will lead to higher profits.

Because all of those people will feel indebted to Wal Mart for helping them in time of need, creating customers for life.

I never said that Wal-Mart that is obligated to help wherever there's a natural disater... that's your position, remember? I only said that corporations usually act unless there's a potential for profit. Why did they make sure to put out press releases of their work if they're so selfless? I'll tell you - it makes them look good to investors and to sell stock. Why did they turn a 16,000 sq. ft. tent used for survival supplies into a " 'Wal-Mart Express,' a new store concept for disaster impacted areas."

If they're as do-goody as you claim they are, why aren't they helping whenever there's natural disaster? Go ahead, now it's your turn to call names instead of forming an argument.

[SmileyPSU]

Originally Posted by Sinatra

Because all of those people will feel indebted to Wal Mart for helping them in time of need, creating customers for life.

I never said that Wal-Mart that is obligated to help wherever there's a natural disater... that's your position, remember? I only said that corporations usually act unless there's a potential for profit. Why did they make sure to put out press releases of their work if they're so selfless? I'll tell you - it makes them look good to investors and to sell stock. Why did they turn a 16,000 sq. ft. tent used for survival supplies into a " 'Wal-Mart Express,' a new store concept for disaster impacted areas."

If they're as do-goody as you claim they are, why aren't they helping whenever there's natural disaster? Go ahead, now it's your turn to call names instead of forming an argument.

Do you think the poor and elderly who were stuck in NO for the storm weren't already wal-mart customers? Where do the poor and people on fixed incomes shop in your world?

Why would you be asking where Wal-Mart is if you didn't think they had some sort of obligation to assist the people in Burma?

And you didn't say corporations usually don't act unless there's a potential for profit. you laughed at the suggestion that any big business would help out if they couldn't profit off the situation. As a rebuttal, I cited one of many instances where big business threw down a big chunk of change that they're not gonna recoup.

I don't think corporations are "goody goody" and I don't care that they aren't. That's not what they exist for, so I have no problems with them patting themselves and trying to foster goodwill when they do help out. I don't think there's a customer in the world who shops at Wal-Mart because of the charity work they do, and I don't think there's a customer in the world who would stop shopping there if they ceased all charity work tomorrow.

Is there anything else you would like to lose a debate about?

[Sinatra]

Originally Posted by SmileyPSU

Do you think the poor and elderly who were stuck in NO for the storm weren't already wal-mart customers? Where do the poor and people on fixed incomes shop in your world?

Why would you be asking where Wal-Mart is if you didn't think they had some sort of obligation to assist the people in Burma?

And you didn't say corporations usually don't act unless there's a potential for profit. you laughed at the suggestion that any big business would help out if they couldn't profit off the situation. As a rebuttal, I cited one of many instances where big business threw down a big chunk of change that they're not gonna recoup.

I don't think corporations are "goody goody" and I don't care that they aren't. That's not what they exist for, so I have no problems with them patting themselves and trying to foster goodwill when they do help out. I don't think there's a customer in the world who shops at Wal-Mart because of the charity work they do, and I don't think there's a customer in the world who would stop shopping there if they ceased all charity work tomorrow.

Is there anything else you would like to lose a debate about?

First off, saying that corporations don't act unless there's a profit motivator = laughing at the notion of them doing otherwise. They're different ways of making the same point. I guess I overestimated the ability to interpret nuance on the part of a corporate apologist.

Yes, you pointed out a counter to my initial suggestion, and I responded by pointing out how that counter proves a motivation for corporate profit, hence strengthening my point that corporations don't act unless there's a potential for profit.

And then you say I lost a debate? You're stupid.

Source