• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

California church shooting: 1 dead, 5 injured in Orange County

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I don't think this instance gets Democrats off the hook. I still live in the Peoples Republic of New York over here.
Yes, because you don't want to admit how far off base your claims are.
Again, go live in Russia or China if you think New York is authoritarian. You'll love the **** out of all the freedom you don't realize you have once you get back.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Even if this were true, what is wrong with it?

If gro- sto were more profitable they could
cur prices. They do compete. Its the
dark side of (shudder ) capitalism.

ETA I see this point was already made
It’s the false premise I have a problem with. If the grocers openly admitted they wanted to charge for bags then that’s one thing. But instead they did it through lobbyists and pretended it was about the environment. I’m all for capitalism, but just be up front about it. Say, “We’re going to start charging for bags. It will make us more money which we can use for employee profits, store upkeep, a better shopping experience, a rainy day fund and so on.” Then we’d have true capitalism where the different grocery stores do or do not charge for bags and independently decide how much. Instead, we now have a law they backed to make the bags required. So in a way, you’ve lost the choice that capitalism often provides.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Yes, because you don't want to admit how far off base your claims are.
Again, go live in Russia or China if you think New York is authoritarian. You'll love the **** out of all the freedom you don't realize you have once you get back.
Always smeone picking on China.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The shooter is Asian though.
Then I am probably wrong. It was an early guess on very little information. My next guess would be that an ex-love interest is involved. It was some sort of hate that drove this. Racism sadly causes more deaths than losing a lover does. Or maybe that is a good thing since far more of us have lost at love some time in our lives.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Then I am probably wrong. It was an early guess on very little information. My next guess would be that an ex-love interest is involved. It was some sort of hate that drove this. Racism sadly causes more deaths than losing a lover does. Or maybe that is a good thing since far more of us have lost at love some time in our lives.

Yeah, an elderly Asian guy shoots a church full of elderly Asians. Probably previously got kicked out of the church or something like that. God, people have gone mad and can't handle any type of adversity anymore.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It’s the false premise I have a problem with. If the grocers openly admitted they wanted to charge for bags then that’s one thing. But instead they did it through lobbyists and pretended it was about the environment. I’m all for capitalism, but just be up front about it. Say, “We’re going to start charging for bags. It will make us more money which we can use for employee profits, store upkeep, a better shopping experience, a rainy day fund and so on.” Then we’d have true capitalism where the different grocery stores do or do not charge for bags and independently decide how much. Instead, we now have a law they backed to make the bags required. So in a way, you’ve lost the choice that capitalism often provides.

You know for a fact that all they ever
said was about environment?

The "more profit" thung, Id not get into
that either.

Too easy to misunderstand, misconstrue
a compkex message esp one that starts out
looking like simple greed.

The truth, whole truth and nothing but
is a wholly unrealistic standard for
any corporate messaging.

Your objrction is obvisted both in whole
and in part.
So there.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You know for a fact that all they ever
said was about environment?

The "more profit" thung, Id not get into
that either.

Too easy to misunderstand, misconstrue
a compkex message esp one that starts out
looking like simple greed.

The truth, whole truth and nothing but
is a wholly unrealistic standard for
any corporate messaging.

Your objrction is obvisted both in whole
and in part.
So there.
*shrug*
I know what commercials were running in California and I know what the ballot information said. Your personal opinion or speculation are irrelevant. I’m pro-capitalism, but what the industry did was dishonest in my view.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
*shrug*
I know what commercials were running in California and I know what the ballot information said. Your personal opinion or speculation are irrelevant. I’m pro-capitalism, but what the industry did was dishonest in my view.
Ah so, your speculation (that its all they
did) transforms into my speculation.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It was news in California. I also provided a link earlier that showed grocers supported a related ballot measure.
I missed it. So are you saying that greenies
weren't behind it at all...it was just grocers
looking to boost profits?
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Ah so, your speculation (that its all they
did) transforms into my speculation.
I didn’t speculate. I witnessed it and provided a link. I’m in the legal industry. Have a lot of lobbyists in my building, and am familiar with the history. I never said that was “all” they did. I will say I am unaware of them being open about it. It was very much a stealth operation.

Which state are you in? What lobbyists do you know? Have you seen balletopia and other sources citing the grocers’ involvement? Or did you just come here to be snooty on a topic you know jack **** about? Sorry to break the news to you, but sometimes corporations do deceitful things. Shocking, I know.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I missed it. So are you saying that greenies
weren't behind it at all...it was just grocers
looking to boost profits?
Greenies were certainly a part of it. They were the front face of the effort, but my understanding is that it was the grocers who initiated and primarily supported the movement. Very stealthily I might add.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Interesting. I knew when it came into my state that at first it was just individual cities and the small fee went to the city for clean up. Now it is statewide and if one gets a bag the old single use are not longer available and one is charged for a reusable plastic bag which does go to the grocer to pay for the bag:

Single-use plastic bag ban begins Oct. 1 in Washington

The new bags are plenty reusable, as long as one does not buy a bunch of poorly packaged meat. They are far stronger than the single use ones, many of which did not even last one use for me. I can afford 8 cents if I need one and I do not think that this will be a huge profit item for stores. When an average grocery trip is around $40.00 another 18 cents is not going to make a huge profit difference for the grocer. Maybe, just maybe some grocers thought that they were doing the right thing.
 
Top