Worst Company in America?

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
  Brandon Brendall is the textbook reason why I wont vote Republican or Libertarian.
 

He voted Kerry in 04!

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
   

Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
  Brandon Brendall is the textbook reason why I wont vote Republican or Libertarian.
 

He voted Kerry in 04! [/b]

he's a complete idiot. he must be a day trader or something.  "Exxon and Comast work for me!" woohooo
 
 loser.

[alex]

Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
   

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
  You'er going to seriously set up a strawman comparing people who have a desire to work at Walmart to people who deal drugs and sell their bodies for sex, and then accuse me of using "batshit insane" talking points?
 
 That's rich, even for you.
 

Hey, it's your logic. All sorts of people take all sorts of terrible jobs. We have close to 6% unemployment in this country. The willingness of someone to do something for money does not, in fact, make it a "good" job, nor does it speak to the overall positives of said employment.
 
 This doesn't even address the biggest elephant in the room with regards to this argument: that the IQ of the average Walmart applicant is probably around 83. I knew a mentally handicapped boy in high school who'd lick his own shoe; it's not substantial evidence that muddy rubber is tasty. [/b]

So, I'm accused of speaking with batshit talking points...but you're allowed to broadly paint everyone working at Walmart as being slightly above mentally retarded, who are forced to take "terrible" jobs?
 
 Why does the fact that YOU think it is a terrible job, one that is so beneath the likes of what you'd ever take, one that you think that only retarded people take (with no evidence), make it terrible for everyone?  I know people who have worked there who have hated it, and I know people who have worked there and loved it.  I know people who have worked just about anywhere who have hated it, while others loved it for what it was at the time, at a certain point in their career.  
 
 Now we're getting into you setting up what defines a good job, when you're not even the one doing the job.
 
 And the average number of applicants versus number of jobs has been constant, even when we were at 4.5% unemployment (we're at 5.5% today, by the way).

[sonickteam2]

just a side note, not that i'll call it "evidence" but i heard some ppl in my neighborhood talking about how they went to apply for a job at the new Super Wal-Mart opening up a couples miles away and that someone should have told them they needed to bring their ID with them to apply!
 
  now, i'm not saying thats retarded, but come on people.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
  So, I'm accused of speaking with batshit talking points...but you're allowed to broadly paint everyone working at Walmart as being slightly above mentally retarded, who are forced to take "terrible" jobs?

This is somehow surprising to you? How long have you known me? My ad hominym-riddled debating style almost exclusively consists of lumping people together, then painting them with broad strokes. This has been the ground rules of our relationship for, like, 6 years.

[alex]

first of all my big business loving republican friend.  Paypal is a terribly shady company....they deserve to be on that list.  Ebay does too.  
 
  I know someone very well who works very closely with these people and some very fucked up business practices happen here. I wont go into them because its not really my information to leak.

Unless you can provide evidence of how they've screwed over massive numbers of people or made our lives miserable in ways that overcome the positive aspects they've brought to our lives, you have no argument.
 
 

Secondly, our economy would NOT collapse without these companies. because without these companies other , perhaps more honest well-intentioned companies, would step to the forefront and provide us the same services.

Are you seriously insinuating that the ONLY reason these particular companies are at the top of their respective industries, is because they've been dishonest, and mal-intentioned?

[alex]

Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
  Brandon Brendall is the textbook reason why I wont vote Republican or Libertarian.
 
 I just cant be associated with people like that.
 
 its disgusting.

he's a complete idiot. he must be a day trader or something.  "Exxon and Comast work for me!" woohooo
 
 loser.

As opposed to you, one who would rather toss around ad homenim attacks, stereotypical assumptions and childish name-calling, than actually debate a point on its logic and merits?
 
 I would say this is why I'll never vote Democrat, but I'm not going to stoop to your level and play that game.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
 
 I would say this is why I'll never vote Democrat, but I'm not going to stoop to your level and play that game.

If there's anything I'm known for it's for fostering a spirit of cooperation and promoting detante as to aggression, so I'd just like to say, as an olive branch of understanding, that I'm voting McCain in November, almost entirely to punish the Democratic party for selecting a naked emperor as their nominee. So, really, we're not so different.

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
  Unless you can provide evidence of how they've screwed over massive numbers of people or made our lives miserable in ways that overcome the positive aspects they've brought to our lives, you have no argument.
 

dont you read, Brandon?  I do have plenty of evidence regarding Marketing practices, policies regarding credit disputes and policies they have within their company , that obviously I will not just blurt out on a public forum.
 
  I am just letting you know that perhaps other people are aware about them.  and perhaps others know more about Ebay and Paypal than you, to know its probably not run by boy scouts!
 
  You are right about one thing, I dont have an argument, because i am not arguing, I am telling you.  If you knew what i knew, you would probably not continue to use your paypal account unless you absolutely had to.  
 
   Is all that too complicated for you to understand?

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
  Are you seriously insinuating that the ONLY reason these particular companies are at the top of their respective industries, is because they've been dishonest, and mal-intentioned?

of course not.  in fact, I am not even insinuating that the companies on this list ARE dishonest or mal-intentioned.  All I meant was while the services these companies provide may be necessary, the specific companies are not.
 
  Besides, Brandon i think you kinda missed the fun spirit of this whole thing and made it some stupid economic argument.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
  I most areas where Comcast is available, multiple DSL offerings are also available.

Yes, DSL companies that provide service for reduced rate to low income families.  But DSL is limited by distance from the swtich, unlike cable, so there are many households who can't get a DSL connection, but can get cable via the guaranteed monopoly, and Comcast does not provide a discounted rate for low income families with children in school that would greatly benefit from having internet access.  Internet access that would not increase costs dramatically to the provider.
 
 I wouldn't mind your argument so much if Comcast did not go out of its way so dramitically to keep their monopolistic franchise agreements, even from municiplaities that want to provide free internet access (see Philadelphia and San Francisco).

[alex]

Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
  dont you read, Brandon?  I do have plenty of evidence regarding Marketing practices, policies regarding credit disputes and policies they have within their company , that obviously I will not just blurt out on a public forum.
 
  I am just letting you know that perhaps other people are aware about them.  and perhaps others know more about Ebay and Paypal than you, to know its probably not run by boy scouts!
 
  You are right about one thing, I dont have an argument, because i am not arguing, I am telling you.  If you knew what i knew, you would probably not continue to use your paypal account unless you absolutely had to.  
 
   Is all that too complicated for you to understand?

No, it's not complicated in the least.  You claim you know things, but you won't say what they are.  As a consumer who uses a PayPay account every now and then, I'd like to know.  And I don't claim that any of these corporations (or any corporation for that matter) are run by boy scouts and have never done any harm.
 
 But this proves nothing in the overall argument on whether or not eBay and PayPay (or the other so-called evil "big businesses") have been by and large beneficial for far more people than they have harmed.

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
  No, it's not complicated in the least.  You claim you know things, but you won't say what they are.  As a consumer who uses a PayPay account every now and then, I'd like to know.  And I don't claim that any of these corporations (or any corporation for that matter) are run by boy scouts and have never done any harm.
 
 But this proves nothing in the overall argument on whether or not eBay and PayPay (or the other so-called evil "big businesses") have been by and large beneficial for far more people than they have harmed.

I apologize that i do not feel at liberty to say what i know about Paypal. But its not my place to go into specifics....it certainly doesnt mean that they dont exist. My point in even mentioning this was to sorta point out that, just cause you havent read any tragic story about a company slaughtering children, revoking benefits or poisioning resevoirs doesnt mean they are "beneficial".
 
 If you refuse to to believe that sometimes a company gets ahead in the marketplace by shorting customers, stealing competitors ideas/marketing plans/trade secrets or providing less than desirable working condition and/or customer service on a regular basis, than theres no point in even discussing this with you.

[alex]

Originally posted by vansmack:
   

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
  I most areas where Comcast is available, multiple DSL offerings are also available.

Yes, DSL companies that provide service for reduced rate to low income families.  But DSL is limited by distance from the swtich, unlike cable, so there are many households who can't get a DSL connection, but can get cable via the guaranteed monopoly, and Comcast does not provide a discounted rate for low income families with children in school that would greatly benefit from having internet access.  Internet access that would not increase costs dramatically to the provider.
 
 I wouldn't mind your argument so much if Comcast did not go out of its way so dramitically to keep their monopolistic franchise agreements, even from municiplaities that want to provide free internet access (see Philadelphia and San Francisco). [/b]

Personally, I think it would be great if Comcast did that.  It would be great for lower income families, and great PR for a company that takes shit left and right otherwise.  But I'm not running Comcast, nor do I own any of their stock; I don't know their margins or bottom line, and I'm not familiar enough with their capabilities to know if they could offer subsidized service.
 
 I'm also all for injecting more competition into the market by eliminating certain government monopolies or protections.  However, in this case, wouldn't that mean more cable on the lines or in the ground, or do these lines have the capabilities to share different service providers without degredation of QOS?
 
 Also, in regards to municipal wireless internet service, didn't those fail in the larger markets (like Philly, San Fran, Chicago and Houston) because the cities didn't want to put up the required public investments to undertake such large projects?  I seem to remember they all kind of dumped it on Earthlink, who then ran into all sorts or technical issues and couldn't compete with established ISP's who already have their infastructure set and/or paid off.  Since providing the service isn't "free" it would still have to be paid for, and the cities didn't want to pay for it.  I don't doubt that Comcast would fight it, but I'm also pretty sure that Comcast wansn't the primary villan in the failure of the municipal wifi projects.

[alex]

Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
   

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
  No, it's not complicated in the least.  You claim you know things, but you won't say what they are.  As a consumer who uses a PayPay account every now and then, I'd like to know.  And I don't claim that any of these corporations (or any corporation for that matter) are run by boy scouts and have never done any harm.
 
 But this proves nothing in the overall argument on whether or not eBay and PayPay (or the other so-called evil "big businesses") have been by and large beneficial for far more people than they have harmed.

I apologize that i do not feel at liberty to say what i know about Paypal. But its not my place to go into specifics....it certainly doesnt mean that they dont exist. My point in even mentioning this was to sorta point out that, just cause you havent read any tragic story about a company slaughtering children, revoking benefits or poisioning resevoirs doesnt mean they are "beneficial".[/b]

But under this reasoning, can't we say that just because you know of a few examples where PayPal has harmed some consumers, it doesn't mean that they are "harmful" in the grand scheme of things?
 
 

If you refuse to to believe that sometimes a company gets ahead in the marketplace by shorting customers, stealing competitors ideas/marketing plans/trade secrets or providing less than desirable working condition and/or customer service on a regular basis, than theres no point in even discussing this with you.

I've said several times that I am well aware that almost all companies have done shady things before, and many get caught and pay for it, either legally and/or through a loss of business to a competitor that pledges to do things differently.
 
 It seems that you are the one who is refusing to ackowledge that, despite the misgivings that come from the basic fact that no one is perfect, these companies have done far more good for all of our lives than they have done harm.  I mean if PayPal or eBay have done more harm, then they simply wouldn't exist.