Did you shop for Bush today?

This is important––but it you are a happy Republican, please don't read on.
This is for Democratic/Independent AF'ers who should know this crucial info,
just a few days before the election:
"Women's Wear Daily" for Thursday listed the top 10 retail contributors to the
2004 election––and if their money went to Republicans or Democrats.
The results are shocking!
Wal–Mart: 79 % Republican: That's $2 million in contributions
Sears: 66 % GOP
Our beloved Target: A shocking 73 % to the Bush party!!! That's about $200,000!
May Stores: 86 % GOP
Limited: 78 % GOP
JC Penney: 86%!!!
Saks, even Saks: a whopping 91 percent to GOP!
GAP: Sigh of relief, 68 % to Dems.
Federated: 100 % to GOP, at least it was only $5000.
KMart: no party breakdown.
IF you are an AF Democrat...
IF you are pro–choice on abortion...
IF you love to shop at almost all the above places...
Unfortunately, a chunk of the money you have spent on eyeshadow, Isaac Mizrahi
kitten heels, Coach bags and more is going to the WRONG place.
Please––write and e–mail these companies. Let them know, their agendas are
wrong––and we won't support them with our shopping dollars. We'll go
elsewhere...or to the Gap!
We spend a lot of money. Let's make it count.
––Anne–Marie

I see your point, but if we took things like that into consideration when
shopping, there would be no place to shop. What about sweatshops, and which
stores sell clothes that are made in them? Or furs which are extremely
controversial? What about plastics and their effect on the environment, and
which stores offer plastic bags and not paper?
If we have to choose where to shop based on social and/or political factors we
wouldn't have many choices...maybe the Body Shop?

<< If we have to choose where to shop based on social and/or political factors
we
wouldn't have many choices...maybe the Body Shop? >>
The body shop? Are you kidding they aren't green.
They use synthetic and artifical ingredients. Its just clever packaging and
marketing for them.

On 29 Oct 2004 21:19:38 GMT, CindiatGZG wrote:
Synthetic AND artificial ingredients?
They should stick with one or the other. <grin/duck>
They don't engage in animal testing.
Or, to quote their statement: "We operate a strict purchasing rule
that ensures that we don't use any ingredient that has been animal
tested for cosmetic purposes by our suppliers since 31 December 1990."
So, reading that literally, they can buy all they want of something
that a competiing supplier gavaged lab rats with a week ago.

"JBrun64512" <jbrun64...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041029150707.07384.00003...@mb–m29.aol.com...
: I see your point, but if we took things like that into
consideration when
: shopping, there would be no place to shop. What about sweatshops,
and which
: stores sell clothes that are made in them? Or furs which are
extremely
: controversial? What about plastics and their effect on the
environment, and
: which stores offer plastic bags and not paper?
:: If we have to choose where to shop based on social and/or
political factors we
: wouldn't have many choices...maybe the Body Shop?
actually "money does talk" and boycotts can be a very effective
tool.

"JBrun64512" <jbrun64...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041029150707.07384.00003...@mb–m29.aol.com...
I know I shouldn't respond because it has been a breath of fresh air
this fall to have alt.fashion one of the few places where politics have
not been brought up, but
George Bush is not the entire Republican party and perhaps this says
more about party platforms and what they do for large businesses.
Audrey

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:10:03 GMT, rosie readandpost wrote:
When the liberals boycott, the conservatives go out of their way to
support the company in question for their principled positions.
Now, you know one of the reasons why Wal–Mart is the largest business
enterprise in the world.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:38:22 –0700, ahmward wrote:
It gets brought up from time to time but it's minimal... but this may
have brought Pandora out of her box.

"Charlie Perrin" <c.l.per...@SPAMBOTS_DIEatt.net> wrote in message
news:57c5o0tjgau81pvqtn4mhc490cdaf80...@4ax.com...
Hopefully not. I shopped for holiday items today at Cost Plus World
Market. It is so nice to go into the store and see everything on
display yet there was no one in line and the parking lot wasn't crowded.
It's in one of those high traffic areas I try to avoid. I bought a gift
basket with Chateau St Michelle champagne, caramel cookies, panetini and
Perugia candy for $19.99. I also bought gift wrap, ribbon, Red
Bicyclette merlot and syrah, assorted ribbon and gift wrap.
Audrey

Fdish wrote:
At least this was the first sentence so that I could move on.
Carol
"There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people:
religion, politics and The Great Pumpkin" Linus Van Pelt

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:08:27 GMT, Charlie Perrin wrote:
And the advertising tagline for the 2004 Edsel might be "I'm William
Clay Ford, and I approved this car." <grin/duck>

On 31 Oct 2004 20:45:28 GMT, Hateithere wrote:
Two magic words here: "Beck objector."
Unless, of course, the union itself is the group you don't support.

On 29 Oct 2004 18:17:53 GMT, Fdish wrote:
The results are exactly what I'd expect from Corporate America.
I'm more surprised Wal–Mart gives 21% to Democratic Party candidates,
but many companies have corporate friends on both sides of the aisle.
Everyone knows Sears isn't run as well as Wal–Mart... wonder if there
is a correlation here?
"Shocking?" Of the nine of the then that give a party breakdown, only
Sears and The Gap has a higher percentage of Democratiic Party
support.
Senator Mark Dayton (D–MN) happens to be a descendant of the founder.
If you didn't known, Saks World Headquarters is in State of Alabama,
where the Alabama Democratic Party was the home of such liberal
bleeding heart pinkos as former Governor George Wallace and former
Attorney General Charles "Charcoal Charlie" Graddick. ("Charcoal
Charlie" got his nickname for for his statements about "Yellow Mama,"
the state electric chair.)
Interesting that the store that's well–known for fouling up their
business model repetitively gives 68% to the Democratic Party.
KMart has too much business breakdown to worry about a party
breakdown. <grin/duck>

Fdish wrote:
Well, if it makes you feel any better, a fair amount of my paychecks goes to
a nurses' union (that I am forced to belong to), who supports and gives
thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates that I would rather eat glass
than support. It all evens out.
~~Geri~~
"America! F**k, yeah!"

In article <20041029141753.04530.00003...@mb–m02.aol.com>,
fd...@aol.com (Fdish) wrote:
I think it sucks but the reality of the situation is that big businesses
sway towards the Republican party. How do you think that you can avoid
it? You can shop at the little boutique with no interest in politics but
that doesn't mean that the items they sell won't come from manufacturers
who also contribute to the Republican party. Isaac Mizrahi is gay. My
guess is that he doesn't contribute to Republican interests. Maybe you
should write to HIM and ask him to negotiate a partnership with the Gap
instead of Target. How do you think that you can control where your
money's going based on a list of ten companies?
Who manufactures Gap clothing? While they may give more money to
Democrats, are you sure that the companies that make their clothing
don't?
You post from AOL. Do you know if they make contributions to political
candidates? Did you check? The only way you're going to avoid it is to
buy a house built by a Democrat. A Democrat who only purchased building
materials and fixtures from other Democrats, who only bought raw
materials from yet more Democrats. Then you'll need to grow your own
cotton and animals for your food and clothing, make them yourself and
buy nothing from anyone who can't give you a pedigree of where money was
spent in the production of their wares, from raw materials to
manufacturing to shipping to the retailer. There are so many people in
the commercial food chain that you're likely to contribute, even if
indirectly, to one party or another.
Stacy

"ahmward" <nospam.ahmw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WOydnX0yubptIB_cRVn–...@giganews.com...
I'm with you Audrey.
Jamie

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:58:12 –0500, Stacy Ferguson wrote:
This is important––but it you are a happy Republican, please don't read on.
This is for Democratic/Independent AF'ers who should know this crucial info,
just a few days before the election:
"Women's Wear Daily" for Thursday listed the top 10 retail contributors
to the 2004 election––and if their money went to Republicans or Democrats.
The results are shocking!
These aren't corporate contributions, these are PAC contributions.
The reality of the situation is most people don't hit themselves
upside the head because it feels good.... and now you understand why
big business sways towards the Republican party. <grin/duck>
According to the Time Warner Web site: "In the current cycle the Time
Warner PAC has made donations just over $400,000."
You can have fun with:
http://www.opensecrets.org/
For example: A former co–worker gave $1500 to the Bush campaign!

Charlie Perrin <c.l.per...@SPAMBOTS_DIEatt.net> wrote in message news:<igb5o0htonsi46d1loc6lps1krr2h00...@4ax.com>...
Principled positions?
That's a funny way to describe people with no social conscience who
have sold their soul to the mighty dollar.
I wouldn't go around mentioning Wal–Mart as an example of
anything....unless you want to illustrate corporate abuse, and total
disregard for the welfare of the communities where their stores are
located (altough some communities are finally wising up to Wal–Mart's
despicable corporate behavior) and their employees (on whose backs
they are making their profits)
––Maria

On 30 Oct 2004 23:10:54 –0700, Maria wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:10:03 GMT, rosie readandpost wrote:
actually "money does talk" and boycotts can be a very effective
tool.
When the liberals boycott, the conservatives go out of their way to
support the company in question for their principled positions.
Now, you know one of the reasons why Wal–Mart is the largest business
enterprise in the world.
Well, some of these principled positions in the conservative world:
Not selling "Parental Advisory" stickered CDs
No racy magazines
No morning–after pill
Keeps a lot of people going through the doors.
FORTUNE did an article that I'd describe as "A Tale of Two Wal–Marts"
where they wrote all the good things on one side and all the bad
things on the other.
Just because the inefficient legacy businesses can't charge
inefficient legacy prices after Wal–Mart comes to town is no good
reason to beat on Wal–Mart.
Today, we say "total disregard" about Wal–Mart.
Tomorrow, are we going to complain about Southwest Airlines being
unfair to American and Delta? The day after, Nucor being unfair to the
United States Steel Corporation? Cell phones being unfair to wireline?
We'd still have the Edsel if some people had their way.
A couple of towns away, they're fighting Wal–Mart. And I thought Texas
put up with anything that provided jobs. One example is sending
petrochemicals all over the country while keeping the pollution in the
Houston area.
They do make about 20% less than they would at their competitors,
that's known. Could that mean that Wal–Mart's inefficient legacy
competitors overpay by 20%?

Stacy Ferguson wrote:
......................I think it sucks but the reality of the
situation is that big
businesses
sway towards the Republican party. How do you think that you can
avoid
it?
being aware and TRYING to at least, direct where my money is spent
and by whom is MUCH better than doing nothing at all!

Thanks to all who read and debated this. Yes, I'm sure that by participating in
any way in corporate America––which means having AOL, driving a car that I did
not assemble myself, buying electricity for my home from SoCal Edison––I am
contributing money where I do not want it to go.
But certain things––car, food, water––are essential. Certain things are not. It
galls me that the very places we turn to as women (and some men) to express
ourselves, enjoy ourselves, treat ourselves––department stores––are pulling
this on us.
We can make a difference. After the election I will be starting an effort to
convince Target to make more donations to Democrats. Let's ask Isaac
Mizrahi––does he know that the company that treats him so well is hurting so
many through its contributions? I'll bet he'll be surprised.
Thanks again and vote on Tuesday! No matter who you're voting for!
––Anne–Marie

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:52:47 –0800, ahmward wrote:
There are advantages to living in Texas: no more than about 3–4
political TV commercials per newscast. When I was up in Kansas City
from the 14th to the 22nd, it was 3–4 political TV commercials per
newscast break. Typical dialogue during commercials went something
like this:
MOM: "Charlie, I'll be happy when the election is over."
CHARLIE, watching ad: "The last time I voted for him, Kit Bond didn't
have gray hair."
MOM: "The last time you voted for Kit Bond, YOU didn't have gray
hair."
Thanks a lot, Mom! <grin/duck>

Oh please....it's Target's money to use as they see fit. Campaign to change it
all you want, but they'll contribute to whatever group they feel will give them
the most benefit.
No one is 'pulling' anything on anyone. People who belong to Unions often have
to pay dues that go to groups they don't support. At least Target and other
department stores aren't forcing you to give a % of your salary to them so they
can support causes you don't believe in. You choose to shop there – you aren't
forced.
There are several political groups in the US and it's funny how they all seem
to get along most of the time. I don't boycott stores that support causes I
don't support because that's what Freedom is about. We all have different
interpretations, and just because YOU believe a certain way doesn't mean
everyone believes that way. Viva la difference baby!
DanaE in DE – really sick of politicians as a whole and ready for Tuesday to
get here so I can vote and move on!!

"Hateithere" <hateith...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041031154528.15823.00003...@mb–m28.aol.com...
Thanks to all who read and debated this. Yes, I'm sure that by
participating
in
any way in corporate America––which means having AOL, driving a car
that I
did
not assemble myself, buying electricity for my home from SoCal
Edison––I am
contributing money where I do not want it to go.
But certain things––car, food, water––are essential. Certain things
are not.
It
galls me that the very places we turn to as women (and some men) to
express
ourselves, enjoy ourselves, treat ourselves––department stores––are
pulling
this on us.
We can make a difference. After the election I will be starting an
effort to
convince Target to make more donations to Democrats. Let's ask Isaac
Mizrahi––does he know that the company that treats him so well is
hurting so
many through its contributions? I'll bet he'll be surprised.
Thanks again and vote on Tuesday! No matter who you're voting for!
––Anne–Marie
Just think of the amount of money spent on campaigns this year. We
could probably afford healthcare for everyone. I am sick of unsolicited
recorded telephone messages let alone all of the money that has been
spent on television commercials and other propaganda.
Audrey

Charlie Perrin wrote:
I just found out about that little loophole a few weeks ago and will be
pursuing that angle shortly. Hopefully it will not get my kneecaps broken.
~~Geri~~
"HUSKERS!! F**k, yeah!"

ahmward wrote:
That's what you get for living in a swing state: endless political
courtship. Here in Texas I've gotten but one phone call. My sympathies
to Ohioans, who must be ready to unplug their phones and TVs.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:41:59 GMT, chillled wrote:
As I found out when I went to Missouri: It's worse if your state is
electing a new governor (IIRC, the incumbent went down to defeat in
the primary) and the senior US senator is up for election at the same
time. It was a three–ring circus of smear–o–rama when I was up there.
In most Texas races I've seen, winning the Republican primary is
basically being elected.... although I do remember the time the Harris
County Republican Party listed a Democratic candidate on their sample
ballot because nobody else ran.
I think the entire Harris County Democratic Party got out of their
Volkswagen Bug and complained to the presss. <grin/duck>

ahmward wrote:
Caller ID is a wonderful thing.
––
~~Geri~~
"HUSKERS!! F**k, yeah!"

"ahmward" <nospam.ahmw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aKWdnXAeG–os8RjcRVn–...@giganews.com...
Normally I am not one to go around saying "ditto" but DITTO.
Claire

"chillled" <chill...@hotmail.comeuppance> wrote in message
news:Hvghd.50535$OD2.6...@bgtnsc05–news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I'm not in a swing state! The state is solidly blue except for where I
live (and that might be the key), but the ads go on and on and on. We've
had presidential ads, and lots of money has been poured into the race
for an open Congressional seat as well as for a state senator. Ohioans
and Floridians get my sympathy too.

In <ursao01u5vhde6n1mmdphc2rcqjgv9h...@4ax.com> Charlie Perrin wrote:
<snip>
Charlie. That's interesting. How does that 3–4 commercials break down?
Is there some sort of time limit per hour for political commercials???
––
Cheers
Dennis
Remove 'Elle–Kabong' to reply

the most interesting election this year. Poll after poll, mailing after
mailing, visitor after visitol after visitor. Of couse, we are Ohio just
smidgen miles from the nucleous Massillon Ohio. I am a registered Republican
Always voted Republican until last year – voted for Gore. However, in favor
of the Bush agenda as to terrorism I will vote Bush this year. Kerry/Edwards
just somehow didn't appeal to my sensibilities perhaps swayed by my year of
working in defense law = they appear just a mite too slick for me. Whatever i
know it will be close, particularly in Ohio, and I will be at the polls early
Tuesday. Hmmm, what whall I wear – it is to be rainy and gloomy = probably
black – which protects me – no obvious political alliance.
Jo Ann
www.exclusivelyjoann.com

EXC JO ANN wrote:
Are you near Columbus?
~~Geri~~
"HUSKERS!! F**k, yeah!"

Hi Geri
No I am in Akron, Ohio, but get to Columbus quite often. I voted today just
across the street – the crowd was perhaps a little stronger but I was second in
line for my precinct at about 10:30. I then went on to my church to deliver
some baked goods (purchased of course) and the line and parking lot there was
pretty active. Knowing my community and area quite well, I did note a lot of
new and first–time voters.
Jo Ann
www.exclusivelyjoann.com

"ahmward" <nospam.ahmw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aKWdnXAeG–os8RjcRVn–...@giganews.com...
ITA! A phenomenal amount of money wasted imho.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:25:03 GMT, A Adams wrote:
Just think of the amount of money spent on campaigns this year. We
could probably afford healthcare for everyone. I am sick of unsolicited
recorded telephone messages let alone all of the money that has been
spent on television commercials and other propaganda.
Audrey
A couple of thoughts from the past on Election Day Eve:
"I know half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, but I can
never find out which half."
– John Wanamaker –
"Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest
way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless."
– Sinclair Lewis –
Now, you know why there's so much political advertising. <grin/duck>

ahmward wrote:
I agree. I'm in PA and we see a ton of tv ads. I'll be happy when it's
all over. As for phone calls P. Diddy called my brother, Clinton called
my Dad and Bush called my best friend. Believe it or not, I've heard
from nobody. Humming "Nobody likes me. Everybody hates me. I guess I'll
go eat worms......."
:) Melissa

ahmward wrote:
Aw, sheesh, Audrey, I thought people in locked states weren't suffering
so much advertising. But soon the ads will be over and the lawsuits
will start. Won't that be fun?
We've
The amount of money spent is staggering. Would that I were a media
buyer for a political consultant.

Here are the data that "WWD" presented: Target Corporation gave $279,526
through a company PAC.
How is that not money from Target Corp.?
––Anne–Marie

On 31 Oct 2004 19:52:38 GMT, Fdish wrote:
First of all, Target Corporation isn't giving anything.
Is your definition of "hurting" something like "failing to tax the
productive members of society so the bums can sit around and do
nothing?"

On 01 Nov 2004 03:36:56 GMT, Fdish wrote:
That means Target Corporation gave exactly $0.
It's money donated by Target Corporation employees to support
candidates sympathetic to defined company goals as determined by a
board elected by the PAC membership.
Remember, corporations can't donate to political campaigns –– but
their employees can.
–– Charlie, who has considered joining the PAC at work but hasn't

Charlie Perrin <c.l.per...@SPAMBOTS_DIEatt.net> wrote in message news:<n6g9o05hl68q7jbksme6em534shi5bp...@4ax.com>...
"Greed is good" credence? For Wal–Mart anything they do is justified
as long as as it helps them to achieve their ends (or in their case
their bottom line.)
Here is an article about Wal–Mart in today's Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/01/business/01health.html
––Maria

Maria <airam1002...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snippage>
[From the article:]
"A survey by Georgia officials found that more than 10,000 children of
Wal–Mart employees were in the state's health program for children at an
annual cost of nearly $10 million to taxpayers. A North Carolina hospital
found that 31 percent of 1,900 patients who described themselves as
Wal–Mart employees were on Medicaid, while an additional 16 percent had no
insurance at all."
So – the consumers who are "saving" money by buying
lower–priced merchandise at Wal–Mart end up paying a
lot more for that merchandise via their taxes. That
doesn't strike me as a bargain for anyone but the Waltons.
A.

<< So – the consumers who are "saving" money by buying
lower–priced merchandise at Wal–Mart end up paying a
lot more for that merchandise via their taxes. That
doesn't strike me as a bargain for anyone but the Waltons. >>
So true. I understand Walmart promotes less women to positions in management
than anyother retail company. And more of walmart workers live below the
poverty line than any other retail company. Enough reasons right there for me
to not shop walmart.
Cindi

Adrav <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<cm7aha$c2...@reader1.panix.com>...
That's exactly my point.
I have not read the article yet, but have a print–out which I'm hoping
to read soon. We can only hope that as more people learn more Wal
Mart business practices more potential shoppers will reliaze that
there is a lot more to Wal Mart bargains than meets the eye.
––Maria

Rolling Stone had an article about Walmart shaking down the record
companies for lower priced CDs.

"Maria" <airam1002...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e2f134e.0411021219.4cba4...@posting.google.com...
You are lucky to have lots of choices when you shop. My mil and other
relatives in eastern MT drive an hour to get to Wal–Mart and are
thrilled to have a store of its size that offers so many items. There
are still mom and pop stores in nearby small towns but their selection
of items is so limited and the prices are so high.
Audrey

Exactly Audrey. My sister lives in Wyoming and has to drive 2 hours just to
get to a Walmart. She can't even afford to grocery shop in her town because
the prices are so high. 3x a month she goes to Walmart and stocks up. Without
them she'd be in dire straits.
Some people really don't have the choice, and without places like Walmart, more
people would be spending money they don't have just to get necessities of life.
I do have a choice and very seldom go to Walmart, but that's by choice and
because I have so many other stores closer to me. If I lived in a small town
I'd probably shop at Walmart all the time.
Dana in DE

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:19:07 –0600, Madge wrote:
Since it's known that the recording industry illegally colluded to
hold CD prices high, it's only appropriate the RIAA (actually, the
"Recording Industry Association of Foreign–Owned Labels" given what
you find when you follow the biggies back to their corporate owners)
gets shaken down by Bentonville.
And for good measure, I hope the Target dog bites them in the butt.
<grin/duck>

"Hateithere" <hateith...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041103101731.21753.00000...@mb–m12.aol.com...


"Maria" <airam1002...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e2f134e.0411021219.4cba4...@posting.google.com...


Adrav <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<cm7aha$c2...@reader1.panix.com>...
Maria <airam1002...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snippage>
Here is an article about Wal–Mart in today's Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/01/business/01health.html
[From the article:]
"A survey by Georgia officials found that more than 10,000 children
of
Wal–Mart employees were in the state's health program for children
at
an
annual cost of nearly $10 million to taxpayers. A North Carolina
hospital
found that 31 percent of 1,900 patients who described themselves as
Wal–Mart employees were on Medicaid, while an additional 16 percent
had no
insurance at all."
So – the consumers who are "saving" money by buying
lower–priced merchandise at Wal–Mart end up paying a
lot more for that merchandise via their taxes. That
doesn't strike me as a bargain for anyone but the Waltons.
A.
That's exactly my point.
I have not read the article yet, but have a print–out which I'm
hoping
to read soon. We can only hope that as more people learn more Wal
Mart business practices more potential shoppers will reliaze that
there is a lot more to Wal Mart bargains than meets the eye.
––Maria
You are lucky to have lots of choices when you shop. My mil and other
relatives in eastern MT drive an hour to get to Wal–Mart and are
thrilled to have a store of its size that offers so many items. There
are still mom and pop stores in nearby small towns but their selection
of items is so limited and the prices are so high.
Audrey
I never knew about Wal–Marts when I grew up in southern California but
to my husband who grew up in a little town in east Texas, a Wal–Mart was
like a Toys 'R Us for the entire family. Their other choices were the
JC Penney or Sears catalogues.
Audrey