Jump to content

Boycott Starbucks


Recommended Posts

Starbucks isn't publicly traded. Every single store is privately owned so there is a good chance that it is company policy.
wait, what?I'm going by memory here so did you look? I'm so certain it's on the NYSE that I'm probably wrong. Again, I could be wrong but I don't think it's possible to buy a Starbucks franchise with the exception of companies like Target or Safeway. Large companies who agree to put in (x) amount of stores and pay HUGE franchise/merchandise fees.edit: shake looked it up and it's traded on the nasdaq. I'm not that feeble minded. YET.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 312
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

ORLY?

you'd have lots of superfluous u's around.

i've never been to starbucks. true story.

Posted Images

I am and have always been miffed by this extreme liberal viewwpoint. I fully support the war and the reason for being there. If for no other reason than to keep Iran from taking it over. If we leave, Iran takes over, gets nuclear power the world will be a vastly different place. Advancing democracy to the Middle East would be a huge step for the area. Most just want to take a blind eye to the muslim world. Understand that they hate us, want to kill us, and really won't stop or quit trying. Iran's leaders say it every day, it's no secret.
I'd like to expand on this a little bit. If we were to pull out before moderate stability in Iraq, Iran most certainly would seize the opportunity. Furthermore, if Iran (predominately Shia) were to do so, states like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and Turkey (all majority Sunni states) would most likely be compelled to counter, fearing Shia hegemony in the region. This massive destabilization in the region would send oil prices sky rocketing to a price never before seen in history. Nations such as the U.S. and China could not allow this powerful disruption to their respective economies and would have to get involved to attempt to bring about some sense of stability. However, given the nature of the guerilla tactics currently employed in the region and which would most certainly employed by both Sunni's and Shi'ites in this scenario, a resolution in a time span shorter than seven to ten years would by highly doubtful. Furthermore, with so many state and non-state actors involved in this type of scenario, the casualty and mortality rates incurred by all forces, including those of the U.S. would be significantly higher than those experienced currently.
Link to post
Share on other sites
well that must be a new thingI tried to franchise one of these a few years back and at that time they were still privately owned and refused to franchise because of it.
I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but no you didn't.http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/timeline.asp1992 Completes initial public offering with Common Stock being traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the trading symbol "SBUX."andhttp://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SBUX&t=my
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we got a little off topic here. American Revolution-taxation without representation. That was a very different England 200+years ago and our founding fathers weren't having that, oh how things have changed. WW2, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the allies were faced to fight for their very existence, and yes the Japanese did plan to attack the west coast. Study some history please. I'm just surprised we haven't heard the atomic bomb argument yet.Also, I as well don't understand why so many liberals are labeled anti-American, doesn't make sense to me. You can still be a good American (whatever that means) and disagree with policy. As for the support our troops. My support is moral more than anything. I'd imagine that's where most of the "support" comes from. I support anyone whose everyday duty involves great risk, whether I agree with the politics behind it doesn't matter to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to expand on this a little bit. If we were to pull out before moderate stability in Iraq, Iran most certainly would seize the opportunity. Furthermore, if Iran (predominately Shia) were to do so, states like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and Turkey (all majority Sunni states) would most likely be compelled to counter, fearing Shia hegemony in the region. This massive destabilization in the region would send oil prices sky rocketing to a price never before seen in history. Nations such as the U.S. and China could not allow this powerful disruption to their respective economies and would have to get involved to attempt to bring about some sense of stability. However, given the nature of the guerilla tactics currently employed in the region and which would most certainly employed by both Sunni's and Shi'ites in this scenario, a resolution in a time span shorter than seven to ten years would by highly doubtful. Furthermore, with so many state and non-state actors involved in this type of scenario, the casualty and mortality rates incurred by all forces, including those of the U.S. would be significantly higher than those experienced currently.
THis is an excellent point. Whether or not we should have got into Iraq in the first place is a completely seperate issue from what should we do now.. we've made a royal mess of it, and I certainly am not a big fan of just leaving it to chaos.. but lets not have any illusions about what's going on over there..we're there to protect US regional interests, not to "protect our freedom"
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a dick, so here's some boomsauce to ladel over your mistake:http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/timeline.asp1992 Completes initial public offering with Common Stock being traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the trading symbol "SBUX."andhttp://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SBUX&t=my
FYP
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't support the War you cannot support the Troops. If you really believe the war to be wrong then you cannot support what the troops are doing. I think this "I support the troops" mentality came after the vietnam war when as soldiers returned home they were greeted with "baby killer" and the spit of masses of young liberal college students. Those actions made people that might somewhat disagree with the war in vietnam take a stance againt activists of that time simply because they thought that what they were doing to the troops was just rude.In reality saying something like "I don't support the war, but I support the troops" is just silly. Yeah sure you don't want all of those people that are sons and daughters of our country to come home in body bags, but you do not support their actions, which is killing people for this war that you disagree with.
I'm not really sure what "support" the troops means....I do find it odd that you imply that the troops main purpose is to "kill". I would say their main purpose is to protect.I think the war is a crock of oily shit and I think George W. Bush should be charged with war crimes but I don't hold that against the men and women that have chosen the navy, army, etc... to earn a living. They are following the directives of their supervisors. Anyway; Starbucks sucks grande!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate starbucks because they represent another huge american corporation trying to asssimilate the world by serving piss poor coffee and making people believe it's good. I hate starbucks and chastise everyone who wants to go to one if I'm with them. Get the fck out of our country you globalizing scumbags, I resent anyone who drinks their coffee.I don't support the war, but I do believe in supporting the troops. No matter what they are doing I respect them for being ready to make the ultimate sacrifice if need be. Supporting the troops to me means making sure they are only asked to risk their lives when need be, to give them the care they need when they return and taking care of their families. So I don't think you can Support the War and Support the Toops at the same time when it comes to Iraq. If you supported the troops, you wouldn't want them to be dying over there in war based on false pretenses, in a war for money and power, fighting a battle that can't be won.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I love you, but what am I so afraid of?
you're afraid that you're not sure of a love there is no cure for?
THis is an excellent point. Whether or not we should have got into Iraq in the first place is a completely seperate issue from what should we do now.. we've made a royal mess of it, and I certainly am not a big fan of just leaving it to chaos.. but lets not have any illusions about what's going on over there..we're there to protect US regional interests, not to "protect our freedom"
Hmmm, BigD and I agree twice in the same week (I agreed with your adultswim analysis)? Maybe it's a sign I should aspire to be a literature snob too. Or it's a sign of the apocaplypse, I'm not sure.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A large standing army is throughly unneeded for defense, small special forces units are all that would be needed to take out terrorist camps...
LOLI :club: leftist "military experts". Few things in this life make me laugh harder than clip from Family Guy where Peter and Michael Moore have a farting contest and leftist "military experts".Oddly enough, I agree with a huge portion of what you said. I too find the delusion of modern day "patriotism" and its attendant expectations to be very offensive. I also think that the war in Iraq is complete bullshit, and I think if we as a society took a step back and made an honest assessment about the people in our military (as well as the people in our police forces and prison guards) it would be apparent that there are some very unflattering things going on with regards to personality types and personal motivations. Still, when people like you start to crow about military strategy and operational readiness, I can't do anything but laugh my ****ing *** off, not just because you're so wrong that the light from correct would take a billion years to reach wherever it is that you are, but because it amazes me that someone who seems as bright and objective as you do can make such horrendously unqualified and irrational statements without so much as a second thought.I suppose you're the type of person who feels empowered by the concept of "opinion" though you have yet to realize that it doesn't codify the things you say as being correct.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but no you didn't.http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/timeline.asp1992 Completes initial public offering with Common Stock being traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the trading symbol "SBUX."andhttp://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SBUX&t=my
no offense taken...I'm just telling you what they told meOf course I may have misconstrued what they said to me.
Link to post
Share on other sites
no offense taken...I'm just telling you what they told meOf course I may have misconstrued what they said to me.
did you talk to corporate or did you talk to another franchise (or whatever he called himself) owner? sounds like you got bamboozled. I'd go back to the person who told you this and force physical violence. preferably of the nutular kickage kind.
Link to post
Share on other sites
LOLI icon_suit_heart.gif leftist "military experts". Few things in this life make me laugh harder than clip from Family Guy where Peter and Michael Moore have a farting contest and leftist "military experts".Oddly enough, I agree with a huge portion of what you said. I too find the delusion of modern day "patriotism" and its attendant expectations to be very offensive. I also think that the war in Iraq is complete bullshit, and I think if we as a society took a step back and made an honest assessment about the people in our military (as well as the people in our police forces and prison guards) it would be apparent that there are some very unflattering things going on with regards to personality types and personal motivations. Still, when people like you start to crow about military strategy and operational readiness, I can't do anything but laugh my ****ing *** off, not just because you're so wrong that the light from correct would take a billion years to reach wherever it is that you are, but because it amazes me that someone who seems as bright and objective as you do can make such horrendously unqualified and irrational statements without so much as a second thought.
First off, I never suggest I was an expert militarily... but I can't imagine what we possibly need a large standing army to protect us from.. we need a large standing army to invade countries, not to protect us from being invaded.. what we need to protect us from that is air superiority and the ****ing bomb. If you can explain to me why we need a large standing army for purposes other than invasion of countries we have a vast economic and technological superiority towards, I'd love to hear it.
I suppose you're the type of person who feels empowered by the concept of "opinion" though you have yet to realize that it doesn't codify the things you say as being correct.
Pot, i think it's time you met the motherfcking kettle. DAMN, Kettle.. you's a n&$#@.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. I can think of another reason for a large standing army.. as a mechanism for social stability and to provide work for the violent, stupid and marginally employable. I really think that's an incredibly valid reason for a large standing army.***EDIT***Um.. maybe valid isn't the right word.. I think I meant "useful"

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd love to hear it.
Our need for a standing military (the size we can argue about, but I will gladly support the concept of a robust military) is just as much a component of defense as it is of offense.Since we don't operate on a Switzerland or Israel model (where every male citizen is a member of the militia) our need for a standing, professional military is a necessary component of self defense given that a necessary component of any conflict (be it offensive or defensive in nature) is a ground force. This idea that we can just lob missiles and send in Jets to win wars is precisely what loses wars and that idea is the arena of idealistic, inexperienced minds. At present, the chance that we're going to be invaded by a foreign power is next to nil. No one disagrees with that. With that said, as long as adversaries maintain standing armies that very well may be mobilized to attack us or our interests, we must do the same, not in consort, but to a greater degree.Classic example: Israel learned a hard lesson when they neglected artillery, thinking that "all we need is planes".In a sense, they were right. In the Yom Kippur war, they basically decimated their adversaries air capacity and maintained air superiority for the duration of the conflict, however, they paid a massive toll when their ground forces were all but overwhelmed in certain battles by superior Arab divisions.Examples like this can be cited throughout history; where civilizations spent more money building bridges than they did securing their fences and wound up wishing they hadn't. I completely agree that we are at the point where we need to streamline our fighting structure, but the prevailing leftist mantra of "CUT MILITARY SPENDING" is only circumstantially valid, as opposed to being an entirely legitimate, all-encompassing philosophy.
Pot, i think it's time you met the motherfcking kettle. DAMN, Kettle.. you's a nigga.
PotandKettleweb.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well. I can think of another reason for a large standing army.. as a mechanism for social stability and to provide work for the violent, stupid and marginally employable. I really think that's an incredibly valid reason for a large standing army.***EDIT***Um.. maybe valid isn't the right word.. I think I meant "useful"
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - GO
Link to post
Share on other sites
Trying to sink our Navy does not = trying to take us over. Japan never intended to "take over" the US.
There intent was to take over our western part of the United States.
Well, no one's tried to take us over since we got the bomb, but you missed my joke... when you said "overrun" it made me think of stupid Mongolians trying to tear down my shtty wall.
You know I was so caught up in the moment I completely missed that lol. Thats good. real good. hahha. well done sir well done.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There intent was to take over our western part of the United States.You know I was so caught up in the moment I completely missed that lol. Thats good. real good. hahha. well done sir well done.
Really? Huh! Can you link a source? I'm interested in this now.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Classic example: Israel learned a hard lesson when they neglected artillery, thinking that "all we need is planes".In a sense, they were right. In the Yom Kippur war, they basically decimated their adversaries air capacity and maintained air superiority for the duration of the conflict, however, they paid a massive toll when their ground forces were all but overwhelmed in certain battles by superior Arab divisions.
Do I really need to point out the difference between isreal's military/political situation during the Yom Kippur era isreal and the millienial United states? Who the fck is invading us? The only countries that could hope to pull that off, never, ever would because of mutually assured destruction. Now.. attacking our "interests" is a whole other matter...this goes beyond nation defense and into international power brokering.. THIS Is the reason why we have a large standing army, to protect US interests AKA our power and our money... These are perfectly understandable reasons for a nationstate to have a large army, but it's not something that I would want to die for, nor is it something that I'm going to give blind, uncritical praise for those who chose to join up. Because John Q Soldier who signed up for the army to "protect our freedoms" isn't dying to protect our freedoms.. he's dying to protect our profit margin. And that, to me, seems like a sucker play.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Huh! Can you link a source? I'm interested in this now.
"The Three Power Alliance And The United States-Japanese War".For the intellectually challenged, I don't know if it has a Wikipedia article or not.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...