From Nancy:
It seems there are lots of stores that are closing due to the "recession" and the fact that people are not shopping. If you have any "gift cards" from these stores, make sure you use them, or you will lose them !
Watch those store money cards and gift cards.. and credit slips! Stores that informed the Security Exchange of closing plans between October 2008 and January 2009. PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
Circuit City stores... most recent (? how many)
Ann Taylor- 117 stores nationwide are to be shuttered
Lane Bryant, Fashion Bug ,and Catherine's to close 150 store nationwide
Eddie Bauer to close stores 27 stores and more after January
Cache will close all stores
Talbots closing down all stores
J. Jill closing all stores
GAP closing 85 stores
Footlocker closing 140 stores more to close after January
Wickes Furniture closing down
Levitz closing down remaining stores
Bombay closing remaining stores
Zales closing down 82 stores and 105 after January.
Whitehall closing all stores
Piercing Pagoda closing all stores
Disney closing 98 stores and will close more after January.
Home Depot closing 15 stores 1 in NJ (New Brunswick)
Macys to close 9 stores after January
Linens and Things closing all stores
Movie Galley Closing all stores
Pacific Sunware closing stores
Pep Boys Closing 33 stores
Sprint/ Nextel closing 133 stores
JC Penney closing a number of stores after January
Ethan Allen closing down 12 stores.
Wilson Leather closing down all stores
Sharper Image closing down all stores
K B Toys closing 356 stores
Lowes to close down some stores
Dillard's to close some stores.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Zaine, I don't believe you have the education you claim to have because you say things like "the negro" which shows you are really ignorant, people who are racist are so because they are ignorant...it is obvious that the intelligence and competence of Obama is far greater than anything we've seen in the White House since Kennedy and perhaps since Lincoln. More importantly Obama seems to be sincerely on the side of the people and not on the side of corporate greed and corruption, a stark contrast with Bush and Cheney. It seems to me you are a fake to use words like "the negro" you should STFU! You should get off this blog we don't need racists like you here!
Dan, it is not your position to shut up anyone. Who is being the fascist now?
The constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, even speech you don't like. The "brown shirts" silenced speech they didn't like. You are acting more like a Nazi and a fascist.
It is not clear whether or not the Constitution protects hate speech, it may or may not, it depends on whether free speech can be defined as "absolutely" different than hate speech and that may or may not be possible, yet in any event I have just as much 1st amendment rights to condemn hate or racist speech as those who say racist things so you are being irrational in condemning me but allowing hate speech nazis their 1st amendment rights. You are in effect concluding that it is nazism or fascism to condemn nazism or fascism this is again irrational!!! It makes no sense, it certainly is not "common sense"! Which is what this blog is supposedly supposed to be about!
There is a difference between condemning what is said and preventing something being said. The Nazis were able to march in Stokely I believe in allowing ignorant people to say what they want and be exposed for who they are.
Wow, I go off and leave you guys alone for a few hours and all hell breaks loose.
As for the education issue, I'm the only one here who doesn't have a degree in anything but life. This does not mean I am stupid or ignorant. I believe in God, saving the planet and freedom (whether that be speech, religion or the right to bear arms). My friends cover a wide range of ethnic, economic, social, and religious groups. This means we are not always going to agree. But we have a right not to agree and that does not change the fact we are friends.
Zaine DOES have a PhD in Philosophy. To my knowledge he has never been a racist and has only been using the term "the negro" to prove a point he made in another post.
Now guys lets fight over the issues and not make personal attacks. I've made my rant and now I will STFU.
A little Gun History Lesson
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,00 Christian's, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by
new law to surrender 640,381personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed
robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past
12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended
in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
With Guns...........We Are 'Citizens'.
Without Them........We Are 'Subjects'.
During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
knew most Americans were ARMED!
Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended
Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl
Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was
that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.
MsAnthrope, though I agree with you that if a country ever has a chance of becoming tyrannical then it is better for the citizens to have guns, I have to dispute some of your arguments for the right to bear arms
1. As for Guatemala, I know a little bit about this place since I volunteered with a human rights group in California demanding a halt to US military support of tyranny in Guatemala...in 1954 the CIA overthrew a democratically elected good guy named Arbenz (a sort of Guatemalan Kennedy or Obama) because he would not agree to let US banana and other corporations exploit the Guatemalan people and its land..., this led to a series of CIA sponsored dictatorships that brutalized the native and mixed origin peoples,... the people of Guatemala never had guns to begin with so the ban on guns in 1964 you talk about makes no sense or was mute useless since they never had guns in the first place... furthermore the clandestine rebel groups that formed over that time, despite the guns they obtained from the USSR and Cuba and kept, ban or no ban , were way too small to overthrow the US heavily sponsored Guatemalan military whom were armed and trained by the US military and CIA almost totally.
When Carter was elected things got better for the Guatemalan people but when Reagan replaced Carter his administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld...) put in Rios Montt into power in 1982 who quickly created death squads torturing and murdering thousands of innocent Indians again (Reagan was probably kept largely in the dark about this brutality by his handlers), so concerning the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Mayan Indians it had nothing to do with gun control but everything to do with Republican or Corporate control of the White House.
I don't have time to go into detail about your other examples but in all of them I suspect the ban on guns was mute or not an issue cause in all those cases the citizens were already largely unarmed to begin with so banning guns didn't change anything at all...furthermore your last example about the Japanese not invading the US because its citizens were armed makes no sense either, because first of all a military will always have better guns and bigger guns and bombs and tanks etc that armed citizens would be no match against anyway, and two, I think the Japanese decided not to invade the US because it was too far away, more for logistical reasons not because its citizens were armed.
Finally the USA because of guns or perhaps for other reasons has the highest per capita and overall murder rates in the developed world and by far...in Europe, Japan and a few other places, since WWII guns have been banned and it works fine virtually no crime compared to the US, the people are free and safe there and arguably even more free and safe than in the USA. Yet in Canada where guns are everywhere too, like in the USA, it is also much safer and freer than in the USA..why is that? The reason is most probably is that poverty levels in the USA are far higher than in Canada...poverty breeds violence and crime...this is normal because survival instincts overcome morality when your survival is at stake.
My view is that the USA would better off without guns than with them, as long as there is no chance of a tyrannical government and as long as the poverty level dramatically lowered...so the real question is will the USA ever be tyrannical or have large segments of its population so poor that their only way to survive is crime? The answer to the first part is probably no, but not absolutely sure, since Obama was probably elected for economic reasons and not for moral reasons... and the answer to the second part is probably yes, under Republican rule, which will keep a large part of America poor, but no, under Democratic rule, which will eventually eliminate poverty. So in conclusion as long as we have democrats in the white house we probably would be better off with a ban on guns but if we keep on electing Republicans to the white house maybe we need to keep our guns because poverty will rise and tyranny in the White House is far more probable.
Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.
Actually I don't have much of an issue with the right to bear arms it may be necessary even in the 21st century, it may even be a good thing in the end and perhaps you are correct on Japan (but your other examples still seem wrong) it makes sense if Japan was planning on invading the US at the beginning... probably the real issue is not having guns but why people who have guns use them...so if a society is smart, if a society wants to keep its guns, it better make sure it eliminates the conditions that breed poverty and income inequality through corruption and unjust laws, otherwise there will be large segments of the population with guns feeling screwed and angry.
I guess it comes down to this if a society wants guns it better be generous with food stamps, health care, minimum wage and fair and just with compensation in general otherwise there's going to be a lot of angry people with guns.
We are now in a recession maybe a depression if I just saw my 401k evaporate and my house value cut in half thanks to some golden boy or girl on wall street risking other peoples money so he/she could get his/her million dollar bonus...and I had a gun, I think I could feel very justified in trying to get my money back from every golden boy or girl I could find....furthermore if I was a golden boy I guess I would try to hide it by driving a simple car and wearing simple clothes etc until the recession was over in a society with guns everywhere.
Another problem is the children, in a society where guns are easy to get how do you keep messed up teenagers from killing their schoolmates? The logic dictates to give teachers and all children guns too to protect themselves????? Yet that seems crazy??
My main concern with a ban on guns is that the criminals won't be the ones who give up their guns. Now maybe you are a big, strong guy who could hold his own in a fight with a burglar, I'm not. My gun evens out the odds. Even a 5' tall woman can shoot straight.
My home value HAS gone down the tubes. But I have no desire to go "golden boy" hunting. The only ones in danger from me are the ones who put themselves in a position of me or them. And of course Joe on occasion. lol
Post a Comment