Boycot Bush supporting companies! | Golden Skate

Boycot Bush supporting companies!

D

DaGurl

Guest
Boycot Bush supporting companies!

Please visit to this site www.motherearth.org/USboycott in order to boycott companies, that supported Bush´s run for president in 2000. Here are some of those companies and more can be found on the site:

MBNA $3.0m ( sum of donation)
Philip Morris $2.9m
Microsoft Corp $2.4m
Bristol Myers Squibb $2.1m
Pfizer $1.9m
Enron $1.8m
Citigroup $1.8m
Time Warner/AOL $1.6m
Amway $1.3m
Glaxo SmithKline $1.3m
Exxon Mobil $1.2m
News Corp $1.2m
General Electric $1.1m
Limited Inc $950k
BP Amoco $950k
American Airlines $900k
Schering Plough $900k
Anheuser Busch $850k
Chevron Texaco $800k
Revlon Group $760k
American Home Pr. $740k
PepsiCo $720k
Walt Disney $640k
WalMart $630k
Texas Utilities $630k
Coca Cola $610k
UAL Corp $570k
Archer Daniels Mi. $530k
Ford $510k
General Motors $510k

Let´s boycott these companies, they are partly responsible for Bush winning 2000 elections. If Bush hadn´t won, there wouldn´t be a war in Iraq etc. This may feel harsh, but more people take part in his boycott the more impact it will have.
.
 
R

RealtorGal

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

<span style="color:purple;font-family:helvetica;font-size:small;">Thanks for the list. Tomorrow I'll start making a special effort to go out and SUPPORT these companies!</span>
 
S

Show 42

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

.....Uhoh........I own stock in a few of those, and Diet Pepsi is one of my "staples".........:rolleyes: 42
 
M

mathman444

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

I wonder how many of those companies also gave money to the Gore campaign?
 
K

Kara Bear

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

These are some pretty big companies that own other big companies. Boycotting them all would be pretty difficult. For nstance, GE has its fingers in just about everything under the sun. And I think just about every major news corporation is listed there.
As much as I would love to bring Bush down, I don't think this will help. :D
 
S

SammieJ

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

These have Mathman:

www.billionairesforbushorgore.com/analysis/

AT&T
Philip Morris
Amer Financial Group
Microsoft
Atlantic Richfield Co.
SBC Communications
Enron
Mirage Resorts
Federal Express
Citigroup
Amer Airlines
Bell Atlantic
Anheuser-Busch Limited Inc.
Pfizer
Rite Aid
Schering-Plough
BellSouth
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Union Pacific
Blue Cross & Blue Shield
MBNA Corp
America Online
Amer Intl Group
MCI Worldcom
Ernst & Young
Circus Circus Enterprises
Sprint
AFLAC
Time Warner
Boeing
Prudential Insurance
Ocean Spray Cranberries
Paine Webber
MGM Grand
Archer Daniels Midland
Walt Disney
Coca-Cola
Flo-Sun Sugar Co.
Lockheed Martin
Intl. Game Technology
United Airlines
Oracle
Exxon Mobil
United Technologies
US West
Pacific Gas & Electric
Upjohn
Owens Corning
Chevron
Park Place
Entertainment
Bacardi Martini USA
Boston Capital Partners
Eli Lilly & Co.
Georgia-Pacific
Amer Home Products
Amer Express
Bechtel Group
Loews Corp
Sunoco
General Electric
Northern Telecom
General Dynamics
New York Life Insurance
United HealthCare
 
M

maxell1313

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

Aww, heck...let's just dig a big hole, create a bunker, and stay down there until January 21, 2005. That way, we don't have to listen to anti-Republican, anti-Democrat, anti-anything political (or pro-political) until the day after the Inauguration.

Oh, and by the way, let's boycott people who don't like figure skating. They suck.
 
K

Kara Bear

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

maxell1313,

After January 21, 2005, there will just be a whole new set of people to boycott. As for boycotting anti-skaters, I'm all for it!!!:D :D :D
 
S

sk8cynic

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

.....Methinks someone is stirring the pot again, now that it has finally calmed down here?
________________________

I couldn't agree with you more, RealtorGal. Great reply!!!

That being said, I must add my own thoughts:

DaGurl,

Calling for a boycott against Bush? I seem to recall that a rather large number of the anti-war advocates were quite a bit perturbed and indignant when many Americans called for a Boycott of the Dixie Chicks, Sarandon, Robbins, Sheen, Penn, Janeane Garofalo, Michael @#%$, etc., not to mention the backlash when Americans called for a boycott of French products, tourism in France, and the
like. I seem to recall words like stupid, ridiculous, infantile, pointless, and wrong being used to described these proposed boycotts.

Some advice here: By calling for a boycott, you are leaving the door wide open for opposing opinions, comments, and anger to come back in your direction. I only hope that when this happens, you and others who are calling for this boycott will not in turn start whining about how you are not being treated fairly and how your first amendment rights are being violated when the backlash occurs. Don't dish it out if you can't take it in return.

....and finally, if it's going to digress into calling boycotts, maybe we should reiterate the call for a boycott of the European companies that supported the election campaigns of Chiraq, Schroeder, and Putin. As far as domestically, add that twerp, Tom Daschle to the list as well.

*edited to make my point more concise and deflect my anger from DaGurl personally.
 
H

heyang

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

Sk8cynic,

I think your wording is a bit harsh...especially since I don't recall DaGirl speaking out regarding Iraq. It would have been sufficient to just 'ditto' RealtorGirl.

She has a right to express her opinion...just as you have the right to express yours. I don't think calling for a 'boycott of Bush supporting companies' merits a 'learn to shut your mouth'.

Operation Iraqui Freedom has a successful beginning. No one knows what the ultimate end result will be - only time will tell and diplomacy is even more critical at this point since it is time to rebuild friendships. Building a new goverment in Iraq will require a great deal of diplomacy due to the numerous battling factions (Kurds vs Shiite, various foreign and business interests, anti-American sentiment, Baath party vs darn-can't remember-the-other-party-right-now).

It is even more important now to listen with an open mind. While it may seem wishy-washy to try to understand all perspectives, it is important when dealing with others. As an American, I am certainly disappointed in France, etc....Yet, at the same time, I can understand that they had their own interests to protect.

It would be nice if a democratic pro-US government could be created, but the more it is 'forced' upon Iraq, the more likely that it will not be successful. That is why I think it is important that it not appear as though only the US is forming this goverment - although I do believe we should play a large role. Also, as much as we may seek equal rights for all, the Muslim religion does not favor women and we should recall that our country was built upon the idea of religious tolerance. As a woman, I want Iraqui women to have the same freedoms and opportunities as I do... but this may take a generation or two for this to happen in Muslim states. Just wanted to remind people that re-building Iraq is not an overnight process and there's a lot of differences to consider.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that this could not be a case of 'follow the leader' (USA)? If a child is thinking about doing something due to peer pressure that they don't feel comfortable with, the parent would most likely encourage the child NOT to 'follow-the-leader'. It's not always right to follow the 'cool kids'.

All this stuff is starting to remind of a bunch of sqabbling children. 'You can't be my friend if you're his friend'. Well, I say let everyone play in the sandbox because it's going to take all of us to build a nice sandcastle.

Edited to add: Sk8cynic, only the 1st 2 paragraphs of the post are a reaction to yours. The remainder is just my frustration with the entire 'affair' and is not directed at anyone in particular.
 
S

sk8cynic

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

Heyang,

DaGurl most definitely had the war with Iraq in mind:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Let´s boycott these companies, they are partly responsible for Bush winning 2000 elections. If Bush hadn´t won, there wouldn´t be a war in Iraq etc. This may feel harsh, but more people take part in his boycott the more impact it will have. [/quote]

From your post:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>She has a right to express her opinion...just as you have the right to express yours. I don't think calling for a 'boycott of Bush supporting companies' merits a 'learn to shut your mouth'.
[/quote]

Please read my post again as I have a feeling you may have taken that phrase in the wrong context. I never once told her to shut her mouth about expressing her need for a boycott. My point was that after the whining backlash by the anti-war advocates in response to the call for a boycott of the aforementioned actors, if they're going to dish it out (the pissing and moaning about the 'cruel war mongers' boycotting), they better be prepared to take it when it comes back in their direction. Be consistent in policy. My aggravation with this double-standard is why I used a harsh tone. My aggravation was not with her personally. I will change the phrasing to make myself more concise as I don't want people to interpret my post incorrectly.

DaGurl has every right to say whatever she likes. Anyone can. Someone can post a thread asking everyone to support the KKK if he or she would like (not saying this would ever happen, this is strictly an example to make my point), but if someone were to do that, there would be a several posts in opposition.

As for your statements about post-war Iraq, I agree. It was a successful beginning, and there is a tremendous amount of work ahead, and there are several civic and cultural issues to address to ensure that peace, the ultimate goal for everyone, I think, will prevail. There is no doubt this is going to be an incredibly challenging and difficult endeavor. I hope this can be accomplished as easily, as directly, and with as little injury and loss of life as possible. I dislike war just as much as many of the anti-war advocates. I just hold the opinion that we reached the point that there was no other viable alternative.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>All this stuff is starting to remind of a bunch of sqabbling children. 'You can't be my friend if you're his friend'.[/quote]

I have pretty much reached the same conclusion. I made a decision not to start any more political threads (the last one simply being a link to an article by a CNN bureau chief in Baghdad that, like every other one that appeared here, digressed into a whining and pissing contest). However, when I see a double standard or a hypocrisy (double standard in this case) I will point it out. I realize that DaGurl is an individual and not a representative of the anti-war movement as a whole, but when someone starts calling for the masses to join up, be they pro or anti-war, they do ultimately become that one voice speaking for the many.
 
S

SammieJ

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> I only hope that when this happens, you and others who are calling for this boycott will not in turn start whining about how you are not being treated fairly and how your first amendment rights are being violated when the backlash occurs. Don't dish it out if you can't take it in return.[/quote]

I seriously doubt, Sk8cynic, that DaGurl will be complaining about her "first amendment rights" being violated, since that
particular phrasing is American.
Free speech is probably written into his/her country's Bill of Rights, but it would be phrased differently. Not as an amendment to their constitution.
 
A

Aloft02

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

At least my BUSH'S BAKED BEANS aren't on the list!! I'd sure miss them. (I like the talking dog too.) And now that I've proffered my opinion of canned food, I shall toss a couple of other opinions in as well....

I agree completely with the points made here that the elusive moral high ground will be much harder to detect in the future now that my own country has opted for the 'invasion and attack' approach to dispute resolution. It's unprecedented in our country's history, and I am ashamed of this doctrine.

I hate this war, and I'm frankly frightened of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. I think they represent a volatile and dangerous combination of tunnel-vision oil interests and hunger for 'glory'.

I'm looking for a completely new definition of "SUPER POWER" -one in which we live as an example of how 300 million of us can share a country. And prosper. Did you know?:

We now have the highest levels of personal bankruptcies and home loan foreclosures ever. We have hungry people, eldery choosing between dinner and prescriptions, a crumbling infrastructure and road system, schools that need money. We have policies showing disdain for the environment, ours and the entire world's. We offer tax breaks to the rich while letting poor students beg at college admission doors. Health care coverage is unreachable for growing numbers. But.. if Washington can unite Americans over our plates of "freedom fries" long enough and often enough to vilify a common 'enemy', loft a few bombs - maybe nobody will notice?!?!

And once we've established this glorious democracy in Iraq, what do you think we'll do if they choose to elect a fundamentalist Islamic government whose first order of business is to nationalize the oil fields? Where does this end? One thing we have accomplished is to create the optimum environment for the proliferation of a whole new generation of terrorists (give it about 10 years), display complete disdain for the culture of Iraq - i.e. we chose to guard the oil fields but not their national cultural treasures and maintain order.

I'm confused too about how millions of people protesting this war worldwide were dismissed off-handedly as a "small focus group" and 200 Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad (a city of 5 million) are conclusive proof that our invasion and future intervention was a glorious accomplishment. There's plenty of "shock and awe" in that type of thinking for me.

But back to the boycott of products, sorry I digressed. The Bush's Baked Beans are really, really good. Try the barbecue style, it's my favorite.
 
M

mathman444

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

In the U.S. it is almost a patriotic duty vigorously to assert one's First Amendment rights. Railing against the government, against big business, against the military-industrial complex, against the powers that be -- that's a tradition going back the the Boston Tea Party.

I was reading an interesting article in Archeology magazine about warfare over the 7000 or so years of civilization. The author made three points. First, that every society of which we have historical or archeological record did it, pretty much all the time. Second, that wars are getting better -- many early cultures routinely lost 25 to 30 per cent of their population to warfare.

And third, only in modern civilizations has it been possible for a single individual to achieve so much power that he can lead his whole nation into war without the informed advice and consent of the citizens or of allies.

That's what scares me about the conduct of this war. Set aside for the moment questions of just how wicked Saddam Hussein is and how much he deserves to be kicked out. What scares me is that George Bush all by himself, following whatever personal motives he may have, can commit the whole armament of the United States to an invasion of another country. Where are the checks and balances on the power of the Presidency?

Today we may applaud this use of power concentrated in the person of the Commander in Chief. But what will tomorrow bring if we continue down this path of ever greater power concentrated in ever fewer hands?

Mathman
 
S

sk8cynic

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Still...in the U.S. it is almost a patriotic duty vigorously to assert one's First Amendment rights. Railing against the government, against big business, against the military-industrial complex, against the powers that be -- that's a tradition going back the the Boston Tea Party.
[/quote]

Amen, Mathman. I am thankful everyday that we have this option here in America. I may disagree vehemently an individual or group's opinion, but I'd still rather everyone have that freedom to be able to say what's on their mind.

The biggest irony in all of this is that DaGurl is not even an American citizen. I might take her more seriously if her position was stated clearly, concisely, maintained respect for opposing positions, and most importantly, if she followed through. From what I have seen of her posts, she is one of these 'hit-and-run' posters that throws an antagonistic comment out and then disappears.

Also, the whole idea of boycotts is nothing but a lose-lose situation. For starters, if the beef each side has is with the government, boycotts will ultimately have a negative effect, not on the leaders' administrations, but on the citizens of the affected countries which will in turn only fuel resentful sentiment between the affected countries.

Secondly, if DaGurl had the first clue about global economics, she might grasp the fact that most of the European countries leading the anti-war/anti-American brigade are far more reliant on the revenue brought in by American consumers than we are on them. I can't remember the exact numbers; if I find them I will post them. If an organized boycott of American companies does in fact occur, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that a backlash boycott would happen, which would ultimately result in those countries shooting themselves in the foot.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What scares me is that George Bush all by himself, following whatever personal motives he may have, can commit the whole armament of the United States to an invasion of another country. Where are the checks and balances on the power of the Presidency?[/quote]

Mathman,

I see your point on this - of course it is wise to be wary and cautious with regard to powerful political leaders, but as far as checks and balances, isn't that why the US has three branches of government? Also, unless the rules have changed, I thought that the Commander in Chief was required to put the question of war to Congress for approval before making a declaration of war. I'm not trying to be snarky here, that's just what I was taught in Political Science. Had congress elected to stick with the UN Security Council's plan and Bush had gone on ahead without congressional approval, I'm pretty sure my opinion of the Bush administration would be different.

I'll be the first to admit I do not have blind faith in government, which is why I do my best to try and get as many facts and points of view as possible. I also cannot base my current opinions and fears on speculation for the future; for me personally, I keep my internal radar up, but until I see irrefutable proof, I'm not going to start screaming that the sky is falling.

Also, Mathman, I would like to add that although you and I have had our differences of opinion, I appreciate the fact that you have never attacked me for my political beliefs. Likewise, I hope that you have never considered any of my responses to your posts as a personal attack.

Political debate and disagreement is a wonderful thing we have in America, but when respect for the right to hold different opinions disappears, the discussion goes promptly into the toilet. This goes for both sides.
 
M

mathman444

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Also, unless the rules have changed, I thought that the Commander in Chief was required to put the question of war to Congress for approval before making a declaration of war.[/quote]That's what the Constitution says.

But Congress, despite a Republican majority in both houses, never declared war against Iraq. Bush went ahead anyway. That's my point.

Mathman
 
M

mathman444

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

PS. I'm not picking on George W. Bush in particular here. Congress did not declare war on Iraq in the first gulf war, either. We didn't declare war on North Viet Nam, on Grenada, or on North Korea in the 1950s. What happens instead is the President, whoever the individual is, starts making his war plans, then he presents to Congress a resolution asking in vague terms for permission to continue taking whatever steps are necessary to safeguard the freedom and safety of Americans.

Naturally the Congress passes it -- any Congressman would, like Tom Daschle, instantly be branded a traitor if he didn't -- and then the President proceeds to do whatever he pleases, interpreting the "intent of Congress" in such a way as to justify any military action without further review or oversight.

Look at all the politicians who were originally opposed to the war, but once the bombs started falling they had no choice but to line up in favor of "supporting our troops."

To me, this cutting off of dialogue and disregard of Constitutional safeguards is a perilous historical trend.

Mathman
 
D

DaGurl

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

Quote from Ska8cynic:
"The biggest irony in all of this is that DaGurl is not even an American citizen. I might take her more seriously if her position was stated clearly, concisely, maintained respect for opposing positions, and most importantly, if she followed through. From what I have seen of her posts, she is one of these 'hit-and-run' posters that throws an antagonistic comment out and then disappears."

Um.... I hope you didn´t mean, that because I´m not an american my opinions have no merit / value? I´m not an american citizen, but I have relatives and frends in America and I have vistited there several times. About "hit-and-run" -posters, well you don´t know a clue about my personal life as well I don´t know nothing about your personal life. I can assure you, that I´ve got also a life outside this board. FYI, I´m a student at university and I´ve have a lot of works to do and a very little spare time. Beside that, I´m not a native english-speaker, so sometimes it takes a lot of time to glance over all this magazine and then write an answer. So excuse me, if I´m not spending every minute of my spare time in this board answering to your / someone else´s posts!!!

Quote from Ska8cynic:
"Also, the whole idea of boycotts is nothing but a lose-lose situation. For starters, if the beef each side has is with the government, boycotts will ultimately have a negative effect, not on the leaders' administrations, but on the citizens of the affected countries which will in turn only fuel resentful sentiment between the affected countries.

Secondly, if DaGurl had the first clue about global economics, she might grasp the fact that most of the European countries leading the anti-war/anti-American brigade are far more reliant on the revenue brought in by American consumers than we are on them. I can't remember the exact numbers; if I find them I will post them. If an organized boycott of American companies does in fact occur, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that a backlash boycott would happen, which would ultimately result in those countries shooting themselves in the foot."

Ummm... this boycott wasn´t even my idea, these kind of "let´s boycott everything american / let´s boycott Bush supporting companies etc." thoughts can be quite common in some parts of the World. I´ve got friends, who are boycotting everything american and favoring everything french. One of my friends sent this message to me and asked me whether I could send it ahead. Mission accomplished.

Perhaps you are right that if the organized boycott against the aforementioned companies would eventually come through
nothing would happen. I don´t know, I´m not an expert in global politics. ( BTW, if you could find excact numbers or statistics, I ,for one, liked to see them. ) But to me, this is a matter of principle.

DaGurl
 
M

Mathman3

Guest
Re: Boycot Bush supporting companies!

I think that everyone has had his/her say on this topic now.
 
Top