slapmonkay
Campaign Veteran
We should talk about WAC again... it's been a couple months.
:banana::monkey
We should talk about WAC again... it's been a couple months.
We should talk about WAC again... it's been a couple months.
I would rather talk about that other gun forum... you know the one where you can be yourself and pretty much say what you want without everyone getting their panties in a wad. Which one is that?:question::question::question::question:
WAGUNS:banana::banana::banana::banana:
I would rather talk about that other gun forum... you know the one where you can be yourself and pretty much say what you want without everyone getting their panties in a wad. Which one is that?:question::question::question::question:
WAGUNS:banana::banana::banana::banana:
The day we fight and win, by law, to carry in Costco and malls, is the day we all lose our own rights to set rules on our own private property.
Everybody says vote with your wallet, well, my wallet is usually more powerful than my convictions... Costco provides me a source for discounted product, so I carry concealed.
So if someone who has your favored policy has a mass shooting conducted on his property then no liability,
but if a mass shooting is conducted and they banned guns, completely liable?
That throws the tort law as we know it on its head.
Have you done the math to confirm this?
I have it on reputable authority that the overwhelming majority of wholesale club members do NOT spend enough to "save" an amount equal to the membership fees.
IMO, you're lazy and your convictions are weak.
So what if guns are private property? You shouldn't be able to sue because they are banned from someones private property. You have the choice of not being on that property. IF you feel that you were harmed because of private property owners rules/actions, take them to court civilly.
I don't think men's clubs should be forced to admit women and vice versa, that stores should be forced to install handicap spaces, etc.....the ever encroaching socialist/statist government. Involving themselves in private affairs.
"Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", I guess property wasn't that important.
this is not a dead horse as long as a business discriminates and takes away your civil rights. then it is alive and kicking.
personally i would like to see some demonstrations or protests especially on the news. maybe even a picnic handing out hotdogs and GSL stickers. explain to people the discrimination
The fact that I get money back from them each year that more than covers my membership fee sort of shows that your "authority" doesn't really know what they're talking about. We really don't spend that much there. I know plenty of people that buy more there than I do. There's only a few things that we do buy there.
Technically:Wrong. The fact that you rely on "money back" to make your case actually underlines my point.
Reason being, one doesn't need "good authority", but rather to be a consistent observer of (or participant in) business to be aware that "money back" schemes are always dependent on the reality that most people do not "earn" more "back" than they put in.
I mean, duh.
If you're the exception to the rule, more power to you. You'll note I allowed for this possibility already.
None of this changes my argument..
A customer with the above membership status would need to spend $460/mo to gain their yearly ROI as a result of membership dues. Costco's website does not show a "cash back" benefit for any other of the cards listed.Executive Membership
Includes household membership
$110.00 Annual Membership Fee
Annual 2% Reward and More
Executive Membership is our highest level of membership. All Executive Members enjoy a 2% Reward (up to $750 per year) on most Costco purchases, as well as additional benefits and greater discounts on our suite of services.
Wrong. The fact that you rely on "money back" to make your case actually underlines my point.
Reason being, one doesn't need "good authority", but rather to be a consistent observer of (or participant in) business to be aware that "money back" schemes are always dependent on the reality that most people do not "earn" more "back" than they put in.
I mean, duh.
If you're the exception to the rule, more power to you. You'll note I allowed for this possibility already.
None of this changes my argument..
The fact is that I save money by shopping there vs. another retailer. What's not to get?
Saying that a person is lazy and has weak convictions is ridiculous. My convictions are to take care of my family and by ignoring their stupid rule I can not only take care of my family's safety but also help to save money to take care of them financially. It's a win win for me.
Like I said, if you do, in fact, save money, more power to you. Seriously. Most people do not.
My opinions are, indeed, ridiculous to everyone who does not share them. That's generally how it goes.
That being said, my opinion is that someone who believes saving a couple bucks is a better way of taking care of their family than is fighting to ensure that their children have their fundamental liberties respected by all, has weak convictions.
You're free to disagree with my opinion, of course. Of course, I know nothing (and care less) about your financial circumstances, which is why my opinion is worth what you paid for it.
That also being said, I suspect if I hadn't at least somewhat hit my mark I wouldn't be receiving such a defensive reply from someone to whom my post was not even addressed.
What better way is there to fight for your rights than to actually exercise them?
Have you done the math to confirm this?
I have it on reputable authority that the overwhelming majority of wholesale club members do NOT spend enough to "save" an amount equal to the membership fees.