• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New guy in Greenwood

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
imported post

1245A Defender wrote:
i think my phrase of "starbucks can take the easy way out" was kinda in cheek too,,
im trying to imply that following the law is the most direct route to make the policy that needs the least justification. and ultimatly satisifies the most of the rashional citizens.
the 3 california companies are going to suffer lost costumers and brad press, even in that liberal state and just may decide to change their tune in time.:cool:
Your probably right in the long run scheme of things, but that's not how they are interpreting it for the now.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
imported post

1245A Defender wrote:
im only saying what i think the reasoning for the policy might be!

Thats all I am doing too. See my response below for why.

do you actually have some personnal insight to the corperate policy wonks at starbucks?

Only what they have already said to everyone, that they don't want to be put in the middle. I interpret that to mean they are not interested in supporting or not supporting the 2A, only supporting their bottom line, same as the other three companys in California.

did they tell YOU why they do what they do?

See answer to #2
The three other companys in California are just doing the same thing as Starbucks, protecting their bottom line in the ways they are most influenced by doing so.

When your bread and butter clientele are located in an anti-gun state, and you are told by an anti-gun state lobbying firm that your mostly anti-gun clientele are going to stop spending their money at your business (during an economic slump) if you don't ban guns. Well....I'm sure you see where that line of thought is going.

Starbucks doesn't have that kind of worry, and in-fact would be hurt worse by taking a side. Hence, their response of "leave us out of it".

Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.
 

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

northland47 wrote:
I think I responed to the wrong check box. In fear of repeating myself, Greenwood neighborhood is located north and lightly west of I-5 from Seattle (about 15 min. drive). It takes us about 25 min to drive to the Kenmore range.

Mike
Greenwood neighborhood is IN Seattle, about 15 minutes north of DOWNTOWN.
 
Top