Replies

I have no problem with other people wanting to boycott, but it gets ridiculous that every time someone supports a candidate we don’t agree with or has more liberal views posters will say we need to do yet another boycott. Eventually, there won’t be much left to boycott if we’re only going with people who agree with us.

LOL, I understand.

The last time I watched O'Reilly, he was in the process of throwing up his hands, rearing back in his chair, and blurting out "That's it! I'm calling for a boycott!"

I laughed at the pinhead, thinking he had the power to call for a boycott. What, somebody made him King or something?

My point is that I believe that withholding our $ (or threatening to) from any business is one of the few ways that individuals may be able to influence a business.

However, boycotts can also have a downside, and shouldn't be initiated lightly. One of the posters rightly pointed out that you might boycott a democratic business owner, while putting a whole lot of Republican/Conservative workers on the unemployment line.

It is a rightful power of the consumer, but like all power, should be wielded intelligently, and with as much knowledge as possible of the unintended consequences.

Isn't it ironic that the same statists/leftists that such "progressive" business owners support and 'contribute' money to, may be the same lefties that, given their druthers, would eventually nationalize and/or confiscate those same businesses.

To be the owner of a Boar's Head who has to face a political police force, one day, holding a state order seizing control of the business "for the good of the peasants and workers".