Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Home Depot stops doing business with federal government (even cash!)
Saint Louis Today ^ | June 16, 2002

Posted on 06/16/2002 11:29:08 AM PDT by John Jorsett

Edited on 05/11/2004 5:33:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Home Depot Inc., the nation's largest hardware and home-improvement chain, has told its 1,400 stores not to do business with the U.S. government or its representatives.

The Post-Dispatch checked with managers at 38 stores in 11 states. All but two said they had received instructions from Home Depot's corporate headquarters this month not to take government credit cards, purchase orders or even cash if the items are being used by the federal government.


(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-329 next last
To: Barbara14
Maybe the feds will realize that the American public is growing tired of their heavy handed behavior.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, HOME DEPOT!

I hope they do as well. Maybe this would jumpstart something that would start getting rid of some of the idiotic paperwork and regulations concerning government purchases, and maybe save some money for the country. Of course it would turn around and be spent on something else :-/

141 posted on 06/16/2002 4:36:35 PM PDT by texlok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 537 Votes
Re: "I get really tired of this 'We're at war' crap. "

JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISTS

September 14, 2001

This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.



From "The War Powers Act of 1973"
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a)
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1)
from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2)
from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.


142 posted on 06/16/2002 4:48:32 PM PDT by ChadGore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Its probably just a matter of it being too big a hassle dealing with the federal government. Puts them under the burden of a bunch of PC nonsense that they wouldn't otherwise have to deal with.
143 posted on 06/16/2002 5:01:19 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inkling; another cricket
"According to the article uniformed personnel can't even purchase items in cash. So much for letting them buy things for personal use. I'm all for limited government, but when hatred of the Feds spreads to contempt for the military, I'm not going to play along."

All the "man in uniform" has to do is say it is for his own use, and not being sold to the government.

For proof, see reply #44. This don't sound like "contempt for the military" to me.

144 posted on 06/16/2002 5:03:38 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"While it is an expression of Freedom, and they are able to not deal with the government, I would say that under the conditions indicated, it is unpatriotic. They can't be complaining about government paperwork, there is none for cash purchases. I don't know what their reason for not dealing with the government, especially the military, is, but absent a better explanation than that given in the article, I would call it unpatriotic. If that supply sergent had to go farther or spend more of your money to satisfy his unit's needs, then that's just that much less they can do to accomplish their mission, under fixed limits of money and personnel."

Supplying the units needs is what we pay the GSS and other FedGov purchasing departments BIG BUCKS to take care of. As to patriotic, when the Congress actually passes a declaration of war, then I'll buy it.

145 posted on 06/16/2002 5:04:18 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Home Depot is a Bush-hating, gun-grabbing institution. There is no doubt in my mind this is an attack on President Bush. I note that even though this is supposedly long-standing policy, managers only received the orders on this three weeks ago.
146 posted on 06/16/2002 5:04:21 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Don't many federal bureaucracies have the ability to make "rules" which have the force of law?
Yup. Let's say I make a GMO version of cilantro that'll give you a Jamiacan Grade-A head rush. The DEA can make cilantro a controlled substance. No congressional action required. Now the layman might think spotting the separation of powers problem here is easier than finding Waldo, but the FedGov reality distortion field filters that out.
147 posted on 06/16/2002 5:09:28 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
"This is the first company I've ever heard of establishing a policy of not doing business with the federal government. I find it hard to understand," she said.

I know of one other large business who refused all gooberment contracts,and even told the feds to get the hell out of his place of business. This is a large sporting goods wholesaler that was offered a gooberment contract to supply small specialized orders to special operations units. Since he was a vet himself,he was more than happy to talk to them about this,so he invited them down. Things started to go down hill rapidly when they started asking questions like "how many blacks do you have in supervisory positinos? Women? Homosexuals?",and went ALL to hell when they told him he would have to have the requisite number before they could do business with him. He told them he didn't believe in ANY of that crap,and they needed to get the hell out of his store before he had them arrested for tresspassing.

It's odd that Home Depot would take a similiar stance,though. The owner is a dedicated Dim who donates a percentage of his profits each year to gun control.

148 posted on 06/16/2002 5:10:54 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
Home Depot is anti-American and anti-Bush (I am sure there are previous articles on FR about their exploits). The people who are posting here on FR in support of them don't know this. Thanks for spreading the word.
149 posted on 06/16/2002 5:14:16 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
I frequent both The Home Depot and Loews.

The owner of Home Depot is a dedicated Dim,and donates a percentage of his profits to gun control each year. Lowes refused to put up "no gun" signs in their stores when HCI lobbied them to do so.

150 posted on 06/16/2002 5:16:03 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
Which still entangles you in the three Federal Laws/EO noted that Home Depot decided not to get entangled in:

Home Depot is refusing to do business with the Federal Government or anyone acting as an AGENT of the Federal government when making a purchase. They'll sell to anybody including Federal Government employees and people in uniform who are not acting as an agent of the Federal Government when making their purchase.

151 posted on 06/16/2002 5:18:47 PM PDT by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KirklandJunction
So you do what you are told to do, like it or not, to satisfy your bosses, for money.

Chose any name for that profession.

How about "Employee"? You know,as in hired help who are hired to do what their bosses tell them to do. I know this may be a odd concept,but it really does exist.

152 posted on 06/16/2002 5:19:15 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
IRS people even marry each other. Scary thought: they are breeding a separate race. LEOs are also a largely separate society. Their kids get in trouble a lot. They get divorced a whole lot. And they drink hard. But there is hope: DARE has been discredited, and the majority of local PD chiefs think the Drug War is unwinnable. Keep the pressure up! These people (and their spouses who maybe didn't know what they were in for) may want to rejoin normal society someday.

The people who object to this tactic are uniformly (no pun intended) JBT no-necks on the Drug War payroll.

153 posted on 06/16/2002 5:21:22 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Retiredforever
They apparently want to run their business without any government interference.

The owner LOVES gooberment interference,in YOUR business. This is most likely either or both of two reasons. One is that he is a dedicated Dim who doesn't want to do business with a Republican administration,and the other is that he doesn't want to come under the same AA EEO laws as he wants everybody else to come under.

154 posted on 06/16/2002 5:21:24 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: thepitts
Wasn't this (just recently) made nearly impossible?

Yes. We only get to vote for the hacks put forth by both branches of the same party.

155 posted on 06/16/2002 5:25:39 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Comment #156 Removed by Moderator

To: glm
Blame elected officials - not the government workers that have sworn to carry out these laws.

Thank you. I tire of people NOT understanding the difference. And there is HUGE difference. Not only do they have to carry out the laws, but can be fired or prosecuted if they don't!

157 posted on 06/16/2002 5:39:03 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
what are they thinking?


158 posted on 06/16/2002 5:40:45 PM PDT by glock rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
It is funny to see conservatives bash HD for attempting to avoid some hogwash leftist feel good legal traps

You've said it well!!!!

159 posted on 06/16/2002 5:49:38 PM PDT by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
thanks. sounds logical to me.
160 posted on 06/16/2002 5:55:07 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-329 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson