Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 12/17/2003 8:53:44 AM EST
by Dick Forrey of the Vietnam Veterans Association
> Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event.
> We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:
>"Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only donate to the arts,
>social action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and education."
> So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans
>in general do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really
>wrong at this TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of dollars,
>not even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial remembrance.
> As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET U.S. corporate headquarters
>and their response was the same. That's their national policy.
> Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the
>Marines to collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their stores. And during
>the recent Iraq deployment, they would not allow families of employees who
>were called up for active duty to continue their insurance coverage while
>they were on military service. Then as I dig further, TARGET is a
>French-owned corporation.
> Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET can not support American
>Veterans, then why should I and my family support their stores by spending
>our hard earned American dollars and to have their profits sent to France.
>Without the American Vets, where would France be today?
> Feel free to pass this along to whomever you want.
> Sincerely,
> Dick Forrey
> Veterans helping Veterans
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 8:59:17 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 9:00:30 AM EST
Damn that was pretty easy [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 9:01:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/17/2003 9:02:28 AM EST by Jarhead_22]
False: [url]www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp[/url] Edit: Beaten to the punch!
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 9:02:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By Paul: Damn that was pretty easy [rolleyes]
View Quote
Fast too!
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 1:28:08 PM EST
About 90% of the drive by e-mails that I get at work are proven false by Snopes, including the 6 (or 16) I got on the Target/Veterans fiasco. Its true: people will believe almost anything that comes from a computer. Merlin
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 3:00:31 PM EST
I was trying to figure out why they said target corp. was French. They are still headquartered here, and in fact, I live around the corner from Target #1. Target is a large emplyer here in the Twin Cities (St. Paul/Minneapolis)
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 3:15:28 PM EST
So martinTN, try to be a LITTLE more careful in the future. Buy don't sweat it too much, many of us have had to learn to check things out before believing them....make snopes one of your favorites.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 3:23:37 PM EST
I have been spanking jackasses with Snopes for two years now. Just found this one as well. [url]http://www.straightdope.com/index.html[/url]
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 4:26:22 PM EST
Aah, the Straightdope.. Cecil is the man!!! Wonder what his take is on RKBA..
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 5:56:45 PM EST
Every time a relative gets internet access and an email account, I get my share of urban myths and virus hoax warnings. Sometimes I'm tempted to make an all encompassing "welcome to the internet" FAQ to send to each family member who asks me what my email address is.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 6:03:43 PM EST
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith: Aah, the Straightdope.. Cecil is the man!!! Wonder what his take is on RKBA..
View Quote
Well, read about it [url=http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_123.html]here[/url].
However odd it strikes us today, the framers regarded private gun ownership as one of the pillars of their liberty. They had recently defeated one of the most powerful nations in the world using an army that in the early going had consisted of amateur soldiers using their own weapons. They considered these citizen militias vastly preferable to standing armies, which in their experience had been instruments of oppression. They also had no professional police force upon which to depend for defense of their lives and property. It seemed natural to them that ordinary folk should have the right to own guns. That was then, you may say, and this is now. In the 1990s it may well be foolish, as a matter of public policy, to allow law-abiding private citizens to own guns (although I'm not persuaded this is so). But it seems pretty clear that's what the founders intended, and it eats at the heart of the constitutional process to simply wave that right away. No one doubts today that slavery is bad, but the constitution as written permitted it, and a duly ratified amendment was required to put the matter right. Likewise we should concede that the Second Amendment means what it seems to mean and that if we want to control guns to the point of prohibition, amending the amendment is the honest thing to do. --CECIL ADAMS
View Quote
Top Top