Walmart has just shit its pants!

Is it that “Walmart has just shit its pants" - Or is it that we are seeing a knee jerk reaction by you in that you are only making an “immediate unthinking emotional statement” about an issue to which you are overly sensitive?

It is of course the latter since “a new poll shows the retail giant could benefit from the changes – and even while “the NRA called Walmart's new stance on guns 'shameful' and predicted it would cause shoppers to flee.”

From consumer research firm CivicScience information, the strong indication is that the retail giant is going to be just fine, despite threats of a backlash and you saying: “Adios to the gigantic swallower of small businesses.”

Besides, what is all your “fuss” about trying to make this a “BFD” when there still are numerous other outlets people can buy through. There are many avenues to explore both online and other local businesses. “J H. C” it’s not like Walmart is the only ones who sell those.

You say this action proves …

… that Walmart's CEO is bat-shit crazy to make enemies of a large percentage of customers.

While “the survey shows” that …

A small majority of survey respondents said that the changes wouldn't affect their willingness to shop at Walmart. A minority of survey participants said that the policy shift either adversely or positively affected their Walmart-related habits. Of that group, more people said that Walmart's new firearms policy left them "more likely" to shop at the national retail chain.

As far as former judge Andrew Napolitano writing in an article in the Washington Times” on Thursday, January 10, 2013 – It was an “Analysis/Opinion” where he was stating that The Second Amendment is the guarantee of freedom. The article has absolutely no application to what Walmart did because Walmart is in no way either taking away or restricting your Second Amendment right.

In conclusion, I am here to inform you that with recent history and a new poll as a strong indication – the NRA's dire prediction probably will not pan out. And you saying that “Walmart has just shit its pants” never happened!

Are you now perfectly clear on all of this?

Believing that we are, I say:

Polls have been proven likely to be worthless; but then you knew that.

And you are wrong about polls. A new study – a study and not a poll – shows polling has not been “proven likely to be worthless”, as you say, and definitely is not undergoing a collapse despite what you may believe and some might suggest.

Polls are as accurate as they’ve ever been and in some ways are more accurate. That may fly in the face of the recent epic polling disasters (see: the 2016 U.S. presidential election, 2015 British general election and the 2016 Brexit vote in the U.K.), but that’s the conclusion of a new study, reports Nicola Davis at The Guardian.

To assess whether polls have lost their mojo over time, researchers looked at 30,000 voter polls conducted for 351 general elections in 45 nations over a span of 75 years. According to a press release, what they found is that the accuracy of polls have not changed much over the decades and the problematic polls of recent years are in line with historic polling.

“We find that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the recent performance of polls has not been outside the ordinary,” authors Will Jennings of the University of Southampton and Christopher Wlezien of the University of Texas at Austin write in the study, published this week in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. “Ultimately, although the polling industry faces a range of substantial challenges, we find no evidence to support the claims of a crisis in the accuracy of polling.”

[…]

… and you're demonstrably anti-NRA and 2nd Amendment.

I never in anyway informed you that I was “anti” anything. By you jumping to such an irrational conclusion, It is easy for me to see that you and Deckard went to the same school when you both mastered the course showing “how to arrive at false assumptions.”

You really should stop doing that because over time, the process can be disastrous to your creative ability since it will limit how you look realistically at situations and problems. Furthermore, making false assumptions can definitely limit the options you may have at your disposal as you attempt to generate any ideas.

Gee. They even named a gun after you …

Perhaps if you had given more attention to selecting your screen name, you could have chosen “IbDumbshit” – for it would be far more befitting to cateforizing your intelligence used to respond to my posts.

They even named a gun after you and you're demonstrably anti-NRA and 2nd Amendment.

He'll never admit to that.

Of course not. I will never admit to a false statement.

Keeping on point – A person can be criminally charged whether that person affirmatively admits to making a false statement or deliberately omits information that is material.

You continue to be amusing, Deckard …

BTW – I see you missed me so much that you had to come over and drop in on this thread.

That’s bery nice of you …

What I have learned from your post, and from Deckard’s comment, when you stated …

… you're demonstrably anti-NRA and 2nd Amendment …

… is the fact that one of you can make such a charge – and the other one support it – against a person without bothering to find out that he does concealed carry and is a member of the NRA will forever continue to amaze me. This amazement is amplified by you two conspicuously and prominently displaying here your inability to process the rational and factual information supplied to you.

I claim the label “conservative” and right-winger” for various and sundry reasons I will not take time to address here. Wearing these labels proudly, I find the thing that disgusts me most when involved in the political atmosphere is you “extreme fanatical right-wingers} inability to process factual information.

Some might not agree with my personal view of conservatism. “Conservatism” might mean something quite different to them. There is really a kaleidoscope of political understandings that we need to acknowledge more clearly.

But when and if I must select a side as whether I must come down on the side of either old-fashioned individualism, tradition and decentralization – or the side of innovation, centralization, and identity politics, I will forever choose the former. And in doing so, I as a conservative will act intelligently and not like the myopic goofball misfits you two have demonstrated yourselves to be.

Thank you for providing me with such a great platform from which I could admonish your radicalized thought process.

I wish you well in your continued search for disenchantment where you are always seeking to find unhappiness.

It is with that in mind that I will now bid you, Good Day, Sir …

Much bloviating about nothing.

Yes, that is exactly what the senseless article you posted was – much to do about nothing.

Even Deckard said so.