FACT: Canadaka.net's T-Shirt merchandise: MADE IN AMERICA
PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:06 pm
Canadaka Canadaka:
$1:
It can be construed as political and cultural, as I explained before (which you glossed over), it has little to do with economic matters. It says a lot when a Canadian website has to rely on an AMERICAN idea (cafepress) in order to further Canadian patriotism does it not?
lol, I have made only 1 sale in 6 months on Cafepress, ypu I sure am relying on them! its not there to make sales, its there to have expose on that site. There are other selling Canada Kicks Ass and many other patriotic canadian shirts on cafepress. There are thousands of shirts there, your grandma could make a cafepress store.
Its just there in case someone searches on Cafepress for Canada kicks ass, the CKA shirts come up with the others.
The real CKA shirts are on http://shop.canadaka.net
I looked into Guilden before getting there shirts, because i wanted to make sure they were made in Canada. They and the printers said they were. If there is a sweatshop along the line.. then i was mislead. But evena company that says they don't use such labour cold be lyingh or finding some legal loophole.
Anyway its rabbles blessed America that made the asian sweatshop a reality.
I don't trust anything or beleive anything this rabblewatch says anyway.
Okay fair enough, just look into Guildan some more if you really are a against sweatshops.
RUEZ @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:10 pm
Dithers, I would like you to do research on everything you own because I'm pretty sure something was made in a sweatshop. Don't come back untill your done.
PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:13 pm
RUEZ RUEZ:
Dithers, I would like you to do research on everything you own because I'm pretty sure something was made in a sweatshop. Don't come back untill your done.
I don't care if something I own is made in a sweatshop, I've said this from the beginning.
RUEZ @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:15 pm
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
RUEZ RUEZ:
Dithers, I would like you to do research on everything you own because I'm pretty sure something was made in a sweatshop. Don't come back untill your done.
I don't care if something I own is made in a sweatshop, I've said this from the beginning.
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
So what exactly is your problem?
PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:16 pm
RUEZ RUEZ:
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
RUEZ RUEZ:
Dithers, I would like you to do research on everything you own because I'm pretty sure something was made in a sweatshop. Don't come back untill your done.
I don't care if something I own is made in a sweatshop, I've said this from the beginning.
So what exactly is your problem?People not living up to their own standards.
RUEZ @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:19 pm
Oh so your the supreme overlord who get's to yell at people that you think aren't doing what they should be. We don't have room for dictators here.
PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:20 pm
Aww damn. 
Mustang1 @ Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:48 am
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
This is not a retort.
Why not? Because you deem it so? Please. That opinion holds no currency here.
$1:
“Your entire point revolves around your flawed assertion that I said the banner was exclusive to economic matters. Yet my statement has no mention of the exclusiveness of economic matters.
Here is what I said: "The point is that websites like CKA tote around the "no deep integration with the USA" banner all the while supporting the USA with their business at the same time."
True, I used an economic matter as an example to support my claim, but no where did I say that it was exlusive to economic matters.”
Here is what I said: "The point is that websites like CKA tote around the "no deep integration with the USA" banner all the while supporting the USA with their business at the same time."
True, I used an economic matter as an example to support my claim, but no where did I say that it was exlusive to economic matters.”
Yes, you did. I provided the text evidence. Either refute it or concede the point.
$1:
“New word? You are the one that started throwing around buzzwords in this debate, I thought it only fair to do the same.”
They aren’t “buzzword” my uninformed chump, they are legitimate terms that were used in the proper context. It’s nice to know you want to be like me through imitation. Don’t.
$1:
“I was referring to your previous fallacies.”
Evidence? Nope? Didn’t think so. Moving on.
$1:
“You did not address any one of my points, you glossed over it. You failed to demonstrate how selling merchandise made in the USA in order to promote Canadian patriotism is not "deep integration.”
See Trev’s last statement. Oh, and I’m waiting for you to establish the sweatshop angle. Go ahead as you’ve made a serious allegation against CKA that seems to be based laregely on conjecture. I’ll hold you to it, suck.
$1:
“You and I both know that on a number of occasions in this thread you have reffered our interpretations of the banner as being "narrow." On what basis can you make such a claim since you yourself are unaware as to it's meaning?”
Either provide the evidence where I provided a specific defintion or move on. You’ve got nothing here and volumes of irrelevant text won’t fix it.
$1:
“Actually that WAS the second strawman (that is strawmans arguments in that particular post), the two before that were referring to previous strawmans.”
Nope. You got caught in another mistake. By all means, with text evidence, you are welcome to try to establish your pitiful numerical abilities were correct, but you’ll likely suck away from that too.
$1:
“It can be construed as political and cultural, as I explained before (which you glossed over), it has little to do with economic matters. It says a lot when a Canadian website has to rely on an AMERICAN idea (cafepress) in order to further Canadian patriotism does it not?”
Point for me. I always suggested that the definition was amibgious and could suggest broader components such as political and cultural – see my posts, dummy. That was the worst concession, I’ve seen in a long time. You were wrong in your narrow interpretation. Get over it. Oh, and where is the sweatshop angle again? I hope we haven’t abandoned that in light of Trev’s last post – that would be a sorry act for even the likes of you.
$1:
“You ignored my clarification on what I originaly meant, and took what I meant to mean a strict definition of the words "liberal-leaning," where I only meant that a website that describes itself as being "liberal-leaning" would naturally have many of those that are opposed to third world sweatshops. That was my intent.”
Fine. You were wrong and you’ve identified your error. Move on.
$1:
“Oh stop with the theatrics, it doesn't lend any intellectual merrit to your position.”
Sorry, that is merely your opinion. It’s simply a personal idea that is unsubstantiated by objective evidence – I’ll decide what helps my points, not you.
$1:
“Because you keep insisting that my statement involved exclusively "economic matters," even after I keep telling you that it doesn't.
Maybe I wasn't careful enough in the wording of my statement, because I certainly didn't mean what you think I meant. Happy?”
Maybe I wasn't careful enough in the wording of my statement, because I certainly didn't mean what you think I meant. Happy?”
Fine. Another concession.
$1:
“I cannot provide you with your definition because you haven't stated it. By your own admission you do in fact have one, all I am trying to say is that you have little justification for saying what is "narrow" or what isn't.”
Then what is my definition? You claim that’ve promulgated it and I’ve somehow declared sanscroant. Then where is it? Show me the text evidence. If not, you are simply lying to salvage your point and that’s pitiful.
$1:
“Not every piece of clothing has to be made in a sweatshop. How many times do I have to repeat this? If Gildan is operating sweatshops, than by doing business with them they would be supporting (note: supporting does not = endorsing) sweatshops.”
Does CKA endorse sweatshops? Yes or No? Did CKA knowingly purchase sweatshop-manufactured apparel? Yes or No? Even if they did, how is it you get to chastise them for it? Do you purchase goods manufactured in sweatshops? Yes or No? If you do, then you’ve lost any right or legitimacy in chastising others for similar acts. Got it?
$1:
“Given that Gildan is well known in the leftist camp for operating sweatshops, I would be surprised if those on CKA would be oblivious to this fact. But...if it's true that CKA was unaware to it, then fine. Now that they know, they would have to do something about it wouldn't they?”
Fair enough. Talk to CKA then.
$1:
“How did I use it for justification? IT'S THE DEFENCE OTHER PEOPLE USE NOT ME.”
You knew exactly why you specifically included its use in your post – it was a rationalization and an endorsement. You were defending that piece of shit’s moronic polemic and you had to fall back on a desperate tactic in order to wiggle out of his glaring shortcomings (unless of course, that is concession of error on his part). If not, then why use it? Why introduce it unless there was some inherent merit? You got caught and now you are trying to justify it. Nope. It won’t wash. Sorry.
Besides, I noticed how you conveniently failed to comment on Trev’s last post outlining his business practice’s particulars and philosophies. I wonder why?
Unless you’ve got something new or specifically make reference to Trev’s last post, screw off because now all you do is post for the sake of posting. If you want to spew your banal rhetoric, do it somewhere else. The asylum is full here – we don’t need any more nut jobs.
Mustang1 @ Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:57 am
RUEZ RUEZ:
Oh so your the supreme overlord who get's to yell at people that you think aren't doing what they should be. We don't have room for dictators here.
Or sanctimonious hypocrites either – if this twit has sweatshop-manufactured apparel, then he just lost the ability to chastise others for the same. What a putz!
Streaker @ Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:20 am
Hypothesis: PM_Dithers was once a member here at CKA who eventually got banned. 
PM_Dithers @ Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:06 am
Mustang1, your time would be better spent masterbating to your own reflection rather than posting your inane ramblings on a message board.
American @ Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:19 am
Every active member on this site knows how I feel about anti-Americanism. Nevertheless, I have yet to see the issue. Maybe someone could point out to me what all the hoopla is about printing or selling Canadian theme t-shirts in the US?
Canadaka @ Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:45 pm
The CKA shirts ARE NOT made or printed in the USA.
but you mention a good point.. so what if they were? doe sit really matter, its a open global market, if someitnhg is cheaper in the USA or there is no Canadian alternative is it really that wrong for someone to buy in the US, no i don't think so.
But since this is a pro-canadian patriotic site I thought it was important to have it done in Canada.
CamCKA @ Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:21 pm
Canadaka Canadaka:
The CKA shirts ARE NOT made or printed in the USA.
but you mention a good point.. so what if they were? doe sit really matter, its a open global market, if someitnhg is cheaper in the USA or there is no Canadian alternative is it really that wrong for someone to buy in the US, no i don't think so.
But since this is a pro-canadian patriotic site I thought it was important to have it done in Canada.
but you mention a good point.. so what if they were? doe sit really matter, its a open global market, if someitnhg is cheaper in the USA or there is no Canadian alternative is it really that wrong for someone to buy in the US, no i don't think so.
But since this is a pro-canadian patriotic site I thought it was important to have it done in Canada.
Exactly, so what if they were? And let's just talk about what it means to be 100% Canadian made anyway? If Trevor has them made by a company in CANADA, then in my mind, they're Canadian-made. Anything deeper than that is just nitpicking. I mean really, is ANYTHING fully made in one country if you delve far enough into the details? I don't think we produce very much cotton in Canada, so based on that you could say that NO natural T-shirts are really Canadian made. What if they employ permanent residents in their factory who aren't Canadian-citizens? Does THAT disqualify it from being 100% Candian-made?
I have a CKA shirt, and I love it. Period. even if I discover that in fact a subcontractor of a supplier of a division of the company that printed them uses a sweatshop, I'm still not going to hold that against Trevor, and I'm still going to love this shirt.
- CamCKA