Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - petersam

Pages: 1 2 3 4 »
Hi: Lots of things are talked about, not all of them are true.

Aside from the fact that I cannot see the organization doing this, there is the issue with the feasibility of them even being able to. If you've worked with charities or large companies like this before, you know there are measures in place so that this absolutely cannot happen. When a company donates say, clothing items, the barcodes and garment tags are marked through with a non-washable marker -- this is a barrier to the goods ever being returned for cash. It simply does not happen.

I'm sorry you and apparently others have been misinformed about this great organization. And if you're not willing to call around and check with the organization first hand, you really shouldn't be posting information like that on the web so that those who are also not willing to do their homework will believe it as truth. I'd hate to think that someone got their information so very wrong and that a group so dedicated to helping those less fortunate would suffer for it.

I used to think good samaritan was ok until Walmart gave them 1000 or so childrens winter coats to distribute to those in need and good samaritan took them back to walmart for the cash.

Hi: I'm not sure where that information came from but I can say with utmost certainty this did not happen. If Walmart (or any other large company, for that matter) gives out something like that to a charity, checks are in place so that the charity cannot turn right around and return it. I know that when we give out things through our charity the bar codes are marked through to prevent exactly this.

Further, I'm sure you're more than welcome to call the Good Samaritan and ask this question and they'll let you know for sure that what you've been told is not at all the case :).

National Political Opinion / Re: nobama on a roll
« on: June 26, 2011, 01:45:57 PM »
Petersam, Your debating with someone who thinks the universe is several thousand years old, GW bush was great and Sarah Palin is smart. Why do you sound surprised when he isn't rational?

Point very well made, Shadylane.  Moving on :)...

National Political Opinion / Re: nobama on a roll
« on: June 26, 2011, 04:17:57 AM »
just wake up from a dream? LOL LOL

Obama Losing Voter Support in Green and Blue States
Aamerican Thinker. ^ | June 24, 2011 | Brad O'Leary

I just received some very interesting results from a poll I commissioned with IBOPE Zogby International. 

While it is well-known that President Obama is losing voter support nationwide, the lesser known fact is that the President's support is eroding among two key voter groups:  Democratic Blue states and battleground Green states.  The Zogby poll question asked:  "Do you think President Obama deserves to be re-elected or do you think it is time for someone new?"

Overall, a 54% majority of voters say it is time for someone new in the White House, and just 40% say that Obama deserves re-election.  That's certainly bad news for the President, however, an even worse trend is developing.

One month ago, just 41% of voters from Green states said they would vote to re-elect Obama, and today that number has plunged four percentage points to 37%.  A sizeable 56% of Green state voters say it is time to elect someone new to the Oval Office.  These Green states are the crucial states that President Obama won in 2008 but are now considered in play as a result of Republican gains in the 2010 election.

The President's support among Blue state voters is eroding quickly as well.  One month ago, 47% of Blue state voters said they would vote to re-elect Obama and 47% said it was time for someone new.  Today, a plurality of Blue state voters (49%) say it is time for someone new and just 44% say Obama deserves re-election.

These new poll results clearly show that President Obama can be defeated in 2012, but only if the eventual Republican candidate runs on the issues and resists the temptation to run against Obama the person.  Even then, and despite these poor poll numbers, Obama should still be considered the odds-on favorite in 2012.  The reasons for this are three-fold:

1) There still could be a third-party candidate.

2) Obama has a $1 billion fundraising goal and he has 14 months to accomplish it.  On the other hand, his Republican challenger can't start raising money for a general campaign until September 2012, and then he or she will only have 60 days to compete with Obama and try and match his war chest.

3) The national press seems to still be enamored with Obama, and will spend the next 16 months convincing the public that he should be re-elected.  Over on the Republican side, there will be at least 12 Republican voices competing for media over the next 15 months.

If you read the polling data and analysis in my new book, How Obama Can Be Defeated in 2012, which I co-authored with Dr. Jerome Corsi, you'll see that on all of the major issues, 75% of voters disagree with President Obama.  You'll also discover that two-thirds of voters reject his vision for the future of America and the cost we'll have to pay to achieve his vision.

For example:

•59% of voters disagree with Obama's desire to borrow more money to spend on education, infrastructure and technology.
•87% of voters want teachers unions to get rid of their tenure system and fire bad teachers.  Just 7% want to keep the tenure system.
•79% of voters disagree with the federal government regulating Internet access and content.
•62% of voters think Obama should be reducing spending and balance the budget.
•69% of voters are opposed to Congress raising the debt limit.
•63% of voters disapprove of Obama's use of stimulus money to try to create jobs for the small business community.
•58% of voters support a law that would grant citizens with permits to carry a firearm in the thirty-nine states that have reciprocal agreements in place for concealed carry permits, to carry a firearm in all of those states.
•51% of voters would support a filibuster should the President appoint a Supreme Court justice that would change the current make-up of the Court.
•59% of voters disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy.
•58% of Americans think that Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Go to where you can see for yourself where you and the rest of the American public stand in relation to Obama on the issues.

The Poll was conducted by IBOPE Zogby International and surveyed 2,013 likely voters from June 17-21, 2011.  The Poll has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.2 percentage points. 

Red states:  AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY

Blue states:  CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MN, NV, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA

Green states:  FL, IN, IA, MI, MO, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, WI

Brad O'Leary is publisher of The O'Leary Report, a bestselling author, and is a former NBC Westwood One talk show host. To interview Brad about his new book, "How Obama Can Be Defeated in 2012," co-authored with Dr. Jerome Corsi, please contact Tim Bueler at (530) 401-3285 or


So you're relying on ONE poll, commissioned by an organization of Conservatives, and I'm relying on multiple polls.  Makes tons of sense.  But you're right, Fish, as usual.  No sense in arguing with crazy...

National Political Opinion / Re: nobama on a roll
« on: June 25, 2011, 08:13:54 PM »
don't read the news much, eh racer? LOL nobama only has 30% of the vote(for now)
latest polls show him losing to a generic gop challenger,translated(LOL LOL) that means he would lose to any gop candidate.
Michelle bauchman is doing well as is cain. just wait till Sarah announces! then it will be a real show!

I think you're confused as usual, Fish.  Rasmussen puts Obama up 2.5% and the worst looking poll for the President has him at 5% behind a GOP candidate.  Obama beats Romney in all but one of the national polls and beats Paul, Gingrich, Bachmann, Huntsman, and your beloved nut case Palin, in ALL national polls, typically by double digits.

Do your research.

The thing is, he DIDN'T keep it in the bedroom.  He put it out there for anyone to see.  As if you don't know about Twitter???  It goes and goes and goes.  Say a 20 year old college student get it...he sends it (ha ha) to his 18 year old sister (ha ha).  She sends it to her 17 year old class mate (ha ha) who sends it to her 14 year old brother, (ha ha) who sends it to his address book which includes his 11 year old cousin who he forgot about being on there (ha ha).  Where does it become child endangerment by subjecting minors to live porn.  Oh but that doesn't matter to you as long as he can "govern."

If the media didn't make it a huge deal because they were too lazy to actually report on the truly awful things our men in government do, it wouldn't be an issue.  Yeah, Weiner made a ridiculously stupid mistake but why do I have to be privy to it?  If people weren't so interested in making themselves feel better by using the shortcomings of others, this wouldn't be on the news.  If Americans didn't care so much about what was happening in other's private lives, this wouldn't be on the news.

And subjecting minors to porn?!  It's our job to govern our children.  My child has no idea of this mess, nor should he, and do you know why?  Because I educate him about how his government works and on what I feel are the POLICY shortcomings of those in office, not their personal shortcomings.  It's not my business what Weiner does with his...weiner.  And it's not yours either, regardless of whether he was elected to public office or not.

And if you're worried about your child seeing a lurid photograph via text or the internet, here's a novel idea: PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE DOING.  I realize, being a parent myself, that I can't always know what my child is up to, but I can teach him that it's not appropriate nor any of his business to hang with a crowd who finds dick pics of a college student worth their time.  And if he were to ever see such a thing?  Well, I wouldn't label that involving a child in pornography as you seem to have.  It's a penis.  Big f'ing deal. 

As I said, I don't care what this man does in his sexual life, regardless of whether or not he's seeking attention via Twitter or soliciting prostitutes in a park.  Can he govern?  Can he do what he was elected to do?  I believe Weiner does that for his constituents so frankly, I don't give a rat's.  I believe even Vitter's constituents feel like he's doing his job and they're the ones who elected him so why would I be interested in what he's doing in his backseat?

Truth is, no one I know could run for public office and serve out a full term without SOMETHING like this happen, the way we delve into our politician's personal lives.  Tell me their voting records, give me their stance on the issues, and let me judge them on the terms they serve, not on whether they happen to be overly friendly with women who aren't their wives.

Good lord, do you people really care THAT much about someone else's sex life and proclivities in that regard?  That's frightening.

To insinuate that a good majority of humans don't have odd habits, misgivings, and sexual desires is ludicrous.  Further, looking back through posts here, I don't see anyone complaining about Vitter, someone who solicited and had physical contact with hookers in multiple states and still sits in the Senate.  I heard very few, if any, Republicans rumbling then about what an "idiot" he was and you know what?  I like that.  I elect my officials to govern, not to let me into their bedroom.  I cannot fathom why anyone would be so very interested in what a wo/man is doing with their privates, Republican or Democrat.

National News / Re: For all those Naysayers Supporting Obama
« on: May 30, 2011, 03:32:34 PM »
but there are far too many that believe the gov't will take care of them, stiff. The anti gun nits will not stop their attack on gun ownership. many members of congress want them banned and make no secret of their agenda(feinstein,schumer).   

I'd like specific quotes from Schumer and Feinstein regarding what you mention.  In fact, in looking through both their voting records and backing statements, I see nothing from either of them saying they'd like to keep guns out of the homes and hands of EVERY American.  I see nothing that restricts your right to own a gun within these statements.  Unless, of course, you're saying that you being subject to a background check at a gun show restricts your rights.  Or that you not being able to traffic guns  illegally across state lines restricts your rights.  Hell, I even note that Schumer voted FOR Vitter's amendment that would provide no funding to the UN or countries that restricted our gun rights or insisted upon taxing Americans guns.

It's about a smart policy.  If you're a law abiding citizen who enjoys gun usage in recreation and hunting situations, you're not overly concerned with a ban on assault rifles or a law requiring you to register your fire arms.  Instead, you're just a paranoid American with a ludicrous fear that the evil government wants your guns because they just love to piss on your rights.  That fear is just not based in reality.

National News / Re: For all those Naysayers Supporting Obama
« on: May 29, 2011, 08:04:00 PM »
so it's not ok to  have convicts crowded in the prisons, but it is ok to disarm the ones that may have to defend themselves against criminals released because they were over crowded? what did they do to get to prison? who's rights did they violate that got them in prison? I don't care if they are packed in like sardines. maybe they will learn from the experience. and if not, a lawfully armed citizen will teach them.

Dude, this is what I'm talking about.  I just said (had you read) that I agreed with every bit of an American's right to own and use a weapon, lawfully on both counts.  But what you've added here is that THAT right given to us by the Constitution is great and awesome and HELL YEAH, GIVE ME MY GUN! but yet you go on to say that the right to not suffer what the Supreme Court deems cruel and unusual punishment is basically second to your right to own a damn gun.

This doesn't jive.  Either you love the Constitution and you defend EVERY LAST SHRED OF IT the same or you scrap the whole thing.  This isn't the Bible and you're not Jerry Falwell -- you don't get to pick and choose which pieces you like and then ignore the ones you don't for your own argument.

National News / Re: For all those Naysayers Supporting Obama
« on: May 29, 2011, 06:20:06 PM »
It is not fear mongering.  FACT" Obama did utter hose words to his buddies at the Brady bunch.  FACT Obama has neve voted against a gun control bill in his short songressional life.  Never found  one he disliked.  His history speaks for itself.  He is hoping for the 2d term so he can implement some of this ludicrous and illegal agenda.  some here can't see the forest for the trees.  I would feel sorry for you, but  you bring it on yourself.  Go hug a tree or something.

That's the most mature argument in a debate I've ever heard: "Go hug a tree."  Nice.

National News / Re: For all those Naysayers Supporting Obama
« on: May 29, 2011, 02:29:15 PM »
Historically, it's not required that you do homework before spewing vast generalizations and citing a fakenews story here. Just grab some coffee and watch the show, at least it's entertaining.

In all honesty, I should learn to take that "sit back and be entertained" advice.  :)

National News / Re: For all those Naysayers Supporting Obama
« on: May 29, 2011, 02:10:04 PM »
Pardon me.  This:

"...violating the 8th Amendment, but that's fine, JUST TAKE MY GUNS!" should have obviously read "...just DON'T take my guns!".

National News / Re: For all those Naysayers Supporting Obama
« on: May 29, 2011, 02:08:36 PM »
and california is planning to release 40,000 prison inmates in the next two years to ease overcrowding. where will they go? will other states follow suit?

it is a choice to be armed, for self defense. if you want to put your trust in nobama, make sure your next of kin know.

So wait.  It's important to you that the government not take Americans guns (which, by the way, is just more of that fear mongering I mentioned and is not based in reality) but it's okay to you that prisoners in California's Constitutional rights are violated daily?  The Supreme Court rules that overcrowding is causing cruel and unusual punishment and it's violating the 8th Amendment, but that's fine, JUST TAKE MY GUNS!

Seriously, if you're gonna be a Tea-Partyin', Fox News groupie, you can't just pick which constitutional amendments you like and push for those, get on a message board and rail on the government for taking your guns, and then in the same breath rail on the government for protecting a Constitutional right for someone else.  Just shows how insane your argument is.

Further, have you looked at data concerning California's prisons?  You're not reading the Supreme Court decision properly -- actually, only about 33,000 prisoners will be either released OR sent to other jurisdictions.  And if you've looked at the number of prisoners incarcerated under the Three Strikes Law for non-violent offenses...well.  California arrests heads at an alarming rate.  Maybe this will help to show that that's just ignorant and something no state can truly afford to do.

I agree, it is every Americans right to own a gun provided they can obtain one legally and I don't have a problem with that.  I support that right whole-heartedly but I suppose I'm one of the few that supports EVERY right given to us in the Constitution.

National News / Re: For all those Naysayers Supporting Obama
« on: May 29, 2011, 01:39:09 PM »
I just don't believe you folks that won't pay attention to what is happening to our country. Eather you are serious gun controle freaks or stupid. I don't know. I do know our government is going under the so called radar to limit our rights. Like it or not it is happening now. Don't pull the dam rug over your head and say Baaaaaa. The next thing they go after might be something closer to your likings. Who told Brady's wife that we were working on gun control under the radar. Liston to what the man is saying. If that's what you really want, hope you like the 30 plus min. wait for a deputy to stop the guy breaking into your home. The phone or internet won't be much help when you are alone with a dam dirt bad trying to get your stuff.

I just don't believe that you folks will listen to every bit of fear mongering tripe Fox News throws out.  I just can't believe that you folks would take people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh seriously, and not only that, let them inform your world view.

National News / Re: For all those Naysayers Supporting Obama
« on: May 29, 2011, 03:03:39 AM »
He wants stronger gun control which means control of the serfs.  Under the radar mean anything to you?  That means people (the majority) are not going to go along with his socialization program.  All that needs to be done is to enforce the unconstitutional laws already on the books.  And he is practicing plausible deniability regarding the gun runner scandal.  His administration is responsible for guns going to Mexico, NOT the citizens of the country, unless you count official government agencies as citizens.  And I guess CRAP websites are those which disagree with the socialist and obama agenda.  one in the same.
Gun control

I'm sorry but...

HA!  HA HA HA HA HA!  I can't be the only one that finds your paranoid rants just hilarious.  Thanks for that laugh, never gets old...

City Government Opinion / Re: Speeding Cops?
« on: May 25, 2011, 12:04:03 AM »
Busy, thank you for this.  This happens so frequently in Richland and honestly, I'll be the first to lambast someone for driving with a cell phone out (seriously, it drives me insane to see that!) but you did what was necessary.  I really do not believe this was a stealth situation -- after all, how many of those is an officer responding to on any given day anyway.  And apparently, this is a PATTERN of behavior. 

I'm just about the worst person to be in a car with because I refuse to speed and I'm a total freak when it comes to obeying traffic laws.  But really, who's around to pull this guy over when you and I could be getting tickets for minor infractions so the city can rake in some dough?  Here's this guy, obviously breaking the law and getting away scott free while we all know, he'll be pulling over and ticketing someone throughout the course of his day for the very same thing.  Ridiculous.

I met with this dude not too long ago for a consultation on a tat and I tell you what, I've never been more put off by a so-called artist.  He was pretentious, rude, and then he proceeded to ramble for an hour after we repeatedly tried to get out the door about his method.  Ugh.

We went in for tattoos of a signature, one that belonged to my great-grandfather and the signature he used on his first document after immigrating here from Germany, and he basically said he wouldn't do it because people would know it was his work and think perhaps that he wrote like a man from Germany in 1910.  What?!  THEN he proceeded to attempt to badger us into adding scrolls and paper on fire to the signature because that would look less stupid in his opinion.

In short, we happily took our business elsewhere, supported another artist in the area, and both ended up MORE than happy with our tats.  Dude's a jerk.

National News / Re: Rest in hell, Osama...
« on: May 05, 2011, 01:36:39 AM »
You Obama bashers are the funniest people on the planet. The man could solve the problems of the world and you still bitch like little kids who didn’t get their way.  Marsnot now you are whining about a war. You know damn good well if it came out the Obama didn’t go after him then you would whine that Obama was a coward and didn’t do anything. Do really think it would have been different had Bush done this? And, yes he gets the credit as the president he gave the order. He could have said no since Pakistan is “suppose” to be an ally. Tpgunbiz they are not going to show the photos. I guess they haven’t heard you don’t believe that he is dead. Even if they showed the photos the conspiracy theorists would not believe them anyway, so screw them. Let’s not piss off Muslims instead is a good idea. We still men and women over there; this doesn’t make them safer but needed done.
Didn’t hear any of you bitching about Bush’s Mission Accomplished and yet here we are in 2011 stilling fighting two wars. So we may get another attack, we have been living that since 2001. If Bin Laden is alive let him make a video.  What is bad is that death (other than it makes us feel better) really accomplished nothing. 
I don’t think Obama is God which you Obama haters like to say but the man deserve credit where credit is due.  Oh, and I bet we find Gitmo didn’t have a whole lot to do with it.  In closing, all you Obama bashers please keep it you are better than anything on Comedy Central. I had fun writing this. Thanks again for the laugh.


And fish, really?  Obama waited because he wanted to let bin Laden get away?  Hilarious.  I'm really starting to believe you don't understand intelligent restraint, especially when the lives of our servicemen/women are in danger.  Turned out his restraint got the job done so what's the issue?

National News / Re: Rest in hell, Osama...
« on: May 04, 2011, 08:14:23 PM »
nobama deserves credit for continuing W's policies and keeping gitmo open. a lot of info was gained from gitmo.

Obviously, you've not been reading the reports about how this information was attained.

National News / Re: Rest in hell, Osama...
« on: May 04, 2011, 03:26:09 PM »
Petersam, read the above idiocy and false propaganda.  While he is the CINC of all armed forces, he is not the team leader fot Team 6 or anyother elite team for that matter.  He had the general outlines of the mission.  Since he has no military background, he has no idea of military tactics or of what they face in combat.  Hope he gopt a shot of reality.

The point here is that this mission, the one that found and captured America's #1 enemy WITHOUT the loss of a single American life, would not have happened without the specific authorization of this President.  END OF STORY.

National News / Re: Rest in hell, Osama...
« on: May 04, 2011, 03:00:51 PM »
I already said let him take credit for it in an earlier post.  Just don't aggrandize or beatify him.  And let him take the blame when this country begins suffering the war here at home.

What in God's name are you talking about?

National News / Re: Rest in hell, Osama...
« on: May 03, 2011, 08:56:33 PM »
The problem is the vaccilation by the administration.  Again, political correctness prevents them from showing the photo or film of the body.  They are afraid they will offend someone.  Like Muslims.  As I said, they are already offended and will likely bring the war to this country anyway.  I see no harm in showing us the rest of the story.  IN the meantime, I do believe he is dead

It's not "vacillation by the administration", matrsnot.  (I'm pretty sure you're using that word in a way which you don't mean, too.)  It is respect for the dead, something a great country should have for all others, including our greatest enemies.  It proves we are better than them.  Furthermore, your statement that the administration wishes to offend no one just like Muslims is really just a thinly veiled attempt at lumping Obama in which that group, something you've grown very good at these past couple years. 

I, for one, prefer my country to be one that is able to rise above the hatred and filth, to bury a man that is hated by every red-blooded American in a decent way despite his actions.  It's not about honoring BIN LADEN in his death, it's about honoring the memory of those that he had a hand in killing either through his terrorism or the wars we've waged, by not stooping to his level.

Hi, it is about a man who absolutely DETESTS this country.  He bankrupted the country and is now going about doing it to us individually.  Love the SOB all  yo uwant.  Just don't sing his praises to me.  I am not one of those foolish enough to drink the kool aid.  Additionally, I asked for proof in the past.  Why did this sob wait two years after he was elected by foolish young people?  He never stopped campaigning and this is just another campaign tool for him.  I did not say he was not a citizen.  I did say he needs to produce the long form.  After all, we have to juet to get "registerred" so we can get a driver's license.  What makes him so damn special?  The campaigner in chief needs to go on about some other business and stop with the wilfull destruction of our country.

1.  I have a hard time hearing anything you say if you cannot take a second to calm down, breathe, and spell a word properly.

And 2. The first form he gave IS what is used for a driver's license in Hawaii.  The long form released today is actually archival -- it is not required for a passport or any other official request for a government issued ID.  And I speculate he waited two years to release EVEN MORE PROOF because it's an f'ing ridiculous request in the first place.  Why were you not satisfied with the first certificate he issued?  I counter the loonies in this country "need to go about some other business" and let the President get down to running the country...

You have obviously so blinded yourself with your hatred of a man and a party that you can't even see how stupid this issue is.  You claiming that I've "drank the kool aid" is no different than me saying you hate the man because he's black and you're racist.  It's ludicrous. 

this was released a few days ago and not by the Whitehouse.

What?  This was released THIS morning.  There are letters from the the President's lawyer, Loretta Fuddy (Hawaii's director of health), and the President detailing the process that was went through to obtain the certificate.  The President spent personal money to send an aide to Hawaii on a flight to pick up two copies.  Seriously?  HOW CAN YOU STILL BE DENYING THIS?!

This is a great test re: the sanity/insanity of those that have questioned this for years, you and fish included.  If ACTUAL FACTS mattered, you'd have relinquished fighting so hard against truth and just admitted that you had been wrong.  You'd move on to any one of the million other conspiracy theories you insist are true everyday.  Instead, you've proven it's not about that.  It's about finding ANYTHING to demonize someone of a party other than your own.  And I thought those convinced Bush orchestrated 9/11 were insane...

And PS -- Trump?  Really?

Good Lord...

Thought this might be of interest to some conspiracy theorists that frequent the boards here.

I eagerly await the "Yeah but, HE'S COULD STILL BE A MUSLIM SOCIALIST TERRORIST!" responses...

Business Opinion / Re: Interest in eBay consignment?
« on: March 31, 2011, 11:50:55 AM »
Hey carpenter...

I'd rather not say where I work, given that I still work there -- take that for what it is :).  It's actually not an issue with job happiness/unhappiness, this is just something we've had on our plates for a while as an option and something I'm able to support for a few months right now without any job income so I figured maybe now is the time.

I actually performed quite a few perfunctory searches through the Trading Assistant program but only came up with one seller in a 50 mile radius, someone in Dixon selling used clothing.  This will not be my focus so I'm not taking anyone's business (which, believe it or not, is a concern) and I'm not facing direct competition with that.

As for overhead, I'm in a pretty lucky position.  I've got an incredibly nice building lined up with very low rent for the time being, until we can figure out if this will fly.  If it doesn't I'm out of there scott-free.  I'll have very low start-up costs considering I have all of the equipment needed from when I did this years ago.  I'm seriously looking at about $600/month overhead and as summer's approaching, I can meet that by scouring yard sales/thrift stores/whatnot and making my own income from selling until I can get the word out if necessary.

Anyway, thanks for the input!  Information from other seller's is certainly helpful :).

Business Opinion / Re: Interest in eBay consignment?
« on: March 30, 2011, 05:38:42 PM »
Thanks for the input!

Without getting into too much detail, I should note that I currently do this for a business here in town.  We've done well and I'm constantly asked to do this in my spare time.  Aside from that, I'm willing to travel within reason to evaluate items in someone's home so maybe that will alleviate the issue you mentioned?

Anywho, thanks again for the thoughts :).

Business Opinion / Interest in eBay consignment?
« on: March 30, 2011, 04:48:24 PM »
Hi all...

I'm looking for some opinion here.  I'm trying to gauge interest from locals in an eBay consignment business -- I'd like to open one and currently have to funds to pull this off for the time being.  The storefront (I will not be doing this out of my home) will be located in downtown Richland and I do have years of positive feedback/experience with selling online. 

With the economy like it is, it seems to me that something like this would go over well around here, especially with the older population that isn't technically saavy but I'd like other opinions if anyone has one.

Thanks in advance!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 »