Muggs archive

▼

Thursday, April 5, 2007

Editorial: "Wal-Mart needs to play by the rules"

Duh. Waste of space.
at

6 comments:

  1. leftturnclydeApril 5, 2007 at 9:23 AM

    maybe the election results should be thrown out and walmart should be forced to use the 30 grand to banckroll the other side in the re elction...just a hopefull thought

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steven AyresApril 5, 2007 at 3:25 PM

    I dunno, man, a 67-33% loss is a pretty decisive result, and it's hard to make the case that the reporting failure affected anything.

    What I saw happening in that issue was that the residents of PV generally, particularly the neighborhoods that will be most affected by the new traffic, etc., sort of laid back and let the union take the lead. That made it easy for Wal-Mart to paint it as a special-interest issue, money or no money. Add in the convenient new access to cheap Chinese junk that the store will bring, and it was a slam-dunk.Everybody loves cheap Chinese junk.

    ReplyDelete
  3. leftturnclydeApril 5, 2007 at 5:58 PM

    actually I want "A" cheap chineese junk
    Vootie

    ReplyDelete
  4. leftturnclydeApril 5, 2007 at 5:59 PM

    Jeez I cant believe I spelled Chinese, Chineese
    Rubber mallet slams head
    ice pack applied

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousApril 5, 2007 at 11:37 PM

    there are two things that bug me about this editorial:

    1) "The results make it obvious that
    the people wanted the convenience of a Wal-Mart in Prescott Valley and voted accordingly."

    that MIGHT be A conclusion to reach from the results. another might be
    "throw enough money at an issue (and cheat if you think you can get away with it) and you can get people to vote any way you want".

    2) "It [Wal-Mart] won and it needs to make it clear that it won by the rules of the game."

    soooo ... the rules of the game include cheating and then paying the fine if you are caught? high moral standards indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steven AyresApril 6, 2007 at 12:11 AM

    Right, so the problem was not that Wal-Mart didn't report properly, rather that Wal-Mart was allowed to pour a practically unlimited amount of money into the process, so much that it lost track of its reporting obligations.

    So who was it thought that it was a good idea to give corporations the same rights as people? I wanna smack that guy.

    ReplyDelete

I encourage you to share your own views and experience with me and other readers. How you do that matters, and I'm committed to maintaining a place where readers and commenters can feel safe from adolescent BS. So here's the deal:

There are two kinds of anonymous comments: those by people who have a genuine fear of revenge from the dark side, and those from darksiders just hiding to avoid accountability. You may post comments anonymously, but I reserve the right to treat anonymous comments as found items that belong to me and do with them as I see fit.

If, on the other hand, you're willing to stand by your convictions and post under your own name or a regular handle, your comments belong to you, and I'll edit them only on egregious violations of respect for others.

If this doesn't work for you, I'm sure you'll be happier somewhere else.