http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/bu...08walmart.html

September 8, 2006

Wal-Mart Finds an Ally in Conservatives

By MICHAEL BARBARO and STEPHANIE STROM

"As Wal-Mart Stores struggles to rebut criticism from unions and Democratic
leaders, the company has discovered a reliable ally: prominent conservative
research groups like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage
Foundation and the Manhattan Institute.

Top policy analysts at these groups have written newspaper opinion pieces
around the country supporting Wal-Mart, defended the company in interviews
with reporters and testified on its behalf before government committees in
Washington.

But the groups - and their employees - have consistently failed to disclose
a tie to the giant discount retailer: financing from the Walton Family
Foundation, which is run by the Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's three
children, who have a controlling stake in the company.

The groups said the donations from the foundation have no influence over
their research, which is deliberately kept separate from their fund-raising
activities. What's more, the pro-business philosophies of these groups often
dovetail with the interests of Wal-Mart.

But the financing, which totaled more than $2.5 million over the last six
years, according to data compiled by GuideStar, a research organization,
raises questions about what the research groups should disclose to newspaper
editors, reporters or government officials. The Walton Family Foundation
must disclose its annual donations in forms filed with the Internal Revenue
Service, but research groups are under no such obligation.

Companies and such groups have long courted one another - one seeking
influence, the other donations - and liberal policy groups receive
significant financing from unions and left-leaning organizations without
disclosing their financing.

But the Walton donations could prove risky for Wal-Mart, given its
escalating public relations campaign. The company's quiet outreach to
bloggers, beginning last year, touched off a debate about what online
writers should disclose to readers, and its financing to policy groups could
do the same.

Asked about the donations yesterday, Mona Williams, a spokeswoman for
Wal-Mart, said, "The fact is that editorial pages and prominent columnists
of all stripes write favorably about our company because they recognize the
value we provide to working families, the job opportunities we create and
the contributions we make to the community we serve."

At least five research and advocacy groups that have received Walton Family
Foundation donations are vocal advocates of the company.

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, for example,
has received more than $100,000 from the foundation in the last three years,
a fraction of the more than $24 million it raised in 2004 alone.

Richard Vedder, a visiting scholar at the institute, wrote an opinion
article for The Washington Times last month, extolling Wal-Mart's benefits
to the American economy. "There is enormous economic evidence that Wal-Mart
has helped poor and middle-class consumers, in fact more than anyone else,"
Mr. Vedder wrote in the article, which prominently identified his ties to
institute.

But neither Mr. Vedder nor the newspaper mentioned American Enterprise
Institute's financial links to the Waltons. Mr. Vedder, a professor at Ohio
University, said he might have disclosed the relationship had the American
Enterprise Institute told him of it. "I always assumed that A.E.I. had no
relationship or a modest, distant relationship with the company," said Mr.
Vedder, who has written a forthcoming book about the company. The book, he
said in an interview yesterday, would eventually contain a disclosure about
the Walton donations to the institute.

A spokesman for the Walton Family Foundation, Jay Allen, said there was no
organized campaign to build support for Wal-Mart among research groups. All
of the foundation's giving, he said, is directed toward a handful of
philanthropic issues, including school reform, the environment and the
economy in Northwest Arkansas, where Wal-Mart is based. "That is the spirit
and purpose of their giving," Mr. Allen said.

Mr. Allen said the foundation, which had assets of $608.7 million in 2004,
the last year for which data is available, has never asked the research
groups to disclose the donations because "the family leaves it up to the
individual organization to decide."

Those groups, for the most part, say they have decided not to share the
information with their analysts or the public.

For example, Sally C. Pipes, the president of the Pacific Research
Institute, a free-market policy advocate, has written several opinion
articles defending Wal-Mart in The Miami Herald and The San Francisco
Examiner.

A month after a federal judge in California certified a sex discrimination
lawsuit against the company as a class action in 2004, Ms. Pipes wrote an
article in The Examiner criticizing the lawyers and the women behind the
suit. "The case against Wal-Mart," she wrote, "follows the standard feminist
stereotype of women as victims, men as villains and large corporations as
inherently evil."

The article did not disclose that the Walton Family Foundation gave Pacific
Research $175,000 from 1999 to 2004. Ms. Pipes was aware of the
contributions, but said the money was earmarked for an education reform
project and did not influence her thinking about the lawsuit. Asked why she
typically did not disclose the donations to newspapers, she said: "It never
occurs to me to put that out front unless I am asked. If newspapers ask, I
am completely open about it."

The lack of disclosure highlights the absence of a consistent policy at the
nation's newspapers about whether contributors must tell editors of
potential conflicts of interest.

Juan M. Vasquez, the deputy editorial page editor of The Miami Herald, which
ran an opinion article praising Wal-Mart by Ms. Pipes of Pacific Research,
said his staff researches organizations that write opinion articles,
including their financing. But that does not always require asking if the
organization has received money from the subject of an article, he said.

The New York Times has a policy of asking outside contributors to disclose
any potential conflicts of interest, including the financing for research
groups.

Several of the research groups noted that their mission is to be an advocate
for free market policies and less government intrusion in business. "Those
aims are pro-business, so it's not surprising that companies would be
supporters of our work," said Khristine Brookes, a spokeswoman for the
Heritage Foundation.

Last year, for instance, The Baltimore Sun published an op-ed article by Tim
Kane, a research fellow at Heritage, in which he criticized Maryland's
efforts to require Wal-Mart to spend more on health care. He objected to the
move on the grounds that it was undue government interference in the free
market, a traditional concern of Heritage.

"The existence of Wal-Mart dented the rise in overall inflation so much that
Jerry Hausman, an economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
is calling on the federal government to change the way it measures prices,"
Mr. Kane wrote. "Translation: Wal-Mart is fighting poverty faster than
government accountants can keep track."

Ms. Brookes pointed out that the $20,000 Heritage has received from the
Walton Family Foundation since 2000 amounts to less than 1 percent of its
$40 million budget.

Ms. Brookes said it was unlikely that researchers and analysts at Heritage
were even aware of the foundation's contributions. "Nobody here would know
that unless they walked upstairs and asked someone in development," she
said. "It's just never discussed."

She said Heritage did not accept money for specific research. "The money
from the Walton Family Foundation has always been earmarked for our general
operations," she said. "They've never given us any funds saying do this
paper or that paper."

A spokeswoman for the American Enterprise Institute said the group did not
comment on its donors. The group's focus on Wal-Mart has been notable. In
June, the editor in chief then of the group's magazine, The American
Enterprise, wrote a long essay defending Wal-Mart against critics. The
editor, Karl Zinsmeister, now the chief domestic policy adviser at the White
House, said the campaign against the company was "run by a clutch of
political hacks."

Conservative groups are not the only ones weighing in on the Wal-Mart
debate. Ms. Williams of Wal-Mart noted labor unions have financed
organizations that have been critical of Wal-Mart, like the Economic Policy
Institute, which received $2.5 million from unions in 2005.

In response, Chris Kofinis, communications director for WakeUpWalmart.com,
an arm of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union that gives money to
liberal research groups, said: "While we openly support the mission of
economic justice, Wal-Mart and the Waltons put on a smiley face, hide the
truth, all while supporting right-wing causes who are paid to defend
Wal-Mart's exploitative practices."

The lack of a clear quid pro quo between research groups and corporations
like Wal-Mart makes the issue murky, said Diana Aviv, chief executive of the
Independent Sector, a trade organization representing nonprofits and
foundations. "I don't know how one proves what's the chicken and what's the
egg," she said.

Last year, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a research
and watchdog group, published a report, "The Waltons and Wal-Mart:
Self-Interested Philanthropy," that warned of the potential influence their
vast wealth gives them.

But Rick Cohen, executive director of the group, said he was more concerned
about the role the Walton foundation's money might play in shaping public
policy in areas like public education, where it has supported charter
schools and voucher systems.

"These are certainly not organizations created and controlled by the
corporation or the family and promoted as somehow authentic when they aren'
t," Mr. Cohen said. "More important, I think, is the disclosure of the
funding in whatever's written, a sort of disclaimer."

</>

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
message ink.net...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/bu...08walmart.html
>
> September 8, 2006
>
> Wal-Mart Finds an Ally in Conservatives

Interesting story, but it's no more disgusting than any of the other
sleeping arrangements made between business, religion and politics. Witness,
for instance, the FDA dragging its feet in the approval process for the
morning-after pill, at the behest of the retard in the White House and his
gang of fundamentalist financial supporters.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> Interesting story, but it's no more disgusting than any of the other
> sleeping arrangements made between business, religion and politics. Witness,
> for instance, the FDA dragging its feet in the approval process for the
> morning-after pill, at the behest of the retard in the White House and his
> gang of fundamentalist financial supporters.

i suppose special effects artist kerry could do a better job

makes no sense why poeple bash the pres

git up thar and do it yerself

otherwise don't vote him in?

don't like the way voting went? then lobby

can't lobby? then do somethin in yer neck of tha woods

didn't do none of that? then stfu

if we would teach our daughters morality we wouldn't need a morning
after pill now would we

if mary jane rotten crotch would shut her knees we wouldn't need no
birth control now would we

our problem is not a bush problem our problem is a morality problem

WE WANT WHAT WE WANT WE DON'T CARE IF IT HAIR-LIPS THE POPE WE'RE GOING
TO DO WHAT WE WANT

there's your answer....

all this free love, make love (disease) not war

pfft
it was a free for all..

don't get me started

wake up son we're living in babylon

IF YOU WANT IT, HERE IT IS.. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD

"sosessyithurts" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> Interesting story, but it's no more disgusting than any of the other
>> sleeping arrangements made between business, religion and politics.
>> Witness,
>> for instance, the FDA dragging its feet in the approval process for the
>> morning-after pill, at the behest of the retard in the White House and
>> his
>> gang of fundamentalist financial supporters.
>
> i suppose special effects artist kerry could do a better job
>
> makes no sense why poeple bash the pres
>
> git up thar and do it yerself
>
> otherwise don't vote him in?
>
> don't like the way voting went? then lobby
>
> can't lobby? then do somethin in yer neck of tha woods
>
> didn't do none of that? then stfu
>
> if we would teach our daughters morality we wouldn't need a morning
> after pill now would we
>
> if mary jane rotten crotch would shut her knees we wouldn't need no
> birth control now would we
>
> our problem is not a bush problem our problem is a morality problem
>
> WE WANT WHAT WE WANT WE DON'T CARE IF IT HAIR-LIPS THE POPE WE'RE GOING
> TO DO WHAT WE WANT
>
> there's your answer....
>
> all this free love, make love (disease) not war
>
> pfft
> it was a free for all..
>
> don't get me started
>
> wake up son we're living in babylon
>
> IF YOU WANT IT, HERE IT IS.. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD
>

What the phuque are you talking about???

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> What the phuque are you talking about???

I apolgize Joe, that was ugly and ungentlemanly of me

Im ashamed.

I guess I owe you a forgiveness, if you let this go

having said that, I was angry and overwhelmed with the idea that anyone
would actually believe that the president runs this country, he does
not.

"sosessyithurts" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> What the phuque are you talking about???
>
> I apolgize Joe, that was ugly and ungentlemanly of me
>
> Im ashamed.
>
> I guess I owe you a forgiveness, if you let this go
>
> having said that, I was angry and overwhelmed with the idea that anyone
> would actually believe that the president runs this country, he does
> not.
>

This president is a hideous manager, so he does NOT run this country.
However, he *does* allow people with simple, but evil ideas to worm they way
into agencies where they have no business having any influence. Religious
fanatics have no business influencing the FDA.

In article .com>,
says...

> having said that, I was angry and overwhelmed with the idea that anyone
> would actually believe that the president runs this country, he does
> not.
>

He does not "run this country" in the sense of being directly in charge
of all the details, but in a very real sense he does. Only the Pres can
order troops overseas. Perhaps more important, Bush has been responsible
- intentionally or not - for appointing the most astounding gaggle of
incompetent boobies and crooks to hundreds of positions of real
responsibility. The country and the world has suffered terribly for it.
We are less secure than before, 2500+ troops are dead and many more
crippled for life, the debt is horrible, civil liberties are eroded, the
rich and corporations rake in billions while the poor and middle class
slip downward, and our standing in the world community is at an all time
low. And there are still some morons who support this administration.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

In article .com>,
says...

> i suppose special effects artist kerry could do a better job
>

Donald Duck could do a better job.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

"Peter A" > wrote in message

snip>


> Donald Duck could do a better job.
>
> --
> Peter Aitken
> Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm



Do you remember the Warner Brother's "Pinky and the Brain".......do they
sorta make you think of Bush and Cheney?
-ginny

There used to be a website called www.walmartsucks.com but it has been
discontinued. Apparently from what I was told, it the web page provider (or
whatever they are called) was threatened by Walmart (or someother entity
nudge nudge) with a lawsuit for using the word 'Walmart' without their
permission. What the upshot was, at the local store level at the 'store
meetings' the person officiating at the meeting (usually store manager or
and ass't) it was said that 'if you have information on any of your
associates posting anything on 'walmartsucks.com' you may let us know
without fear of retribution'. It was generally known when I worked there,
that if it were found out that you posted, you could be "coached for
improvement".....The company encouraged the employees to turn in each other,
contacted local politicos (usually GOP) who would 'play ball' as to the
unions that supported their opponents and if they knew of the union
membership lists (heaven help the WM employee who had a relative who
belonged to a union).....This doesn't surprise me in the least.....I am sure
Walmart is one of the sponsors who signed on to the piece of imagination
that ABC is planning to run Sunday night.
-ginny

BTW www.walmartsucks.com did shut down, but reopened as
www.wallyworldsucks.com
They haven't trademarked 'wallyworld' YET.

Ginny wrote:

> I am sure Walmart is one of the sponsors who signed on to the piece of
> imagination that ABC is planning to run Sunday night.

Monday Night Football is FAKE?

Bob

On 8 Sep 2006 22:48:01 -0500, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>Ginny wrote:
>
>> I am sure Walmart is one of the sponsors who signed on to the piece of
>> imagination that ABC is planning to run Sunday night.
>
>Monday Night Football is FAKE?

It is if they show it on Sunday night ....

Damsel caught me in a senior moment:

>>> I am sure Walmart is one of the sponsors who signed on to the piece of
>>> imagination that ABC is planning to run Sunday night.
>>
>> Monday Night Football is FAKE?
>
> It is if they show it on Sunday night ....


LOL... after all that time I spent checking to make sure that ABC owned
ESPN, I get tripped up in something like that.

Doesn't ABC show Desperate Housewives on Sunday night?

Bob (clueless about most TV)

On 9 Sep 2006 01:20:02 -0500, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>Damsel caught me in a senior moment:
>
>>>> I am sure Walmart is one of the sponsors who signed on to the piece of
>>>> imagination that ABC is planning to run Sunday night.
>>>
>>> Monday Night Football is FAKE?
>>
>> It is if they show it on Sunday night ....
>
>LOL... after all that time I spent checking to make sure that ABC owned
>ESPN, I get tripped up in something like that.

Always glad to be of service ...

Bob Terwilliger > wrote:
>Ginny wrote:
>
>> I am sure Walmart is one of the sponsors who signed on to the piece of
>> imagination that ABC is planning to run Sunday night.
>
>Monday Night Football is FAKE?

Worse. Monday Night Football is history.

What they're showing at that time on ESPN is not the same show.

--Blair

"Virginia Tadrzynski" > wrote in message
...
> I am sure
> Walmart is one of the sponsors who signed on to the piece of imagination
> that ABC is planning to run Sunday night.

And Monday night (9/11)...

Mary--as if I need another reason to boycott WM

No matter what anyone has written, and no matter what their political
views, IMHO Walmart, weighing all the goods vs all the bads, has been
good for America. True, many small places have suffered, true they
haven't played by all the 'union rules', but their effect on America's
economy and their effect on the economic growth of our nation has been
unmatched in our Nation's history. I say three cheers for Walmart!

In article >,
Jim Davis > wrote:

> No matter what anyone has written, and no matter what their political
> views, IMHO Walmart, weighing all the goods vs all the bads, has been
> good for America. True, many small places have suffered, true they
> haven't played by all the 'union rules', but their effect on America's
> economy and their effect on the economic growth of our nation has been
> unmatched in our Nation's history. I say three cheers for Walmart!

Really? How do you know this to be true? Do you have data to support
your claim? I am not attempting to claim you are wrong, only asking you
to support your claim with verifiable evidence.

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> Jim Davis > wrote:
>
> > No matter what anyone has written, and no matter what their political
> > views, IMHO Walmart, weighing all the goods vs all the bads, has been
> > good for America. True, many small places have suffered, true they
> > haven't played by all the 'union rules', but their effect on America's
> > economy and their effect on the economic growth of our nation has been
> > unmatched in our Nation's history. I say three cheers for Walmart!
>
> Really? How do you know this to be true? Do you have data to support
> your claim? I am not attempting to claim you are wrong, only asking you
> to support your claim with verifiable evidence.
>

Good point. Particularly when even Walmart suppliers are starting to
back away and say enough is enough. Walmart has managed to cut the
profitability of manufacturers to the bone.

Because of the sheer scale of Walmart, they can dictate whatever they
want. That's bad for America.

"T" > wrote in message
> Good point. Particularly when even Walmart suppliers are starting to
> back away and say enough is enough. Walmart has managed to cut the
> profitability of manufacturers to the bone.
>
> Because of the sheer scale of Walmart, they can dictate whatever they
> want. That's bad for America.

Not the fault of WalMart. These companies have the ability to say "NO", but
they don't. A few are finally realizing that Wal Mart is not a good
customer for them and scale back and become profitable. Greed is the
motivator. Executives figure the high volume, even at a low price, will
make them bigger and make them money. It does not always work that way.

My company has walked away from a couple of major accounts in the past five
years. One was $2 million, the other was just over $1 million. We are more
profitable for it. These were major corporations that used tactics like Wal
Mart. We chose not to participate.

In article > ,
says...
>
> "T" > wrote in message
> > Good point. Particularly when even Walmart suppliers are starting to
> > back away and say enough is enough. Walmart has managed to cut the
> > profitability of manufacturers to the bone.
> >
> > Because of the sheer scale of Walmart, they can dictate whatever they
> > want. That's bad for America.
>
> Not the fault of WalMart. These companies have the ability to say "NO", but
> they don't. A few are finally realizing that Wal Mart is not a good
> customer for them and scale back and become profitable. Greed is the
> motivator. Executives figure the high volume, even at a low price, will
> make them bigger and make them money. It does not always work that way.
>
> My company has walked away from a couple of major accounts in the past five
> years. One was $2 million, the other was just over $1 million. We are more
> profitable for it. These were major corporations that used tactics like Wal
> Mart. We chose not to participate.

Well, indirectly it is. Had they not pushed the business that now find
themselves trapped wouldn't be in the position they're in.

Snapper is one company that managed to escape the clutches of Walmart.

In article >,
Jim Davis > wrote:

> No matter what anyone has written, and no matter what their political
> views, IMHO Walmart, weighing all the goods vs all the bads, has been
> good for America. True, many small places have suffered, true they
> haven't played by all the 'union rules', but their effect on America's
> economy and their effect on the economic growth of our nation has been
> unmatched in our Nation's history. I say three cheers for Walmart!

They certainly have given a meaning to international outsourcing. They
have done their part in changing the face of America. They are doing
their part in changing countries internationally too. I think the jury
will be out until history decides whether that is good or not. I'm no
judge.
I would disagree with your 'economic growth of our nation' statement.
Certainly, they contribute to world economic growth. I believe that they
have influenced our balance of payments negatively. Whether that means
anything, history will tell again. I'm no economist either.
Having said all that, I frequent them three to six times a year. I
appreciate what I perceive as a deal as much as anyone else.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

Jim Davis > wrote:
>No matter what anyone has written, and no matter what their political
>views, IMHO Walmart, weighing all the goods vs all the bads, has been
>good for America.

Well, you can't do the math.

Crappier and crappier products being offered at prices
that are too much for such crap isn't "good" for anyone,
especially when it kills real competition and eliminates
the cash-flow and income structures of entire towns.

>True, many small places have suffered, true they
>haven't played by all the 'union rules', but their effect on America's
>economy and their effect on the economic growth of our nation has been
>unmatched in our Nation's history.

They've done nothing for our economic growth.

They've done plenty for China's.

--Blair

Blair Pinhead. Houghton wrote:
> Jim Davis wrote:
> >No matter what anyone has written, and no matter what their political
> >views, IMHO Walmart, weighing all the goods vs all the bads, has been
> >good for America.
>
> Well, you can't do the math.
>
> Crappier and crappier products being offered

Bullshit... you mean the model 100A Sony TV at Walmart is different
from the model 100A Sony TV at say Macy's? Walmart sells the same
brand names as all the other stores... I'm sure the Gilette blades and
Colgate toothpaste I buy from Walmart are identical to those sold at
the chain stupidmarkets and all other stores, but why should I pay 20%
more?!?!? The same is true of most everything else Walmart sells, all
national brand name suff, the exact same quality as sold everywhere
else, but Walmart sells for less, sometimes only a few pennies less but
less nevertheless. Sure Walmart sells crappola products too, but so
does every other retailer... um, don't buy those and quit yer
bitchin'... so why does your LOW IQ dumb ass buy those $6 Pakistani tee
shirts and then bitch how they suck... wouldn't matter what store you
bought those schmatahs from and they're sold all over, you moron! Even
shops like Bergdoff Goodman and Nieman Marcus sell crap products, and
at very expensive prices.... wake up, dumb cluck. Hey, you can buy a
garbage PC desk at Walmart, exactly the same particle board garbage as
they sell at Staples, Awfuss Max, etal.... but Walsmart sells that
garbage for less. If garbage is what you're after, why not... but if
you want to pay more for it by shopping other than Walmart than not
only are you dumb, you're also retarded.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> but if
> you want to pay more for it by shopping other than Walmart than not
> only are you dumb, you're also retarded.
>
> Sheldon
>

Have you compared prices of every single grocery item you buy at Wal Mart to
prices at regular supermarkets? Unless you have nothing but crappy
supermarkets to shop at, you'll find that they're cheaper for groceries than
WM. Not televisions. Groceries. Food.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote:
>
> > but if
> > you want to pay more for it by shopping other than Walmart than not
> > only are you dumb, you're also retarded.
>
> Have you compared prices of every single grocery item you buy at Wal Mart

Have you compared prices of every single item (grocery and otherwise)
you buy at stores other than Walsmart... you never heard the term
"price shopping"... normal brained folks don't buy everything at just
one store.... and I don't care how small a town you live in, you have a
PC! duh

I don't shop Walmart for food, their produce and meats I think are
inferior and their packaged/canned goods are the same price or higher
because they don't run sales or take coupons... only food items I buy
there are cold cuts, I explained why in a previous post. But for
national brand non-food items they do seem to have the lowest prices
around. And Walsmart beats all the rest in gardening department
stuff... and they beat all the others for auto stuff, especially motor
oil. I bought a 6 ton floor jack at Walsmart for $89, NAPA had the
exact same one for $229. In fact it was the NAPA store in town that
told me to buy the jack at Walsmart... Walsmart had it in stock, NAPA
would have to special order it. And as for no-name crappola products
I simply don't buy those regardless where.

Sheldon

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
>
> Have you compared prices of every single grocery item you buy at Wal Mart
> to prices at regular supermarkets? Unless you have nothing but crappy
> supermarkets to shop at, you'll find that they're cheaper for groceries
> than WM. Not televisions. Groceries. Food.

It all depends. I was at a WalMart food store last Thursday. The only pork
they sell is the adulterated injected crap and I won't touch it. Breyers
ice cream was 3.48 compared to the 5.49 at Stop & Shop. Bananas were the
same. Bagels were cheaper, but not as good. I won't buy them again. Like
every other store, you have to be aware of prices, quality of goods, and buy
what suits your needs best.

Sheldon wrote:
>
> Blair Pinhead. Houghton wrote:
>> Jim Davis wrote:
>> >No matter what anyone has written, and no matter what their political
>> >views, IMHO Walmart, weighing all the goods vs all the bads, has been
>> >good for America.
>>
>> Well, you can't do the math.
>>
>> Crappier and crappier products being offered
>
> Bullshit... you mean the model 100A Sony TV at Walmart is different
> from the model 100A Sony TV at say Macy's? Walmart sells the same
> brand names as all the other stores... I'm sure the Gilette blades and
> Colgate toothpaste I buy from Walmart are identical to those sold at
> the chain stupidmarkets and all other stores, but why should I pay 20%
> more?!?!? The same is true of most everything else Walmart sells, all
> national brand name suff, the exact same quality as sold everywhere
> else, but Walmart sells for less, sometimes only a few pennies less but
> less nevertheless. Sure Walmart sells crappola products too, but so
> does every other retailer... um, don't buy those and quit yer
> bitchin'... so why does your LOW IQ dumb ass buy those $6 Pakistani tee
> shirts and then bitch how they suck... wouldn't matter what store you
> bought those schmatahs from and they're sold all over, you moron! Even
> shops like Bergdoff Goodman and Nieman Marcus sell crap products, and
> at very expensive prices.... wake up, dumb cluck. Hey, you can buy a
> garbage PC desk at Walmart, exactly the same particle board garbage as
> they sell at Staples, Awfuss Max, etal.... but Walsmart sells that
> garbage for less. If garbage is what you're after, why not... but if
> you want to pay more for it by shopping other than Walmart than not
> only are you dumb, you're also retarded.
>
> Sheldon
>

Walmart consistently has their manufacturers make similar, but cheaper models
of well known products. They play on peoples need for cheap price (like you)
and their blind faith in retail. Sure, Walmart sells a Sony tv and sure, the
picture on the box certainly looks the same and maybe you don't notice that
its a model 100Ai instead of just the model 100A.

Snapper mowers finally said 'no' to them
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...n_snapper.html

Sure, the toothpaste might be the same and it might be a bargain to you and
that's fine, but for any number of reasons I wouldn't shop there.

Plus, I don't know what your Walmarts are like but the ones here are filthy,
messy, poorly staffed and if you actually can find someone to ask for help
they are underinformed and surly.
--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
I thought I was driving by Gettysburg once but it ends up I was just driving
by your mom's house.

The Bubbo wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > Blair Pinhead. Houghton wrote:
> >> Jim Davis wrote:
> >> >No matter what anyone has written, and no matter what their political
> >> >views, IMHO Walmart, weighing all the goods vs all the bads, has been
> >> >good for America.
> >>
> >> Well, you can't do the math.
> >>
> >> Crappier and crappier products being offered
> >
> > Bullshit... you mean the model 100A Sony TV at Walmart is different
> > from the model 100A Sony TV at say Macy's? Walmart sells the same
> > brand names as all the other stores... I'm sure the Gilette blades and
> > Colgate toothpaste I buy from Walmart are identical to those sold at
> > the chain stupidmarkets and all other stores, but why should I pay 20%
> > more?!?!? The same is true of most everything else Walmart sells, all
> > national brand name suff, the exact same quality as sold everywhere
> > else, but Walmart sells for less, sometimes only a few pennies less but
> > less nevertheless. Sure Walmart sells crappola products too, but so
> > does every other retailer... um, don't buy those and quit yer
> > bitchin'... so why does your LOW IQ dumb ass buy those $6 Pakistani tee
> > shirts and then bitch how they suck... wouldn't matter what store you
> > bought those schmatahs from and they're sold all over, you moron! Even
> > shops like Bergdoff Goodman and Nieman Marcus sell crap products, and
> > at very expensive prices.... wake up, dumb cluck. Hey, you can buy a
> > garbage PC desk at Walmart, exactly the same particle board garbage as
> > they sell at Staples, Awfuss Max, etal.... but Walsmart sells that
> > garbage for less. If garbage is what you're after, why not... but if
> > you want to pay more for it by shopping other than Walmart than not
> > only are you dumb, you're also retarded.
> >
> > Sheldon
> >
>
> Walmart consistently has their manufacturers make similar, but cheaper models
> of well known products. They play on peoples need for cheap price (like you)
> and their blind faith in retail. Sure, Walmart sells a Sony tv and sure, the
> picture on the box certainly looks the same and maybe you don't notice that
> its a model 100Ai instead of just the model 100A.

Puh-lezzze... the name brand products are all exactly the same... if
you think Colgate stuffs inferior toothpaste into a tube or Sony goes
out of it's way to screw folks by sneaking in slightly inferior
products special for Walmart then you are severely delusional.... I
already know you're ignorant, pulezze lets not demonstrate your
retardedness.

And I don't buy everything at Walmart, same as I don't buy everything
at any one store... I'm not going to Walmart for shoes, I don't wear
plastic shoes. But if I needed some small kitchen appliance you can
bet your bippy Walmart is one of the first stores I will check

> Plus, I don't know what your Walmarts are like but the ones here are filthy,
> messy, poorly staffed and if you actually can find someone to ask for help
> they are underinformed and surly.

The Walmarts where I live in NY's Capitol District are super clean
(even the rest rooms), the staff is pleasant and helpful... you must
live in the South.

For the genre of store Walmart is it's as good as they come... Walmart
doesn't pretend to be Lord & Taylor, or Saks 5th Avenue, or even
Fortunoff.

Sheldon

Sheldon > wrote:
>
>Blair Pinhead. Houghton wrote:
>> Jim Davis wrote:
>> >No matter what anyone has written, and no matter what their political
>> >views, IMHO Walmart, weighing all the goods vs all the bads, has been
>> >good for America.
>>
>> Well, you can't do the math.
>>
>> Crappier and crappier products being offered
>
>Bullshit... you mean the model 100A Sony TV at Walmart is different
>from the model 100A Sony TV at say Macy's?

It may be.

Read around.

Wal-mart negotiates variations in brand-identified items all the time.

They will take things you think are the same as in any other
store and adulterate them, and you will only know it by reading
the ingredients list.

Did you check the entire list of specs on those two tv's?

I doubt it.

Wal-mart wins.

You lose.

You moron.

--Blair

> Blair P. Houghton > wrote:


> Wal-mart negotiates variations in brand-identified items all the time.

Plus they probably buy them from the manufacturers WITHOUT warrenty.

Lots of large companies look after warrenty claims themselves, and may
only have limited support from the actual manufacturer.

Jim Davis wrote:
> No matter what anyone has written, and no matter what their political
> views, IMHO Walmart, weighing all the goods vs all the bads, has been
> good for America. True, many small places have suffered, true they
> haven't played by all the 'union rules', but their effect on America's
> economy and their effect on the economic growth of our nation has been
> unmatched in our Nation's history. I say three cheers for Walmart!

I say you're a ****ing retard.

"projectile vomit chick" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Jim Davis wrote:
> > No matter what anyone has written, and no matter what their political
> > views, IMHO Walmart, weighing all the goods vs all the bads, has been
> > good for America. True, many small places have suffered, true they
> > haven't played by all the 'union rules', but their effect on America's
> > economy and their effect on the economic growth of our nation has been
> > unmatched in our Nation's history. I say three cheers for Walmart!
>
> I say you're a ****ing retard.
>
And here it is again, displaying its lack of wit and lackluster personality.
Ugh. I am embarrassed for you, Erectile.

Gregory Morrow > wrote:
>But the groups - and their employees - have consistently failed to disclose
>a tie to the giant discount retailer: financing from the Walton Family
>Foundation, which is run by the Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's three
>children, who have a controlling stake in the company.

This will be filed under "No Shit Sherlock."

Heritage, Cato, all of them, are owned by right-wing
plutocratic interests. Who else would be able to afford
to pay armies of intellectuals to produce biased essays
masquerading as "research" or, worse, "science."

--Blair