Yet Another State Finds Wal-Mart Tops Medicaid Rolls

I hope our good senator John McCain will take on this issue.  Wal-Mart is the worst example of corporate welfare I ever heard.

One would think they would be a little bit embarrassed. I think a lot of other companies would. This Fogelman says there’s no way to tell whether WM applicants are telling the truth about their employment. That’s pathetic.

McCain can’t do a thing. He’s on the Wally’s payroll these days as well. Hey it makes x-mas shopping a little easier if you know what I mean. Fogelman needs to get a public rubber hose beating in front of every Wal-Mart in the great state of Arizona. Anyone can get in line and take a few whacks at old Fogey’s cabeza. Sadly, Wally-World would more than likely try to morph the beatings into some sort of sales event!!!!!

Good site, random find while looking to buy a new DVD player on Wal-Mart.

So you’ve made me look elsewhere which isn’t hard online.  But one question after surfing around this site for a few minutes - WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

Tell me an alternative, and I’m ready.  For tonight, my alternative is bestbuy.com.  And it’s the same price!!!

-bets

WM knows full well they can get away with this corporate welfare.  WM owns the Republican party who supports everything they do.

The only way things are going to change is if people were smart enough to wake up and not fall for the myth that WM has the best prices and simply not shop there. 

The result would be that WM would go out of business, which would be great!

Of course WM knows that 98% of the US is too dumb to see through their lies, so this will never happen.

As Bets in Charlotte, NC found out, bestbuy.com sells the item for the same price.

I am happy that this website exists,but it will not change people’s shopping habits regardless of how negative WM’s image becomes. 

People are just too dumb.

Bets in Charlotte---One place that’s been discussed here would be Costco. I would assume there’s one in your area as Charlotte is rather large. Average employee wages are
$17 according to recent NY Times article which is now on
our employee bulletin board at work. Good benefits etc.
there. CEO and founder has an annual salary of $350k and
says that it is obscene for CEO to make 200 or 300 times
of his employees. They compare (according to the article)
more to Sam’s Club. And Sam’s actually is in 2nd place to
them in profitability. Hope this is helpful.

Like Larry, I recommend Costco.  You could also try a local electronics dealer in your city.

The question you ask is a good one.  Finding alternatives is difficult.  But keep this in mind.  Almost anywhere is better than Wal-Mart.  Wal-Mart has made other retailers take the low road.

At one time Target provided better wages and health care, but they were forced to make cuts because of Wal-Mart’s low labor standards.

I cant believe you guys are recommending to Betz to start shopping at Costco as an alternative to Wal-Mart.  Costco in no way could replace Wal-Mart.  Wal-Mart and club consumers have different buying needs.  Costco sells in bulk, same as a Sams Club.

Shane,

Plenty of people shop at Costco for their everyday needs.  Yes, many of the sizes are large but they carry a range of electronic items.

Again, any option is better than Wal-Mart.  Fry’s and Good Guys are okay companies for electronics.  Any Kroger Supermarket is a good alternative for other needs.

I don’t understand why you guys talk about places like Kroger as if they were some mom & pop store.  They’re a big nationwide chain just like Wal-Mart.  And let’s face it, if you need to save money, there is no better option than Wal-Mart. 

How does “electronic items” fit into the “everyday needs” category?

Actually I have never heard of Kroger Supermarkets and there are none around here. So I don’t think they’re just like WM. In fact on another thread we were discussing Wegman’s
the Rochester NY based chain which is non union but pays very well and with good benefits and where the company mantra is the employee is more important than the customer.
They are good stores and are doing very well. They were cited last year by Fortune Magazine as the best company in
the USA to work for.
As far as my reccomendation of Costco the poster asked for an alternative and so I gave her one. I don’t see why you have a problem with that. I’m sure if someone wanted to send a package and didn’t want to go Postal Service you would have been more than happy to suggest UPS. Or am I
wrong?

Krogers is a nationwide chain, they might not have made it nationwide because they suck… but they’re definately a chain.

Yes after listening to you talk I would probably suggest FedEx, they’re non-union (I think?).  In fact I’m going to start paying all my bills online or via bank draft so I don’t have to contribute anything to the overpaid postal service employees.

Wegmans has like 70 stores… compared to Wal-Marts thousands.  They’re also probably upscale and charge a lot more.  Wal-Mart’s not in business for the upper class.

You’re not altogether right on Wegman’s. You go in one and it’ll seem upscale but their prices are as competitive as anyones. The one in Elmira is set in a poor neighborhood.

On FedEx. I don’t know if they’re union or not. I can tell you
the Postal Service pays them a bundle to deliver our express
mail. So you can pay more going to FedEx and have your mail fly on the same plane all the while that they’re getting a kickback from us. You might be surprised at some of the shenanigans that go on between mail delivery systems. For
example on the recent Harry Potter book Amazon and B & N
were paying UPS to deliver the book to Postal distribution centers in drop shipments for them to break down and route
them out to mail carriers all across the country. And I don’t
know about you but putting my job aside I always look forward to going down to my mailbox and seeing what’s inside.

Larry

Kroger is a nationwide chain. They are, in fact, the nation’s largest grocery chain (not counting Wal-Mart). They have over 2,000 stores nationwide and are a Fortune 25 company in terms of sales, though they lost more then $110 million last year. I can speak from experience. I sometimes shop Kroger’s very nice union store in Wheeling and I buy the bulk of what I need at Super Wal-Mart in Washington PA. I could go down the list forever but suffice it to say that Wal-mart is MUCH cheaper than Kroger. Kroger is more expensive than Giant Eagle, Shop N’ Save, Foodland and Riesebecks. Of course, Kroger is a union chain. Their workers are unfriendly and miserable and constantly muttering under their breath when they are not on strike. And Kroger has had to crack down on their union in recent years. Their workers in the Charleston WV area went out on strike a couple of years ago. When the strike was over, the workers came back on the company’s terms and found out that Kroger was closing several stores, cutting jobs. In 1983 or 1984, Kroger had more than 60 stores in western PA. The workers went out on strike and Kroger shut their operations and left Pennsylvania. They haven’t been back since. So, yes, Kroger is a nationwide chain. No they are not better or cheaper than Wal-Mart. No, they are not profitable.

Nick---I’m not saying it’s not a nationwide chain. There are none around here that I know of. By none I mean --zero.  Who knows in my travels I may have passed one or two sometime in the past. But I have absolutely no recollection of it. And until today couldn’t
have told you one thing about it. Sean mentioned Kroger’s--
Corey took it up--and I mentioned Wegman’s again. Wegman’s may seem small time to some but it seems anyhow they’ve caught the attention of Fortune magazine in
a very positive way. And having never been to a Kroger’s I’m not going to mention anything about their store or their
prices.

Larry is right, the first time I walked into a Wegmans I expected the prices to be outrageous, and I couldn’t have been more wrong. Not only do they sell quality merchandise, but the prices are much less than other supermarket chains in the area buy approximately 20%.

Wegman’s isn’t interested in catering to the upper classes as mentioned above. They cater to everyone. The one in Elmira
is set in Washington and Railroad Ave. area. At best you could call that area working class. It’s more working poor. It’s a big store at least for this area it’s as big as any grocery store. And it carries a large selection and a lot of variety. When they moved in they paid local homeowners way above market value for their properties and had hardly
any resistance.

I find it very odd that the unions, who have been the greatest supporter of Democratic welfare programs, decry the number of people who use those programs. After all, if welfare is such a wonderful thing (and I don’t believe it is), why should the union care about how many people are on it? If you support a program and you think it is a worthwhile program, why then would you feign concern when people use such a program? Can someone answer that for me?

Surely if welfare programs are necessary and worthwhile, we should encourage MORE people to be on them, as the Democrats have done for years. Unions like welfare because it means less people will be competing with them for jobs and contracts. Unions have a history of racial discrimination and have used the closed shop to keep minorities out of work.

With the current internal war going on in the AFL-CIO and the recent bill passed requiring all unions to open up their books, the death knell of unionism has been sounded. When the dust settles, government workers, who should not be allowed to join unions anyway, will be the only union workers left in America.

Just because unions have been around for 70 years does not mean they should always be around. After all, the Soviet Union stood for 70 years and then it crumbled. And the world is a better place for it, just like we will be better off when the “Unions” (like Soviet Union) cease to exist.

Welcome to the New World Order where we exchange our democracy for a corpocracy.

Welfare programs as I see them are meant as a social safety net not as a lifetime endowment. They were set up with the support and acquiesence of the Republican party as much as the Democrat despite the denials of the more right
wing demagogues. They are badly managed whether under the democrats or republicans. One also should look however
at the lack of oversight in regards to money going into the
military industrial complex, into corporate kinds of welfare,
including farming and ranching and agribusiness. The govt.
under either party dropped the ball a long time ago and neither shows any real interest in picking it up.

ON the breakup of the AFL-CIO. I don’t think you’ve been paying enough attention to this. In a NY Times Sunday magazine article about a year ago Andrew Stern head of SEIU outlined the whole scenario that has just gone down and the reasons for why it was going to. He sees Mr. Sweeney more or less as a defanged and declawed tiger that roars a lot and doesn’t scare anyone.  He wants more money into the grass roots and recruitment and less into political donations. That last part should make you happy. While other unions may have declined his at least (last that I knew) was growing.

The corpocratic world that you envision and this is only my opinion would seem to me to be ripe for a kind of totalitarianism more in keeping with your comparison to the old soviet union than the unions that you cite.

Larry

Believe it or not, you and I agree on many points. I think farm subsidies ($280 billion a year) foreign aid ($20 billion a year) and the Transportation Bill ($290 billion this year) are all a complete waste of money. I am firm believer in the Constitution Of The United States. You have to either believe in it or not; there is no compromise and there is no gray area. Meaning, you have all the rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution UNTIL you infringe upon the rights of another. Offending someone is not a violation of their rights. I also believe that our military budget is stuffed with waste, pork, fraud and other scams under different names. We spend $400+ billion a year on the military with the excuse “we are at war” given as justification. We have not increased the size of the military. We were already paying the soldiers before the war. We already had equipment bought and paid for before the war. How then can war increase our costs by tens of billions? It doesn’t add up. Mind you, I am a fan of President Bush but the problem is not so much with the elected politicians (though they are part of the problem). The problem is career government bureaucrats, lobbyists, and defense contractors in bed together. (Please do not include Halliburton, as they have lost billions of dollars over the last few years.) The military-industrial complex is corrupt and dangerous and Ike warned us about this in 1961.

Larry, I believe that the federal government has a Constitutional mandate to do a few things: national defense, regulation of currency, maintaining a federal court system and paying for the small bureaucracy necessary to fill and manage the three branches of government. That is it. The Constitution does not allow for the federal government to be involved in housing, education, welfare, urban development, subsidies, foreign aid, wasteful military spending, 1 million government employees, social security, medicare, medicaid and so on. The Constitution does not allow for these things. The federal government has stolen power from the states and the people and it is the Democrats who have encouraged this (think New Deal, Great Society, etc.) I am not saying that Republicans don’t share in the blame because they do. They are the party that started the whole idea of federal power over the states.

You cannot be a supporter of the federal government’s involvement in anything outside of its’ Contitutional parameters and call yourself a true American. Real Americans believe in the Constiution and in the wisdom of the founders. If the Founders wanted the government to redistribute wealth, they would have included it in the Constitution.

By the way, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Washington and others felt that the “general welfare” clause were the two most dangerous words in the Constitution. Representatives from small states pushed for the words and 208 years later, the small states have pulled the federal government into wealth redistibution. What a shame.

Oh I expect there are many things we’d agree on. I’m not
sure that too many of those that wrote it though consider the constitution as something biblical written in stone for all time.
For it to live and breathe it would have to make adjustments
here and there to the times. As humanity does. The original articles are the centerpiece. These people were for the most
part sharp people and I don’t think they meant to straitjacket future generations with a document that could never be amended.
The society we live in today is in many ways absolutely different from the society they lived in.
I am not a fan of Mr. Bush. I try to be fair. I dislike Clinton intensely also. I would include Haliburton in the military industrial complex. The attacks of 9-11 to me gave us the right to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice. This has not happened. We have a sideshow now. He won’t even place the expenditures for the sideshow in the budget.
This is not conservatism by the way in my definition. A con-servative will spend for something he can pay for. It is not a dirty word. Money should not go to foreign govts. nor defense contracts. Our military as you say is meant to be for a national defense. Not international offense. And it’s not meant for the UN to decide what to do with it. And it’s not supposed to be used by the President without the clear consent of congress.
My dad was a marine in WW2--his biggest battle was at Okinawa. Later on when he returned home to the job that his employer promised would be waiting for him--it wasn’t--it had been filled by another man around his age with a family who hadn’t gone. And that was that for that. He went back in for Korea. I was in the service too--but fortunately there were no wars for me. Apart from Washington the other 3 I don’t believe put their lives at risk. And so I’ll finish with this --those 11 men who died today in Iraq did so for the general welfare of the citizens of our country like others have done before them. Whether it’s right for us to be there is another question.

I shall post the thought one more time, for those who wish to hear - in the mid-term.

I’ll post a prior thought - that everything I read in grammar school, and middle school, and high school (having read on my own) - I still believe.

I’ll post - so those someday will read what I have read.

The mid-term - is Walmart’s true solution.  Walmart’s mid-term solution - is America’s solution - without cashing out as I saw banker’s doing when I worked in a bank - limo aside, as an intern.

Either that - or move to China - or wherever (I won’t bore you with my knowledge of geography).

Larry

The Founders wrote the Constitution in order to create a limited federal government controlled by the people, not vice-versa. The Bill Of Rights CANNOT be amended, reduced or eliminated. Laws contrary to the Bill Of Rights have no force. As to additional necessary laws, that is why we have Constitutional Conventions. If a few judges can decide the law, why have a Constitution? It is not the place of the courts to decide the law; the Founders were clear on this. Rather, the courts were to be a forum to settle disputes and to make certain that Constitutional principles were clearly applied. Sadly, only 2 of our current Supreme Court justices understand strict Constitutional wording. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas are the only 2 justices who deserve to be called that. The others make things up as they go along and they mock our Constitution. I am not saying it is set in stone, Larry. Again, the Founders left us with a way to amend the Constitution, as we have done many times. But none of the amendments can infringe upon the Bill Of Rights. That is a fact. The 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from interfering in the affairs of states and their citizens. Any powers not SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government by the Constitution are given by default to the states and/or their citizens.

Larry-do you have to take the new Constitution course required of all government employees? I find it ironic that this requirement was sponsored by Senator Robert KKK Sheets Byrd, a man who has done more to circumvent and ridicule the Constitution than any other living person. Byrd is the anti-Constitution politician yet he carries a pocket constitution everywhere and complains that no one follows the Constitution. Strange.

It seems this site gets more and more comments from all accross the country. The effrort is growing and more people are wanting to do something. Eventually if this site keeps growing and people start getting more and more active it’s going to start causing wal mart prolbems. Walmartwatch needs to start with billboards all accross the country advertising this site. it’s how i found out about the site and i haven’t shopped at wal-mart for about 3 years let’s say it’s cost them 5000 dollars because of it chump change to them. but when 100,000 people stop shopping there, it’s no longer chump change.

Keep up the effort.

Nick, your arguments are infantile in their conceptions. Strict constructionism to the Constitution as you have explained it is pure nonsense. The Constitution must change and be interpretted because time changes and subsequently changes the structure of reality. Think about it, right to bear arms...does this mean eric rudolph kkk jerks should be allowed to stockpile chemical weapons like will krar in tyler texas? Or how about your “states rights” dogma. Should we allow mississippi to reinstate jim crow laws? Should african americans be 2/3 of a person still? of coursethe Constitution is interpretted, even by scalia and thomas. How else do you think people get suckered into the idea that “national defense” means siphoning off 100s of billions of US tax dollars into the military industrial complex which props up modern corporate america?

in short, you “strict constructionist” thesis is crap because it forgets one variable...the real world of change and interpretation of that change.

Heraclitus

Heraclitus,

We do not have the right to “interpret” the Constitution. The Supreme Court was never intended to become the sole arbiter of the laws of the United States. In fact, the founders were very worried that the judiciary would eventually grow corrupt because it is the only branch of government that cannot be checked and balanced. Once you are nominated and confirmed to the court, barring a horrific breach of conduct, you are there for life. You can say anything and do pretty much anything and there is nothing the executive or legislative branches can do. The courts have way too much power and it’s time we curtailed it.

If you want to change the Constitution, there are LEGAL ways to do it. You have to call for a Constitutional Convention and propose an amendment. The citizens of the states then vote on the amendment. Of course, the Bill Of Rights can never be amended because the Founders didn’t want to leave future generations the ability to amend away their inherent rights. Clearly, the government has overstepped it’s mandate-am I the only person who sees this? You mention Jim Crow, etc. That is a ridiculous assumption. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for Jim Crow. In fact, slaves were freed by a Constitutional Amendment, not by a government law. If you want to change the Constitution, you can do it. The problem is, liberals know that noone with common sense would vote for their strange ideas and so they choose to circumvent the Constitution by poor interpretations and idiotic laws.

You can complain all you want but if you think the Founders were in favor of a “living, breathing” Constitution, you are sadly misguided and poorly read. Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Henry and Madison were all very clear about the Constitution. I don’t know how a document can be living and breathing. I thought it was a piece of paper, a sacred document. Using your logic, we can justify any crime because we can point to the Constitution and say “It is a living breathing document and surely it gives me the right to rape and murder. The Constitition SPOKE to me”. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits such behavior EXCEPT that the Founders intended for every American to have absolute rights, without government interference, up to the point where the exercise of one’s rights interfered with the free exercise of another’s rights. In other words, you have the right to free speech until your free speech takes away someone else’s right to free speech. You have every right in the Constitution without limit. There can be no middle ground when looking at a document. It either says something or it doesn’t. Freedom of Speech means Freedom of Speech or not. It cannot be in between. Only liberals can look at an absolute document and declare it to be unclear and “gray”. This is consistent with the liberal belief that there are no absolutes, that everything is relative and that there are no morals. There is only one’s feelings and judgement. There is no right or wrong. There is only on’e opinion. If you notice a common theme here with regard to liberals then I’ve made my point.

Nick,

Great Rhetoric, but you are philosophically blind as a bat. Don’t you get it that one cannot help but to interpret words? It is impossible not to do such. What are “inalienable rights”...must one not have to interpret this phrase to give it conceptual meaning. Your objective stance toward a “sacred” document (what is the Constitution, the American Uber Alles bible? state worship was not what the founding fathers had in mind) is quasi-religious and does not hold under scrutiny. Everything must be interpretted, there is no way around that fact. Even in your assertion that the Constitution is not meant to be interpretted, well that is in itself an interpretation by you given the concepts as you understand them. Try to get around this all you want but it is futile. Reality must be interpretted. To deny this fact is to court ignorance to change and the necessity to evolve with continuously new dimensions of what we call reality.

Now, for the “conservative” strict constructionist view. It is pure crap. This argument has more to do with limiting peoples gains in human rights and justifies the power structures within society which hinder the realization of these rights. I know this trite argument well, the rich should be able to do whatever they want because nothing in the Constitution states that they cannot. You cite that the founding fathers feared an activist judiciary, well many also distrusted a strong executive as well, and I dont see you right wingers for business jesus complaining about Pharoah Bushs fake war on “terror”, his detention of a US citizen without due process (jose padilla), or the patriot act (the constitution doesnt mention anywhere that the FBI should be able to check out what you read or search your home anonymously) So why dont you complain about this in your “strict constructionist” rhetoric...i already know what you are going to say, its “national security”...well buddy, i call that totalitarian, and guess what, on this assertion, you must also interpret what national security is...so good luck in claiming that your holy sacred document is god written truth not subject to falliable human interpretation...the argument, is again,,,crap. It is meant to stop thinking, period.

Why dont you spend some time not interpretting the lies that gave us the Iraq war.

Heraclitus

Heraclitus

Thomas Jefferson defined “inalienable” rights as rights that were granted to the people not by government but by Providence. These rights could never be taken or given away. Haven’t you ever read about natural rights?

As for the Presidents “fake” war on terror, I guess you don’t remember the World Trade Center bombings in 1993. The bombing of an airliner with American passengers in 1995. The bombing of our embassies in Africa. The bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. The 9/11 attacks. Have you forgotten all these things or were you just conditioned by 8 years of no response from Bill Clinton? President Bush did what he had to do. He took an oath to defend this country and that includes hunting down the terrorists before AND after the fact.

Jose Padilla was waging war against the US. When you wage war against your own country, you cease to be a citizen and you become a traitor. You have no rights at that point. During the American Revolution, traitors were hanged. Padilla deserves the same fate.

The Patriot Act is too much and too little. It interferes with our lives TOO MUCh and it does TOO LITTLE to actually protect anyone. I am not a big fan of the Patriot Act but it has more to do with function than with its’ effect on the Constitution. I don’t think the Patriot Act violates the Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about an FBI and it says nothing prohibiting the government from finding out what books you read. As long as the government doesn’t keep you from purchasing or reading the books, it is okay as far as the law goes.

As for searching homes-hasn’t the government always done this? I am not saying it’s right but in the early days of the attacks on the US mafia, FBI agents and other cops routinely broke into mob homes and clubs and planted illegal bugs. Today, if they have a warrant, they can do it. Why would they tell you they are bugging your house? What would be the point of a wiretap if you knew it was there? That doesn’t make sense, now does it?

I agree that the Founders did not want a strong executive branch, either. I feel that we should not have gone to war without a Declaration of War. That said, Congress would have given the President their first born children before the war if they thought their constituants would see them as tough on foreign policy. So either way it doesn’t matter. We know that Saddam had WMD’s. He used them to gas 1 million Kurds in the 1980s. Every major intelligence agency around the world said he had them. Our own services said he had them. Every prominent Democrat in America, including Billary, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, Robert KKK Byrd, Ted the drunk Kennedy and so on claimed Saddam had WMD’s. So there you have it.

Waiting for responses.

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Aye from GA. Maybe it will help shed some light on all the rhetoric about the constitution etc. etc.-enjoy.

> “We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help
>everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots,
>keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the
>blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our
>great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and
>establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt
>ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths
>to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill
>of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.”
>
> ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV,
>or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally
>acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
>
> ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This
>country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone—not
>just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different
>opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will
>be.
>
> ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you
>stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect
>the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently
>wealthy.
>
> ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing.
>Americans are the most charitable people to be found and will gladly
>help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing
>generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve
>nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional
>couch potatoes.
>
> ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That
>would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not
>interested in public health care.
>
> ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other
>people.  If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone,
>don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric
>chair.
>
> ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of
>others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other
>citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you
>away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen
>color TV or a life of leisure.
>
> ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure
>want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times,
>but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education
>and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
>
> ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an
>American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness which, by the
>way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of
>idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of
>Rights.
>
> ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where
>you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever
>you came from!
>
> (lastly....)
>
> ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s
>history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true
>God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any
>faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN
>GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are
>uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

A great place for Wal-Mart customers/associates to come and share thier good/bad experiences. Customers also welcome. Free lega page*.

I do not know what party State Representative Michell Aye of
Georgia represents, but I like his view. We need a Democrate that can win the presidency.

Let’s check him out?