Anti-Wal-mart senator tries to get PS3 from... Wal-mart
by Kyle Orland 
{ Nov 17th 2006 at 10:00AM }
Former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards is one of the millions of parents across the country who want to secure a PlayStation 3 for their children this holiday season. No surprise there -- what is surprising is that an Edwards staffer tried to secure the system from Wal-mart, a retailer that Edwards has repeatedly targeted for unfair treatment of its employees.Edwards confirmed to the AP that his wife Elizabeth mentioned her desire for the PS3 to a staffer, who then used the senator's name to try to secure a system from a Wal-mart store in Raleigh, NC. Edwards said he and his wife said they were not aware of the staffer's actions and that the staffer feels terrible about his mistake.
Wal-mart, for its part, is doing its best to make an issue of the gaffe, accusing Edwards in a statement of trying to jump to the front of the line "while the rest of America's working families are waiting patiently." Strong words, but really, what self-respecting PS3 hopeful wouldn't use a bit of name-dropping if they thought it would help them secure a system on launch day?
[Thanks Vinnk]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
silkylove @ Nov 17th 2006 10:04AM
1st post. what an ass!
IslandLife @ Nov 17th 2006 10:05AM
His wife wanted a PS3?!!
By Nintendo's predictions, shouldn't she be more satisfied with a Wii?
Somehow that sentence didn't come out right ;)
Terry @ Nov 17th 2006 10:06AM
You sure are, silkylove!
freethinker @ Nov 17th 2006 10:06AM
Joystiq is helping the republicans do a hatchet job? For same bitches.
Mr. Wuf @ Nov 17th 2006 10:08AM
I wouldn't expect anything less out of a Tar Hole.
UserDoesNotExist @ Nov 17th 2006 10:14AM
"Edwards said he and his wife said they were not aware of the staffer's actions and that the staffer feels terrible about his mistake."
Typical of a politician to blame it all on a "rogue staffer." 20 to 1 the reason why a staffer went was that Edwards or his wife didn't want to be spotted in line and thought that they could slip it by if they used a staffer who dropped their name.
So, whatever happened to standing up for the little guy, Edwards? I have an idea. Give the PS3 to someone else in the line (who was there before your staffer ever got there.) Just buy your kid a Ferrari instead.
JS @ Nov 17th 2006 10:21AM
This whole PS3 thing is laughable and when I recently scanned ebay I say one up to $20 million dollars which is truly hilarious and I hope people keep this up to show that most gamers and consumers wont pay the ludicrous amounts of money these rip-off artist want. Of course there are sob stories "I have to pay for school", "I need to feed my kids" etc... but why didnt you just GO TO CLASS and GET A JOB or STAY AT HOME INSTEAD OF WAITING IN A STUPID LINE AND FEED YOUR KIDS!
My real question, though, is where are all these people with thounsands to spend on a console for their kids? What kinda precedent is this setting for their children? How will these kids ever learn anything if mommy and daddy drop thousands of dollars on them everytime they want something? I know that we always had a limit for christmas presents and every now and then, if it was a good year, my parents might go over it but rarely did so. Its just disgusting the way the American public is showing how degernerate consumerism really is and how it will only be worse for the next generation.
I mean how does a kid whos parents dropped that kinda coin on a stupid video game console explain to their kids why they CANT have one...eventually they will cave and the cycle continues.
I didnt wait for an Xbox 360, I didnt wait fo a PS3, I'm not going to wait for a Wii. Who honestly cares if you have the console the first day? Clearly the people who do are not really your friends (unless of course they waitin line with you) and they just want to mooch of you for your endeavors so be wary of these people if they hang around too long!
Waiting for price drops and better games FTW!!!!!
Denny @ Nov 17th 2006 10:15AM
yeah, and we all know that democrats don't do "hatchet jobs". oh, look your handle is "freethinker". that must mean that your superior mind isn't hindered be the same political biases as the rest of us. i'm glad you were able to bring to our attention that this isn't a case of a democrat being hypocritical, rather it's Joystiq trying to help the evil conservatives put down another "freethinker" like yourself. way to be fair and balanced.
for same, Joystiq, for same indeed.
Steve @ Nov 17th 2006 10:17AM
Typical socialist. Condemns capitalism when it suits is goals then participates in it when it suits his goals. No one has to buy from Walmart or work for Walmart, but then there I go again wasting my time applying logic against a irrational emotional leftwing position.
AGiES @ Nov 17th 2006 10:22AM
#8 "No one has to buy from Walmart or work for Walmart"
You do when they are the only store in town due to predatory business practices. I'm all for capitalism, but Wal-mart goes beyond that.
32_Footsteps @ Nov 17th 2006 10:26AM
Well, I see the reactionary right didn't waste any time commenting here.
It's fair to be suspicious of the explanation - how can you not know of Edwards' anti-Wal-Mart stance, especially if you work for the man? It does seem more than a little fishy.
But on the other hand, it's interesting to note that some people are overreacting. Joystiq isn't exactly contributing to a hatchet job - they're just reporting the news. Nobody ever claimed either party has a monopoly on actual hatchet jobs - and one party's hatchet jobs do not justify the other party's hatchet jobs.
And socialism? From Edwards? Seriously, do you know basic economic theory and various politicians' stances on economics, or are you just parroting whatever Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh spoon-feed you?
Dogle @ Nov 17th 2006 10:28AM
Yes, I'll believe that an anti-Walmart senator just suddenly threw his "morals" out the door to get a PS3 at Walmart.
Come on, who actually believes this?
Though, it does show how evil Walmart is trying to take any pot shot they possibly can.
Jeff @ Nov 17th 2006 10:31AM
Yay 32_Footsteps.
Not to mention that I don't recall Edwards (or any Democrat, for that matter) calling for Wal-Mart to be put out of business, or even calling for a boycott. You know, it *is* possible to fight for workers' rights while at the same time purchasing products from the same chain. As others have pointed out, in some towns you really don't even have a choice.
It's the typical right-wing reaction, though, to look at things in black and white. To them, it's "love it or leave it" - if you question America, you're anti-American, and if you question Wal-Mart, you're anti-Wal-Mart.
Grow up, kids. This is the real world, and the real world doesn't work that way.
This is not news - the news is the overreaction by the right. Didn't you guys learn anything from the last election?
FuzzyPickles @ Nov 17th 2006 10:36AM
Wal-Mart isn't permitted to open in NYC because they refuse to meet the standards to hire workers.
Something's wrong with that picture, no?
As for me, I'd prefer to go to a game shop to buy games, a grocery store to buy groceries, a drug store to buy... um... drugs, and a hardware store to buy tools. Maybe I'm agoraphobic, but stores that are too large bug me.
MookieFL @ Nov 17th 2006 10:38AM
Politics aside, Edwards is an ambulance-chaser of low moral character. If this was indeed the work of a staffer, though, it seems like there's not much of a story there.
b @ Nov 17th 2006 10:39AM
...and if you question a democrat, you're automatically "right-wing"? ..and a "kid" apparently
Mystic @ Nov 17th 2006 10:45AM
And this is video game news why? BTW, lots of fascists seem to enjoy reading Joystiq.
freethinker @ Nov 17th 2006 10:45AM
Walmart are a bunch of a$$es. Taking pot shots at Edwards in an effort to hurt a politician that *gasp* supports unions. Thanks for helping destroy the manufacturing base and small town economies of America Walmart! All hail the almighty dollar!
http://www.walmartworkersrights.org/
#7. Enjoy your red state mentality you ham and egger.
TJ @ Nov 17th 2006 10:47AM
Walmart doesn't make any money on PS3 anyway. He could have bought the console with no accessories and games, and buy those at Best Buy. That'll show 'em!
Seth @ Nov 17th 2006 10:47AM
Anyone who gets their news from non-video game related sites would have already seen that it was a volunteer staffer (most likely a college student) who did the name dropping to get a PS3 for themselves...not John Edwards. As you can see here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230200,00.html Fox News is all over it. Wal-Mart is merely trying to play this up to make Edwards look bad since he called them on on their extremely poor treatment of their employees.
Anyone that doesn't have their head up their ass would realize that if Edwards really wanted to jump to the head of the line he could have done it at DOZENS of vendors without this backlash.
Unimental @ Nov 17th 2006 10:51AM
My friend despises Wal-Mart as a matter of political Dogma... so he waited for his delayed pre-order copy of Gears of War to come in at GameStop whilst I enjoyed it on the Tuesday release date. And I'll do it again for the next big release... and won't feel dirty about it.
Vandal @ Nov 17th 2006 10:56AM
What's funny about this is people are still denying it happened even after the Edwards camp admitted the mistake.
Regardless no matter what the Democats say, the Wal-Mart thing is really just about unions, which feed the Democatic part with cash and support. They could care less if Wal-Mart drove out every other business in town as long as the workers are unionized to leech part of the workers pay for campaign contributions.
socrates @ Nov 17th 2006 10:58AM
MookieFL -
"Politics aside, Edwards is an ambulance-chaser of low moral character."
Name one thing he's done of "low moral character". I'm sure those Republican talking points are well backed up with reason and evidence.
Joe @ Nov 17th 2006 11:07AM
Did WalMart issue a press release?
---
http://www.ps3users.net New site set up to start sharing information.
crono141 @ Nov 17th 2006 11:05AM
"I'm sure those Republican talking points are well backed up with reason and evidence. "
Typically, they are. Its the left that is the party of emotions before logic. Thats why welfare and social programs are democratic brainchilds that don't work because they don't conform to logic.
"This is not news - the news is the overreaction by the right. Didn't you guys learn anything from the last election?"
Yeah, what we learned from the election is that, given all the bad news about republican scandals and the war being unpopular, the Dems should have won alot more seats than they did. 6th year elections always go to the party out of power. The fact that the Dems limped into victory when by all rights it should have been a landslide shows that the party is in its death throws, especially given that many of the representatives elected are considered "conservative democrats".
Vandal @ Nov 17th 2006 11:05AM
#23 ..Don't forget Edwards is a trail lawyer who made a vast fortune for his involvement in medical malpractice suits for birth defects based on flimsy science. The end result of all these is skyrocketing costs for malpractice insurance, this is passed on of course by the greedy insurance companies. Democrats are aligned with trail lawyers, Republicans with insurance companies. Both suck.
This is why its pointless, the Democrats play their side, and the Republicans play the opposite. No matter who wins the little people usually get screwed.
MookieFL @ Nov 17th 2006 11:12AM
He's a personal injury lawyer--character doesn't get much lower than that...when other lawyers think your profession is sleazy, it's not a good sign.
Here's the first thing I found when I googled "'John Edwards' birth defect":
"There are two Americas, and, as a successful plaintiff's attorney, Edwards spent 20 years exaggerating the gulf between them. "Plaintiff's attorney" is American for the kind of lawyer who specialises in those suits that Britons find so fascinating - you spill the coffee on your lap, so you sue McDonald's for a gazillion dollars, etc.
Edwards worked an ostensibly less ridiculous seam: suing doctors and hospitals when babies were born with brain defects. He made his name with a 1985 cerebral palsy case, where he channelled the words of the unborn child as she waited in the womb, hour after hour.
"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5.30, she said, 'I need out'," Edwards told his hushed jury. "She speaks to you through me. And I have to tell you right now - I didn't plan to talk about this - right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me."
The jury came back with a $6.5 million award, and Edwards was the hottest trial lawyer in North Carolina. His line, in that and other cases, was that there would have been no brain damage if the doctor, instead of the breech delivery, had performed a caesarean. Thanks in part to lawyers like Edwards, there are now far more caesarean sections than ever before, yet without any reduction in birth defects.
The correlation between C-sections and birth defects is non-existent. But Edwards sold junk-science to jury after jury, for big bucks. In his "two Americas" routine, he talks about his commitment to "bringing down the cost of healthcare". One reason it costs more than it did is because of Edwards and his fellow ambulance-chasers."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/11/do1109.xml
And I know the Daily Telegraph leans right...
Incidentally, I'm a 2L in law school myself, not a bitter attorney-hater...
Gohepcat @ Nov 17th 2006 11:16AM
Wow crono141. You are really good at regurgitating Ann Coulter.
God, how do you friggin sleep at night? ...and I ask this to all partisan hacks who believe the "other party" is some super villain.
My father is a republican, I'm a democrat...we still see eye to eye on a lot of things.
You make me sick
mietha CAG @ Nov 17th 2006 11:17AM
Just a thought: Anyone else think that the next console generation will come out with a 2 grand MSRP or something absurd and drastically reduce the price 3-6 months down the road? I almost wish they would. If it cost 2 grand up front, most people buying them would buy to USE them, not resell on ebay. Personally, I got a 360 on day 1 and KEPT it. I would kind of like a PS3, just for resistance atm, but $600 is too steep, much less the obscene ebay prices. I would love to hear from someone who paid 4 grand for one and hear why the hell they did it. Unless they just hit the lotto or something, it's completely beyond me.
32_Footsteps @ Nov 17th 2006 11:19AM
Wait, Chrono, let's back up here.
The Democrats picked up 6 seats in the senate (out of 15 potential pickups) and lost none (out of 18 potential losses).
The Democrats similarly lost no House seats while gaining 40.
They also managed to take control of 9 state-level legislative branches, and have a majority of governorships for the first time since before Clinton took office.
I see you also like your spoon-fed lines from conservative talkers posing as pundits.
"Typically, they are. Its the left that is the party of emotions before logic. Thats why welfare and social programs are democratic brainchilds that don't work because they don't conform to logic."
My favorite part is how this line isn't followed up by any sort of logic.
Sigh... at any rate, I still refuse to shop at Wal-Mart. I've dealt with too many people who have worked for them to have any respect for the company. It's not like we're hurting for companies that don't treat all their employees like toilet paper - to name a few that sell video games, Target, Best Buy, Circuit City, Gamestop... you get the idea.
socrates @ Nov 17th 2006 11:23AM
Crono141 -
Thanks for the empty claims. All major politicians tend to appeal more to emotive simplemindedness than complex policy objectives, but Republicans are more guilty of this on a scale of 100x. I mean, the whole "marketing push" behind the Iraq war was based on an obsfucation between a terrorist group and an unaffiliated country. The response to any critical position against the conservative agneda has increasingly been "critical thinking bad" in lieu of religion/"values"/truthiness/whatever. Almost no conservative claims stand up to reasoned investigation.
Vandal -
Yes, Edwards was a trial lawyer (trail lawyer? is that like someone who defends the bears in Yellowstone?). No, the Democrats are not "aligned" with trial lawyers in any significant sense. But Edward's work was GOOD. His major cases included prosecuting a negligent company who didn't change the way they were making their pool covers even though they were DISEMBOWELING children. (Edwards has been given awards for the community benefit of his work in pursuing corporate negligence and abuse). Medical malpractice lawsuits are NECESSARY, unless you think that doctors should feel no pressure to proscribe the right medication, get proper informed consent, etc. etc. *Frivolous* law suits are bad, but do you have any evidence that any that Edwards prosecuted were thus? And the reason why health care costs are high is NOT medical malpractice suits (that is an empty claim indeed), but because, as you said, the support of private insurance companies. Universal health care - like every other decent, civilized country has - would solve that problem, but we don't have that, thanks to, of course, the conservatives.
So....what's immoral about him again? You've got nothing.
crono141 @ Nov 17th 2006 11:24AM
Gohepcat,
Here's to nausea!
Hope you enjoy your green party.
crono141 @ Nov 17th 2006 11:26AM
"So....what's immoral about him again? You've got nothing."
I'd take you seriously, but your reputation for not being able to use logic at all prevents it.
Unimental @ Nov 17th 2006 11:28AM
I think it's time for a post of a Tokyo booth-babe to hold back the tide of political discussion.
socrates @ Nov 17th 2006 11:31AM
MookieFL -
I won't blame you in this instance, but you didn't do your research very well, and relying on the Daily Telegraph's crappy and very biased article (read the rest, it mocks the Democrats for criticizing the Iraq War! That's a pretty damn right wing stance to take in the UK).
The critical issue in the birth defects case was not that c-sections are good - nor did the case cause a RISE in c-sections (the DT has no warrants for that claim). The reason for the law suit was because the patients were NOT informed about the risks of a breech birth, and were unaware that brain damage could well result. The ruling made it so that hospitals were liable if they flat out failed to inform the patient fully of the consequences of a proceedure...which has nothing to with setting a c-section precedent (that's not even a kind of precedent that a ruling in a trial case could even POSSIBLY set - come on now).
TheH2s @ Nov 17th 2006 11:37AM
Ok, politics aside this is hoolarious! This is like JT getting one of his staffers to buy him Bully!
Denny @ Nov 17th 2006 11:36AM
"#7. Enjoy your red state mentality you ham and egger."
funny how "free thought" only applies when you agree with a democrat. otherwise you're a... "ham and egger."
WTF does that even mean? should i not like ham and eggs? because i heart ham and cheese omlettes. in fact, maybe i'll buy a propane camping grill, a non-stick skillet, some ham, eggs, cheese, butter and a gallon of OJ to wash it down with all at Wal-Mart while i'm waiting in line there for my Wii tomorrow because i don't trust my local "mom and pop" electronics store (wait, those don't exist) to have them at launch.
and then when someone asks me what the hell i'm doing i'll tell them that i'm an evil, red-state ham and egg conservative.
POed @ Nov 17th 2006 6:26PM
Sad to see guys like "Vandal" have been brainwashed by the right wing media machine to hate unions. Let's not forget that that unions built a strong middle class in this country, cleaned up dangerous working conditions and gave the American worker a voice. But of course, Rush and Hannity (and their corporate overlords) hate them so you have to as well.
Anyway, is this the most damaging thing that Fox News can attack a democrat on? Wow the republican media is in disarray.
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/walmart/
crono141 @ Nov 17th 2006 12:06PM
32_footsteps,
Thats my point exactly though. Given that ALL house seats were up for election, in a time of an unpopular war and republican scandal, and 15 senate seats; and given that historically the 6th year election always goes to the party out of power, shouldn't the dems have picked up more? They got less than half the available senate seats, and less than 10% (of total seats) gain of the house seats.
Given that there were at least 3 major issues going against the republican party, shouldn't the dems have swept both houses, gaining major control (instead of nominal control) of both?
I didn't back up my other comments with logic because I thought the logic was self evident. I guess I forgot who I was dealing with.
Cth @ Nov 17th 2006 11:49AM
All I know, is I'm glad he's no longer our senator.. the guy did nothing for our state and was barely here when he was.
It's believable the staffer was either unaware or trying to scam one for themselves, but in the end, this is a go nowhere story.
Ah well, back to more hilarious reports of PS3 shortages and insane Ebay bids.
James @ Nov 17th 2006 12:19PM
To follow-up 32_Footsteps great comment, I'd like to make a little thing clear.
Regarding a staff not knowing about an issue that their employer campaigns about, its not all that uncommon.
I worked for the Edwards One America Campaign in 2004, while he was still seeking the Presidential nomination. I specifically worked in the campaign office in Maryland. What qualifies as a staffer is "anyone who gets a paycheck from the subsidiary organization."
This "staffer" could have very well have been a gopher. Or a high schooler with an internship (despite the advertising of an "enlightening experience," most high school interns really learn nothing about politics from their experience. It could have very well been, "Joe Shmoe #33 Trying to Get a Paycheck."
However, the article explains, "the volunteer was 'a young kid'."
This person IS NOT getting a paycheck. And I can tell you millions of stories about volunteers in a political campaign. 9 out of 10 volunteers for a political campaign really know very little about the candidate they're supporting. In fact, they are usually party-line straddlers. "This guy's a Democrat (or Republican), I want him to win! Even if I don't agree with his policies or know nothing about them!"
So it is VERY feasible that the volunteer knew nothing about Edwards's stance on Walmart.
Martin @ Nov 17th 2006 12:21PM
lol this story is funny. yes you can bitch about a store and still shop there but when your John Edwards you shouldnt - its called being a hypocrite, fuckin hilarious though.
MookieFL @ Nov 17th 2006 12:33PM
The fact that many of the defendants in Edwards' cases were culpable doesn't alter the reality that the vast majority of tort lawyers are bottom-feeders.
I acknowledged the likely bias of the Telegraph article, and admittedly there's some sketchy stuff in there on the war, particularly in light of the events of the subsequent two years. It did correctly characterize Edwards' 2004 campaign as class warfare at its most crass, though...
This has strayed far afield from the PS3/Wal-Mart non-story. My apologies!
G. McKinnie @ Nov 17th 2006 12:42PM
Excuse me, but let's use common sense. Why the hell would a millionaire have a staffer stand in line for a $599 Playstation 3 when he could buy one off of ebay for like $2-3000? You right-wing zealots are hilarious. Way to post a pointless article Joystiq.
32_Footsteps @ Nov 17th 2006 12:42PM
Actually, crono, that's very specious logic. You have to look at each race individually.
For example, no matter how powerful a wave against Republicans may be, you know that the vast majority of their seats in states like Mississippi and Texas are going to be safe. Similarly, back in 1994, nobody expected the Republicans to pick up much of anything in Massachusetts and New York.
If you gauge based on seats that were realistically in play, the Democrats did much better than anticipated - they picked up nearly all of the legislative seats that they had a chance for, however unreasonable.
If every distrinct in the United States was fairly evenly divided, then you'd be right to expect the Democrats to have picked up more. But given the polarization of the country, the Democrats outperformed any reasonable expectation.
"I didn't back up my other comments with logic because I thought the logic was self evident. I guess I forgot who I was dealing with."
Someone who expects logic out of someone who keeps demanding logic? Yeah, funny that. Funny how you also refuse, still, to issue any sort of logic on the situation. If it's so self-evident, it should be pretty easy to express. But yet, you still aren't.
Mogaar @ Nov 17th 2006 12:44PM
At # 24 (crono141)
Nice parroting of Ann Coulter's November 8th column. Good job thinking for yourself.
Noise Tank Nick @ Nov 17th 2006 12:58PM
Attn. Wal-Mart: America's working families probably can't afford a PS3 anyhow.
Also #5: Eat a bag of Hell.
rodan32 @ Nov 17th 2006 4:17PM
To the comment that Dems aren't affiliated with trial lawyers in any significant sense:
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp2.asp?txtName=Assn+of+Trial+Lawyers+of+America&txtUltOrg=y&txtCycle=2000&txtSort=name
Nearly $1 million donated to dems by trial lawyers, compared to $5000 to Repubs. Seems like having Dems in power is good for the Johnny Cochran (rest his soul) and John Edwards types.
What's my point? John Edwards is a dick, and you silly little sycophants can stop defending him already. It's just a funny story about a dude who's hungry for power trying to get a little juice.
Philip Wesley @ Nov 17th 2006 1:03PM
I think the real reason that small businesses go out of business monthes before or after a Wal-Mart comes into town has to do with their own idiocy. A good business manager would know what to do when a large corporation comes into town.
Think of it this way. You run a family burger resturant and suddenly a McDonalds opens up across the street from you. What do you do? You have a few choices.
(A) Claim to be a victim of a large corporation moving in onto your territory and stealing your business away from you unfairly with their multi-billion dollar ad campaigns, cheaper prices, and that 24/7 drive through. Drum up support and protests about how terrible they are for stepping in on YOUR local monopoly.
(B) Strike back with loads of sales gimmicks, and emulation of their sales strategies. Build a drive through, stay open later, and fight the man by becoming just like them! The best way to match their limitless reserves of cash is to spend like you have the same reserves!
(C) Evaluate your customers, their customers, and the customers that are NOT going to your store or their store. Think about WHY this company sees your community as right for expansion. They would not go to an area they did not see potential in. Expand your menu, work on building your community involvement, offer a completely different experience, rebalance your books to accomodate the expected revenue hit, play off their weakness by eliminating those weaknesses from your resturant experience, get to know their employees, and find the level of business profit that fits for you. You can not win a GLOBAL business market with a LOCAL store; but a LOCAL store can win a LOCAL market. In short, evaluation, adaptation, and integration.
The business that chooses A or B dies 100% of the time. The business that choose C will continue to be profitable.
As for trade unions? Unions have good points: They help prevent illegal activities, even though the police should deal with that. They also give employees an excuse to socialize with each other positively, even though they should be doing that anyways. They negotiate with larger businesses, even though employees should really organize protests or take up grievances on their own accord. (That is what the internet is for, think about it.)
Unions are generally bad for a business AND the people they represent as they have a tendancy to exude tyrannical control on the businesses that do have them and that pushes up prices. Next time that you notice milk, oil, vegetables, or your video games have gone up in price.. remember to thank their respective unions who thought it was a GREAT idea to push up wages and push down output. Unions are made of idiots who look at a situation like this: "Employee X has no car to get to work. The company should supply one and make employee W, Y, and Z pay for it. That must be the most practical idea, instead of having Employee X ask a few other employees if they would like let Employee X into their carpool if he chips for gas." Unions have a tendancy to think GLOBAL or DISTRICT WIDE instead of LOCAL. Their workers need LOCAL thinking. GLOBAL, or DISTRICT WIDE thinking and action does not benefit them effectively.
As for the PS3? We just know that Edwards *really* wants to buy the PS3 to give it to his Iranian terror buddies for their nuclear ambitions! Remember how Saddam was supposedy stockpiling PS2s to launch SCUDS? The PS3 has a zillion times that power! It can launch DEATH via Blu Ray and Cell technology! Berka Berka, Jihad Jihad!
Jose @ Nov 17th 2006 1:28PM
Hah, it's hilarious how Wal-Mart smears someone by saying they shop and Wal-Mart. They know exactly what they're doing to their workers, and the communities in which they operate, but so far, nothing has been done to stop them outside of small grass roots movements that prevent them from opening their stores. I'm really disappointed with Mr. Edwards, however, as a fellow anti-Wal-Mart activist, I know that anyone around me knows exactly my stance on shopping there. They would never purchase anything for me from there, and to be name dropping is just underhanded. That staffer knew his stance, and if he/she was trying to keep the fact of from where they were acquiring said horrible Sony product, they wouldn't have gone about dropping his name in the process.