[JerryLove]

I find it hard to believe that using eminent domain so that walmart can build a store is "public use". There is a difference between "public use" and "beneficial to the community"

Of course there is. The question before the court was whether a federal law superceeded the state law in question.

or the constitutionality of a law

That is the same thing. An unconstitutional law is illegal.

kinda reminds me of other forced relocations in the past.

yep.

[GORP006]

(A) No one claimed otherwise. Romans 13 teaches that the civil government must administer God’s wrath. The way to know God’s wrath is to look at the rest of Scripture, which does indeed teach that the death penalty is not only permissible but is required for various crimes.

Bryan claimed otherwise, hence the reason I was replying to him: "Romans 13 gives the governement the right to use the death penalty." Read back a little bit, and you'll see it.

If Romans 13 is prescriptive and not descriptive only, then yes, it must teach this. And it cannot be merely descriptive since if it was any action of the government would necessarily be morally permissible. But we see that this is just not so by other statements in Scripture (e.g., about King Herrod, or the Beast of Revelation).

But shouldn't the Law that Jesus gave to us (i.e. to love one another) supercede Mosaic Law? Afterall, Mosaic law does necessitate sacrifice and not eating Pork...so why does the death penalty portion of Mosaic law carryover when the Pork law doesn't?

Matthew 5:17-19
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He is referring more to the Ten commandments than to the civil laws. Being that the Ten commandments are referred to throughout scripture as "The Law"

Heh. Is that why he says "civil magistrate"?

Not in NIV he doesn't.

What about my style of debating do you disagree with?

I'm not a dominionist. I don't believe that the government should be a theonomy. Your style of debating turns every debate into whether we should live in a Theonomy. For a person who doesn't accept that we should, your style of debating gets very tiring.

Speak concretely here, if you are going to make such a serious charge. First, what power do I have, and what would I have to do to exercise it? Second, how do you know that I am not doing these things (whatever they are)?

See my original quote...there is no accusation, just (to use your word) a "prescriptive" solution to your disagreeing with eminent domain:

Originally Posted by GORP006

Can people stop it? Sure can, get those petitions signed and pass that referendum, and you're on your way to eminent domain free city. In the meantime, if you're not willing to go to that effort to change the way things are run, then you have to live with the status quo.

And before that, I said:

Now, there is also the chance for the citizens of a city to run a petition in order to force a referendum. If the citizens of a city wanted to ban eminent domain, they could get signatures, bring them to the council, and have them bring it up for referendum. If that referendum passes, then we know that the majority of people (voters) want to end the practice of eminent domain, and thus, the city could write that into law.

I don't see any kind of charge being made...The only charge that was made was when Bryan misunderstood my statement. I'm giving you a prescriptive directive...You can choose to try to change things...but if you choose not to, then your arguments are just complaints without action. An objective fact.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by GORP006

Bryan claimed otherwise, hence the reason I was replying to him: "Romans 13 gives the governement the right to use the death penalty." Read back a little bit, and you'll see it.

Claiming that Romans 13 gives the government this right doesn’t have to mean that he thinks Romans 13 explicitly states it. It does give them that right, but in the round-about way which I outlined previously. It gives them the right to use force to administer God's wrath for evildoers; God's wrath for evildoers, according to the rest of Scripture, includes capital punishment for certain civil offenders; therefore, the government has the right to execute certain criminals.

Originally Posted by GORP006

But shouldn't the Law that Jesus gave to us (i.e. to love one another) supercede Mosaic Law?

No, because the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Jesus’ command for us to love our neighbors as ourselves was a direct quotation from the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 19:18). If the two are mutually exclusive, then the Bible is necessarily self-contradictory, since Leviticus tells us both to execute certain offenders and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Originally Posted by GORP006

Afterall, Mosaic law does necessitate sacrifice and not eating Pork...so why does the death penalty portion of Mosaic law carryover when the Pork law doesn't?

The basic hermeneutic matrix by which we are to know whether laws continue to be binding is the presumption of continuity unless we are taught otherwise. Clearly, only God, as the Lawgiver, has the right to amend His Word and change a moral directive. And clearly, given Jesus’ words concerning the Law and Prophets, we should not presume to disregard it.

The laws concerning civil penalties carry over while the dietary laws do not because while the former and never rescinded, the latter are explicitly changed in the New Testament (Acts 10).

Originally Posted by GORP006

He is referring more to the Ten commandments than to the civil laws. Being that the Ten commandments are referred to throughout scripture as "The Law"

So is the entire Mosaic Law. And there are many problems with trying to take the Ten Commandments and nothing else. One is the fact that we cannot understand what the Ten Commandments mean without the case laws which explain them and give us their definitions. For instance, how do you know what murder is? Is it murder to kill someone who breaks into your family’s house in the middle of the night? The Mosaic case laws tell us that no, killing is permissible in this instance. But that’s the only place in Scripture where we’re told this, so if you throw out those case laws you lose a very important qualification in the definition of the sixth commandment. (Many more examples could be given.) And if you lose important qualifications in the definitions of the commandments, you wouldn't really be keeping the Ten Commandments at all.

Originally Posted by GORP006

Not in NIV he doesn't.

Okay, well all literal or semi-literal translations have something to that effect. I’ve never heard of anyone trying to argue that Romans 13 isn’t talking about the civil government. This is something which is universally agreed upon by all commentators, theonomic or otherwise.

Originally Posted by GORP006

I'm not a dominionist. I don't believe that the government should be a theonomy. Your style of debating turns every debate into whether we should live in a Theonomy.

So your problem with my debating is that I’m too concerned that we obey God with respect to every subject?

[GORP006]

So your problem with my debating is that I’m too concerned that we obey God with respect to every subject?

This is all I'm going to respond to, because I don't claim to know nearly as much as you about the Bible, it's translations, Mosaic Law or anything else related to the Bible for that matter. I'm not going to get into a debate with you again about Mosaic Law and it's application today, because frankly, that is of such little concern to me that it's not worth my time. That might sound harsh, and maybe it is. But forgive me for downplaying your passion for the Laws of the Old Testament, but I'm more concerned with my personal relationship with God and Jesus than I am about whether our civil governments should be following the laws handed down to the Ancient Jewish society. I don't concern myself with questions of whether or not we need to urge our leaders to give up our current form of government in favor of Theonomy. I'm concerned about my faith, my salvation, and sharing that gift of salvation with those around me, in hopes that God's grace will extend to those that are close to me. This is my concern, not questions of whether or not we ought to follow Mosaic law.

My problem with your debating style is that it's like riding on a merry-go-round. For a while it's fairly interesting and enjoyable to debate with you, but eventually, once you've seen the same thing over and over, you get sick of it, and if you go long enough, it just becomes unenjoyable completely. That, and Frankly, I think that making demands for a shift in our government to a Theonomy is a really bad way to try to get people to accept Christianity as legitimate. I run in a lot of Liberal circles, and trust me, it's the idea of Theonomy that angers them the most. People who might otherwise consider exploring Christianity are completely turned off when you start talking about making it compulsive.

So no, I don't think we should pick and choose the areas that we obey God, but I think that there needs to be a certain degree of focus on the issues that are more important. Jesus died in order that we would be seen blameless upon God's day of Judgement. That is the sum total of the most important part of my faith. Everything else that people debate about is semantics. If there's one thing that I could change about the Christian Church is that there would be less division between the different sects. But it's matters like Theonomy, and other lesser messages of the Bible that divide us as Christians. I think that debates like this tend to draw away from the central focus of Jesus's sacrifice for us. I'm not a Biblical scholar, and would never claim to know more about Christianity than I do.

That being said, I wish I had never started posting on this thread, because what started as me playing the part of antagonist in a thread where everyone agreed, turned into a rehashed discussion of an issue that I really don't want to discuss anymore. From this point on, I will not be debating with you about Theonomy versus Constitutional Democracy. We will never agree on this, and I'd rather not ride the merry-go-round anymore.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by GORP006

This is all I'm going to respond to, because I don't claim to know nearly as much as you about the Bible, it's translations, Mosaic Law or anything else related to the Bible for that matter. I'm not going to get into a debate with you again about Mosaic Law and it's application today, because frankly, that is of such little concern to me that it's not worth my time. That might sound harsh, and maybe it is. But forgive me for downplaying your passion for the Laws of the Old Testament, but I'm more concerned with my personal relationship with God and Jesus than I am about whether our civil governments should be following the laws handed down to the Ancient Jewish society. I don't concern myself with questions of whether or not we need to urge our leaders to give up our current form of government in favor of Theonomy. I'm concerned about my faith, my salvation, and sharing that gift of salvation with those around me, in hopes that God's grace will extend to those that are close to me. This is my concern, not questions of whether or not we ought to follow Mosaic law.

2 John 1:6
And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 15:3-9
He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Who ever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

" 'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "

Originally Posted by GORP006

My problem with your debating style is that it's like riding on a merry-go-round. For a while it's fairly interesting and enjoyable to debate with you, but eventually, once you've seen the same thing over and over, you get sick of it, and if you go long enough, it just becomes unenjoyable completely.

No offense, but that wouldn’t happen if you’d actually address and/or refute my arguments.

Originally Posted by GORP006

That, and Frankly, I think that making demands for a shift in our government to a Theonomy is a really bad way to try to get people to accept Christianity as legitimate.

That’s not relevant since having a theonomic society isn’t for the purpose of getting people to accept Christianity. It’s for the purpose of obeying God, and would only come as a result of people accepting Christianity.

Originally Posted by GORP006

I run in a lot of Liberal circles, and trust me, it's the idea of Theonomy that angers them the most. People who might otherwise consider exploring Christianity are completely turned off when you start talking about making it compulsive.

I just graduated with a degree in philosophy from a secular university. Believe me—I have run in many liberal circles myself.

As for them being turned off by what I say, our job as Christians isn’t to water down and distort the truth so that people will accept it.

Furthermore, if they find God’s law through Moses so offensive, that’s a result of their being against God; it’s not what’s actually keeping them from converting. Those who don’t listen to Moses don’t listen to Jesus:

Luke 16:29-31
But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Originally Posted by GORP006

So no, I don't think we should pick and choose the areas that we obey God, but I think that there needs to be a certain degree of focus on the issues that are more important.

That’s fine, and this isn’t the only thing I talk about or do. But that in no way implies that what I’m saying isn't exactly correct.

Originally Posted by GORP006

Everything else that people debate about is semantics.

You betray that very claim for the hypocrisy it is by continuing to post in this forum, debating political issues! It isn’t that you don’t want to debate other things, it’s that when it comes to those things you want to ignore what the Bible has to say.

[lyrpcrawn]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Sounds like propaganda more than anything else. I find WalMart's habits anti-competitive, unenlightened, and to lack a concern for their employees or the economic ramifications.

This is true. We are somewhat anticompetitive, simply by trying to be the best and lowest prices. I have even witnessed on several accounts that even the managment will go out of their way to make a customer happy and in doing so breaking company policy. But along the same line, many customers seem to have a flagrant disregard to any ones feelings but their own. To customers, I'm just there to bend over backwards for their every whim and want. Then get mad at me if I can't help them with something. What do you mean as far as unenlightened? As far as a "lack of concern for their employees" i could'nt agree with you more. An average Walmart employs about 500 associates with one head store director and about 7-8 assisstant managers. I can personally tell you, without my name badge, my store director doesn't even know who I am. I am one of 100 cashiers. Nothing but a number. they only seem to care if I show up to do my job.
if not, they can simply fire me and find someone else to do my job, it's that simple. i can't complain too much though. Walmart does give back to the community. Right now even, there is a reality show on tv where numerous high school students are competeing for a college scholarship. Already 2 students have recieved a $50,000 scholarship, all paid for by the Walmart coorporation.This buisiness runs like a well oiled machine. They have found a plan that works, and contrary to many beliefs, Walmart will be around for a while. We might as well get used to it.

[GORP006]

[Quote=Travis]I just graduated with a degree in philosophy from a secular university. Believe me—I have run in many liberal circles myself.

As for them being turned off by what I say, our job as Christians isn’t to water down and distort the truth so that people will accept it.

Furthermore, if they find God’s law through Moses so offensive, that’s a result of their being against God; it’s not what’s actually keeping them from converting. Those who don’t listen to Moses don’t listen to Jesus:[quote]

This is not the point I was trying to make. I was simply saying that if a person approaches a non-Christian, and tells them that they think the Government should be run as a Theonomic entity, they will automatically dismiss anything further that comes from your mouth. I think it's better to approach people with the message of salvation rather than the message of condemnation. People don't want to Change America, and if they believe that Christianity is about changing America, they will be turned away. People need to see the benefits of being a Christian before they will even consider whether or not Mosaic law is valid. It's not the Mosaic law itself that they find offensive, it's your desire to change the laws as they exist that they find offensive. I would submit that in the end, we will not be judged by whether we supported the destruction of the Constitution of the United states, but rather on our acceptance of the gift of Salvation offered by Jesus himself.

Originally Posted by Travis

You betray that very claim for the hypocrisy it is by continuing to post in this forum, debating political issues! It isn’t that you don’t want to debate other things, it’s that when it comes to those things you want to ignore what the Bible has to say.

I don't want to ignore what the Bible has to say, but I choose to focus on the message of the New Testament rather than the rules and laws of the old testament. Those rules and laws were in place for a people that did not have a savior to forgive them of their sins, so the way they showed their devotion to God was through obedience to His strict laws. There is a lesson to be learned from these laws, definitely. But there are a lot of things that change from the old to the new testament, and I don't see the benefit from adhering to the laws that were representative of the barrier between man and God when Jesus himself provided us a way out.

At any rate, Message received... You will not see me debate politics in this forum anymore. Obviously I'm not "Christian enough" for your tastes, because I don't subscribe to the same worldview as you. Fair enough, I can accept that. I left this forum several years ago because it drew my focus away from my relationship with God, and maybe I should have stayed away. Thank you for once again pointing out my reason for leaving.

God bless you Travis, I have only the best wishes for you.

[Travis]

Is this your third or fourth “last time” to post in response to me in this thread?

Originally Posted by GORP006

This is not the point I was trying to make. I was simply saying that if a person approaches a non-Christian, and tells them that they think the Government should be run as a Theonomic entity, they will automatically dismiss anything further that comes from your mouth.

Again, that’s not relevant. Not to mention the fact that no one does that.

Originally Posted by GORP006

I think it's better to approach people with the message of salvation rather than the message of condemnation.

There is no salvation without condemnation. Without condemnation, salvation as a concept doesn’t even make sense: From what is one being saved?

Originally Posted by GORP006

People don't want to Change America

Then you’ll have a hard time explaining all the lobbying groups and all the political debate that goes on in this country.

Originally Posted by GORP006

and if they believe that Christianity is about changing America, they will be turned away.

You can take that up with God; He chose to put these things about civil punishment in the Bible.

Originally Posted by GORP006

People need to see the benefits of being a Christian before they will even consider whether or not Mosaic law is valid.

I know. What does that have to do with my claims?

Originally Posted by GORP006

It's not the Mosaic law itself that they find offensive, it's your desire to change the laws as they exist that they find offensive.

And this obligation for the government to obey God which I am arguing for is found in the Bible

Originally Posted by GORP006

I would submit that in the end, we will not be judged by whether we supported the destruction of the Constitution of the United states, but rather on our acceptance of the gift of Salvation offered by Jesus himself.

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Originally Posted by GORP006

I don't want to ignore what the Bible has to say, but I choose to focus on the message of the New Testament rather than the rules and laws of the old testament.

And I’ve shown time and time again that this move is illegitimate. You’ve never even attempted to rebut my arguments.

Originally Posted by GORP006

Those rules and laws were in place for a people that did not have a savior to forgive them of their sins, so the way they showed their devotion to God was through obedience to His strict laws. There is a lesson to be learned from these laws, definitely. But there are a lot of things that change from the old to the new testament, and I don't see the benefit from adhering to the laws that were representative of the barrier between man and God when Jesus himself provided us a way out.

Matthew 5:17-19
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus provided us a way out from damnation as the result of our sins. He did not make conditions such that we could ignore God’s law.

Originally Posted by GORP006

At any rate, Message received... You will not see me debate politics in this forum anymore. Obviously I'm not "Christian enough" for your tastes, because I don't subscribe to the same worldview as you. Fair enough, I can accept that. I left this forum several years ago because it drew my focus away from my relationship with God, and maybe I should have stayed away. Thank you for once again pointing out my reason for leaving.

I’m sorry you feel the need to leave, but this is much more consistent with your claim that nothing is important enough to talk about other than salvation. The thing to do, though, would be to reject the idea that nothing else is important enough to talk about.

[Dwight Schrute]

sorry to interrupt your off-topic theological debate (always wanted to say that to an admin! lol ) but...

Originally Posted by The Washington Post
Legislators Move to Blunt Eminent Domain Ruling



By Mike Allen and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 30, 2005; 4:15 PM


Key leaders of both parties in both chambers of Congress vowed today to use the power of the purse to negate this week's Supreme Court ruling allowing local and state governments to use eminent domain to take private property for economic development purposes.

Bills introduced in the House and Senate would yank federal funds from any city or state project that forced people to sell their property to make way for a project like a hotel or strip mall.

The 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision last week has sparked an immediate and visceral backlash among conservatives. The response on Capitol Hill was unusual for its speed and bipartisan support, and for the biting language the lawmakers used to criticize the high court.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said the planned intervention by Congress is part of a broad effort to "assert the responsibility and the authority of the Congress to be a check on the judiciary.

"Times have changed, particularly in the last two to three years," DeLay said during a rare appearance in the studio of the House Radio-TV Gallery. "This Congress is not going to just sit by -- idly sit by -- and let an unaccountable judiciary make these kinds of decisions without taking our responsibility and our duty given to us by the Constitution to be a check on the judiciary. And this is an example of doing that."

The ruling permits the "taking" of a home or neighborhood, with compensation, for such purposes as the construction of a shopping center. Activists said it has struck such a nerve that it will now be a key issue in convincing conservatives and libertarians to join the confirmation battle when one of the justices steps down.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said he will introduce a Private Property Rights Protection Act that will prohibit any state or municipality from using federal funds for any project in which economic development is used as a justification for exercising eminent domain.

"This decision, in my opinion, has the potential of becoming the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century," Sensenbrenner said. He was referring to the 1857 ruling that affirmed slaves as property without the rights of citizens, and was overturned when the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.

A committee description said the locality or state would "lose any federal funds that would contribute in any way to the project the property would be taken for." The lead Democratic sponsor is Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, and the committee said at least two other Democrats are co-sponsors.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) is introducing a similar measure in the Senate, along with Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). Their measure -- the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act -- relies on the authority of the legislature to regulate the use of federal funds, and declares the view of Congress that "the power of eminent domain should be exercised only 'for public use' " and not "to further private economic development."

Sensenbrenner said at the news conference that the federal government's money "will not be used to finance taking somebody's property from them to build a strip mall or a hotel or something simply because more tax revenue will come in as a result of an improvement." He said the decision, Kelo v. City of New London, "shows that the majority of the court had an utter disrespect for private property."

DeLay said as he left the news conference that he views the legislation as part of the review of congressional oversight of the judiciary that he requested after the death of Terri Schiavo, a Floridian who died March 31 after her feeding tube was removed despite congressional intervention to establish her rights in federal court.

"People are starting to understand what we've been talking about for the last two to three years," he said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at an earlier news conference that "very central in that Constitution is the separation of powers."

"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," Pelosi said. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution -- church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that, as well."

In opposing a Republican amendment about the issue today, Rep. David Obey (Wis.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said on the floor today that the decision was "nutty" but that the solution is legislation or a constitutional amendment, not punitive measures.

"The idea that this House, every time we don't like a court decision, should decide that we're not going to allow federal money to be used to enforce that court decision is as nutty as the original court decision in the first place," Obey said. "So I would hope that we would recognize that the Founding Fathers created the system of separation of powers. They created three independent branches of government for a purpose."

[JerryLove]

This is true. We are somewhat anticompetitive, simply by trying to be the best and lowest prices.

actually, becoming the only game in town is inherently anti-competitive.

I thought when Wal-Mart used it's clout to get record companies to "This is true. We are somewhat anticompetitive, simply by trying to be the best and lowest prices", prompting protest from te ROC, that was anti-competitve.

I thought their pressure, as the worlds biggest seller of DVDs, to force companies to sell very low-priced DVDs was anti-competitive to the whole rental industry.

(I suppose it doesn't help that WalMart is creating a bland, ugly, and generally unpleasent retail envyronment)

All from Fortune:

"As for a supplier raising prices, good luck: In some cases Wal-Mart has been known simply to keep sending payment for the old amount."

"Procter & Gamble's storied partnership with Wal-Mart began on a 1987
canoe trip when Walton and a P&G boss agreed to start sharing
information instead of hoarding it. Yet there was little warning when,
in 2001, Wal-Mart unveiled its Sam's American Choice detergent at
roughly half the price of P&G's family jewel, Tide."

"Now manufacturers worry about losing their direct connection to the consumer. Two decades ago 65% of their ad budgets went to television and other mass media, while today 60% go to retailers for in-store promotions and the like. The worry, as a Forrester report predicts, is that "Wal-Mart will become the next Procter & Gamble." The nightmare: Wal-Mart becomes your company's new VP of marketing."

"Only ten years after launching its
food business amid much guffawing, Wal-Mart is the world's biggest
grocer, driving down prices an average of 13% in the markets it enters,
according to a UBS Warburg study. The effect has been seismic: Kroger
has gone on a cost-cutting drive to narrow the price gap, Albertsons has
abandoned some markets entirely, and an army of consultants now advise
grocers on how to grapple with the 800-pound gorilla. When Wal-Mart
moves, it adheres to the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force."

"The scope part allows Wal-Mart to "flex" its toy section before the holidays and collapse it afterward, while Toys "R" Us is stuck selling toys year-round."

"Scope also lets Wal-Mart use entire categories--gas, soft
drinks, whatever--as loss leaders to pull people into the stores.) "




From PBS:
""Wal-Mart has a very close relationship with China," says Duke University Professor Gary Gereffi. "China is the largest exporter to the U.S. economy in virtually all consumer goods categories. Wal-Mart is the leading retailer in the U.S. economy in virtually all consumer goods categories. Wal-Mart and China are a joint venture." "

"At a salary of only 50 cents an hour or $100 a month, Chinese labor is an unbeatable bargain for international business."

"If people were only consumers, buying things at lower prices would be just good. But people also are workers who need to earn a decent standard of living," says economist Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute. "The dynamics that create lower prices at Wal-Mart and other places are also undercutting the ability of many, many workers to earn decent wages and benefits and have a stable life."



From other sites:

"If you purchase an extended warranty on a new stereo from Wal-Mart, the additional premium that you pay does not go to Wal-Mart U.S.A., but instead, is sent to Wal-Mart's offshore insurance company (where it can grow tax free)."

"At the core of its policy, Wal-Mart demands of its suppliers that they sell goods to Wal-Mart at such a low price, that they can only do so by outsourcing their work to low-wage factories overseas. This causes the exodus of millions of production jobs from the United States and the setting up of slave-labor concentration camps around the globe. "

"Because Wal-Mart determines how much shelf space each supplier receives, it has life-and-death control over that supplier. If Wal-Mart says that it wants a product's price to be lowered by 20-25%, that supplier will be forced to outsource an increasing share of its production."

"Wal-Mart imports 10% of all America's total imports from China."

http://www.walmartfacts.com/wal-mart-union.aspx

The company is militantly anti-union. Reportedly it has instructed its managers never to hire workers who once belonged to a union. It also reportedly fires workers who score too high on a "union probability index." When a union tries to unionize a Wal-Mart cluster of stores, "labor experts" are flown in from Bentonville to counterorganize. Workers are ordered to sit in on weekly "labor relations classes," where management tells them why they should not join a union, and gives them badges saying, "We can speak for ourselves." At one store in Texas, where a union tried to organize, 15 surveillance cameras were installed.

Up to now America's largest employer has opposed every effort of its employees to form a union. Wal-Mart doesn't recognize unions; it doesn't even recognize "employees." The proper Wal-Mart name for its workers is "associates," a term that connotes higher status and collegiality and that actually means lower pay and workplace autocracy. For the privilege of associating themselves with Wal-Mart, its employees are paid so little that many can't afford the health insurance the company generously allows them to buy. One study of health care in Las Vegas revealed that a plurality of that city's employed Medicaid recipients worked at Wal-Mart.

But that was the old Wal-Mart. Last week Wal-Mart announced that if its associates wanted a union to represent them, that would be hunky-dory -- as long as the union was affiliated with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, a body dominated by the Chinese Communist Party. The official statement was simple and seemingly unambiguous: "Should associates request formation of a union, Wal-Mart China would respect their wishes."

Wal-Mart America has made no such declaration, of course. Why it deems its 20,000 Chinese associates who work in its 40 Chinese stores worthy of representation while its million U.S. employees can't be trusted with the right to represent themselves is a good question. Whence the Sinophilia and Americaphobia?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by OneHope

Apparently the CEO of Wal-Mart is a Christian. I was in my local Christian bookstore the other day and I saw a book by him on his life.

Claims to be.