…was on a sign protesting their continued more-for-us-less-for-you campaign.  Thankfully, they were unsuccessful in their bullying tactics.

From the first link:

“From day one, we have said this legislation is arbitrary, discriminatory, and discourages investment in D.C.,” Alex Barron, a general manager for Wal-Mart whose region includes D.C., writes in a company statement. “It means most shopping dollars will stay in the suburbs, unemployment will remain in the double-digits in some neighborhoods and underserved communities will continue to have disproportionate access to affordable groceries.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I followed the last link to this:

The company’s hardball tactics come out of a well-worn playbook that involves successfully using Wal-Mart’s leverage in the form of jobs and low-priced goods to fend off legislation and regulation that could cut into its profits and set precedent in other potential markets. In the Wilson Building, elected officials have found their reliable liberal, pro-union political sentiments in conflict with their desire to bring amenities to underserved neighborhoods.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just can’t understand the thinking that losing Wal-Mart is a bad thing?  Good Riddance to a big box store that pays poor wages, encourages employees to apply for food stamps, guts entire towns that were once full of independent small business owners, and imports cheap plastic crap from China, where again, people are paid low wages (which I know are beginning to rise, but still…).