That is of course exactly the reason. If Wal Mart was a good little employer and hired union employees they would be celebrated.
I think you're probably right. And those condemning Walmart as evil because of whatever would instead be defending them or excusing them for those same 'crimes'.
There you go again. Cajun Injectors must be on sale at Mal-Wart?
Start with the paragraph "Could it be..." and tell me why that is not exactly what you just described about "saying what they didn't say". No, ferreting out the motive unilaterally is not part of a rational discussion; it's constructing a strawman. Nobody but Special Ed (a Mal-Wart shopper) claimed anybody wanted to "ban" Wal-Mart. Nobody but you W-M shoppers came up with the idea of "banning", "controlling", "restricting" or what have you. If we did, bring it on with a quote.
Choosing the answer "no" to the poll question (and explaining why) is not "attacking" Wal-Mart. We do have the choice-- it is a yes/no question. That means you have to accept those answers at variance with your own. Just as those of us on the 'no' side accept yours.
You continue to read far more into a post and draw far more assumptions from it than what is there. (This observation is not ad hominem nor is it a personal insult. It is a simple statement of fact based on what you continue to do here.)
And you seem fixated on what one member posted waaaaaaay back somewhere among the many pages and hundreds of posts and seem to think all the rest of us are saying or iinferring the same thing. We aren't. You cannot find anywhere that I have accused anybody of wanting to ban Walmart. I absolutely have said there are those who want to hurt Walmart because they've said so in this thread or their posts cannot be interpreted any other way.
Answering 'no' to the poll question is NOT attacking Walmart. Stating that you didn't enjoy a Walmart experience is not attacking Walmart. Offering a legitimate criticsm of Walmart is not attacking Walmart.
Taking an anecdotal negative incident or situation and stating it as typical of Walmart or protraying it as typical of what Walmart is all about IS attacking Walmart.
And it does beg the question of what motivates somebody to go out of their way to attack Walmart. And why does there appear to be an organized and orchestrated effort on the part of some to punish or hurt Walmart?
We could also expore why you seem to have so much trouble understanding or correctly interpreting what others post, but that would be better explored on another thread. (Just kidding.)