"You're not allowing people to decide what they want to eat and drink and consume," she said.

CONSUME

Nadie_AZ: Beautiful place. And the government should have had enough power to say 'no' to this company. But I've seen enough fat people sitting there for 5 minutes and then asking 'what next' to know that they'll succeed.

They do have that power, they just decided not to use it. And, honestly, it doesn't sound like it was actually active opposition from the corporation that derailed this, all the referenced statements made it sound like they were actually fine with it and just wanted to be informed.

Tell you what, corporate America. You can have the rights of the People when you pay taxes like we do. I pay taxes on my gross income. You do the same.

People are corporations.

/also, Stephen Colbert is a jerk of art

For only thirteen million? ONLY MILLIONS? What the fark, USA? You cheap little whores. Coca-Cola has deeper pockets than that, and your government has some deeper holes to fill.

Jim_Callahan: They do have that power, they just decided not to use it. And, honestly, it doesn't sound like it was actually active opposition from the corporation that derailed this, all the referenced statements made it sound like they were actually fine with it and just wanted to be informed.

You bought that?

"There was not an overt statement made to me that they objected to the ban," Mulholland said. "There was never anything inferred by Coke that if this ban happens, we're losing their support."

Yeah, maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but this is about as convincing as a mafia crime witness recanting on the stand.

OgreMagi: Tell you what, corporate America. You can have the rights of the People when you pay taxes like we do. I pay taxes on my gross income. You do the same.

Nnnnnnnnnnno, you don't. Not income tax, anyway. Unless you're a very generous and civic-minded person.

"Banning anything is never the right answer," she said. "If you do that, you don't necessarily address the problem." She also characterized the bottle ban as limiting personal choice. "You're not allowing people to decide what they want to eat and drink and consume," she said.

So we should legalize pot, cocaine and heroin, right?

blahpers: OgreMagi: Tell you what, corporate America. You can have the rights of the People when you pay taxes like we do. I pay taxes on my gross income. You do the same.

Nnnnnnnnnnno, you don't. Not income tax, anyway. Unless you're a very generous and civic-minded person.

I dunno, man, like the rest of us he pays "gross income - deductions" whereas every corporation in the country pays "net profit - deductions". OgreMagi has a pretty good point.

Bennie Crabtree: Coca-Cola has deeper pockets than that, and your government has some deeper holes to fill

And this is why we can't have nice things.

Seriously, it's a microcosm for the mire the world is in -- the toxic co-dependence between a weakening state and an ascendant corporate ruling class.

Honestly I wouldn't trust either the state or the markets at this point. My hope, and certainly not a solution -- perhaps it is only or more like a chance at this point -- is that people will just begin organizing themselves and their communities, leaning into issues that matter to them, in a kind of bottom-up "micropolitical" revolution (that may well look like the 99 Percent Movement.)

FTA: "There was not an overt statement made to me that they objected to the ban," Mulholland said. "There was never anything inferred by Coke that if this ban happens, we're losing their support."

Is there an infer/imply issue here or is it just me?

"That was upsetting news because of what I felt were ethical issues surrounding the idea of being influenced unduly by business," Martin said

You don't say.

So this means we can tax them after all?

jbuist: OgreMagi: I pay taxes on my gross income.

I'm not even sure that's possible. Everybody has a deduction on their taxes. You'd have to fill out a 1040-EZ incorrectly for that to even happen.

Shostie: OgreMagi: I pay taxes on my gross income.

No, you don't.

blahpers: OgreMagi: Tell you what, corporate America. You can have the rights of the People when you pay taxes like we do. I pay taxes on my gross income. You do the same.

Nnnnnnnnnnno, you don't. Not income tax, anyway. Unless you're a very generous and civic-minded person.

I need my car to get to work, but I don't get to write it off as a business expense.

You'll have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.

corporatists need bullets in their faces. period

jbuist: The gross income of a "wage slave" is net profit

I realized they were people when they started getting fat welfare checks. Thanks Bush/Obama

jbuist: A Dark Evil Omen: jbuist: The gross income of a "wage slave" is net profit

[s3.amazonaws.com image 465x446]

I have a hunch that you disagree with something I wrote but fark if I can tell what your actual intended message was.

The intended message was, "Are you farking serious?"

Work,
Buy,
Consume,
Die.

Also,
Vaccinium Arboreum: FTA: "There was not an overt statement made to me that they objected to the ban," Mulholland said. "There was never anything inferred by Coke that if this ban happens, we're losing their support."

Is there an infer/imply issue here or is it just me?

No, it's not just you. Farking illiterates.

Corporations are just as much people as unions and newspapers are.

randomjsa: Corporations are just as much people as unions and newspapers are.

So, not at all. Oh, and shut up, libby.

A Dark Evil Omen: So, not at all

Okay, we'll overturn the the Citizens United ruling and corporations will no longer be able to donate to campaigns, nor will unions, and newspapers won't be able to endorse or support people.

Let's see... That would only DESTROY the Democrats completely. This sounds completely sound and reasonable.

I'll believe corporations are people when California aborts one.

jjorsett: I'll believe corporations are people when California aborts one.

Can you arrest a corporation? Could we handcuff the front doors and shove it into the back of a police car?

Nem Wan: You'll have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.

whatever, colonel Bat Guano.

/if that is your real name

"You're not allowing people to decide what they want to eat and drink and consume," she said.

Not to disagree with the sentiment on allowing people to decide what they eat and drink, but those people are in a national park, land we have set aside to assure the protection of nature due to irresponsible expansion and development; when they ban them from federal buildings, I'll agree with you.

randomjsa: A Dark Evil Omen: So, not at all

Okay, we'll overturn the the Citizens United ruling and corporations will no longer be able to donate to campaigns, nor will unions, and newspapers won't be able to endorse or support people.

Let's see... That would only DESTROY the Democrats completely. This sounds completely sound and reasonable.

I don't think that's really what CU did. If it were repealed everyone would still be able to donate, they just wouldn't be able to do it anonymously in unlimited amounts. The Dems would be just fine, it's the Republicans it would hurt.

"You're not allowing people to decide what they want to eat and drink and consume"

aaaaarrrrGGHHH!!

People are still free to decide what they want to eat and drink and consume. What would be prohibited inside the park is the sale of water in plastic bottles, not the consumption of water in plastic bottles. A person is still free to decide to bring their own plastic bottles of water if they wish to consume water out of plastic bottles. Just to be clear: not selling a thing is not taking away people's freedom to decide to consume a thing.

Furthermore, the park is considering not selling water in plastic bottles. The park is not considering not providing water. A person would still be free to decide to consume water provided by the park if they bring their own container - even if that container is a plastic bottle, previously sold to them full of water at some other location. Again, to be clear: not selling water in plastic bottles at a certain location does not take away people's freedom to decide to consume water in plastic bottles.

I hate this kind of goddamned thinking. It starts at any given point A, goes through a few loose leaps and a generalization or three, and ends up with a justification of anything that sounds like Superman wrote it in the Washington Monument with his laser eyeballs - you can't not sell plastic bottles of water in a national park because Freedom, Justice, and the American Way! Well, it isn't that way, Miss Susan Stribling of the Coca Cola Corporation. You can't just spit freedom sparkles out of your face's arsehole and consider your argument finished.

buckler: I guess we'll be getting sweet brown fizzy liquid out of out drinking fountains at national parks soon.

Will it have electrolytes?

They likely paid a huge amount for the seat too !

grimnir: You can't just spit freedom sparkles out of your face's arsehole and consider your argument finished.

I'm amused, repulsed, and in agreement all at the same time.

We didn't need parks anyway

Car_Ramrod: "You're not allowing people to decide what they want to eat and drink and consume," she said.

CONSUME

[img593.imageshack.us image 500x436]

Funny story, my step dad was philosophicaticizing about that whole "why are we here?" BS. And when I said "To Consume", he gave me the look that says he's gonna start fire up the argument factory he keeps in his skull.

And then his eyes just glazed over and he got really sad. Then he said, "I don't want that to be true."

Wait... Did I say that story was funny? Sorry. My bad.

albatros183: We didn't need parks anyway

Yes, indeed, let's keep right on cutting the budget for natural resources and park maintenance, because that stuff isn't important anyway. Besides, if you stop selling water at the Grand Canyon, 1000 tourists a year will drop dead on the trails, because they never learned how to fill up a water bottle or drink tap water.

/Yes, I do work for the Park Service
//Did, anyway

Good. Let a company fund the park, if they want. Less money we have to spend and people buy Cokes anyway.

buckler: I guess we'll be getting sweet brown fizzy liquid out of out drinking fountains at national parks soon. After all, Coca-Cola made it their stated goal to have their flagship beverage be "more available than water" worldwide several years ago.

Rich folks drink Cokes.

// or Kochs?

i read that as The National Fark Poundation.

I enjoy the occasional ice-cold Coke while hiking in the wild...