Originally Posted by tbiris

Right. Because the world totally changes on a dime.

I see someone lacks the ability to grasp sarcasm.

I apologize since I was just reading Overheard at Mac. Some people there might have actually thought that.

It's Colombia. With an O
anyways, i did not vote
even though my TA told me i should.
um..........she mentioned that Coke had an army and that it was extremely corrupt, that we should do our own research "assume that she was lying" and find out ourselves. I definitely think that voting was directed to NO because people heard about dirty policies with Coke.
But yes, I'm disappointed in this vote because i feel like Mac didn't make sure that everyone was clear on the terms, or what the aftermath could be for the results (would've been nice to hear from a neutral informed source).

Was this your Peace Studies T.A.?

Sounds like some of the crap they would spout when I was in first year.

No offense to anyone who likes Peace Studies but some of the T.A.s we had for that course in first year were, ummm, interesting.

The whole thing was stupid and the only light in which people were exposed to the referendum in the first place was the "Coke is evil and destroys the environment ARGHHHH!!!"

I don't even get the point of the whole Anti-Coke movement. You b*tch about how it's an evil corporation, destroys the environment, w.e. But then when someone states the obvious (obvious being the fact that any other company that produces drinks for the masses, i.e. Tropicana, Pepsi, w.e., will have the same environmental issues as Coke), the whole argument about variety comes in and the fact that we still will have coke despite the referendum.

It's hypocrisy at its finest. Bringing up all the environmental issues that surround Coke is entirely pointless, when the same people are then quick to inform naysayers that 90 percent of the drinks will be Coke, anyways.

I, for one, like Coke. Call me a capitalist pig and murderer..but no other company out there will have a better track record - it's called industrialism (or commodification, americanization, etc), and it's been happening for a long time. You want to bring up the argument for variety? I'm with you all the way. But cloaking it behind some "green earth" campaign is misleading and idiotic.

coming from the guy that made the worst youtube video i have ever seen, and says he doesn't read books.



Can we ban coke next? then ban no-fun, and ban grades after that! and then maybe ban those evangelicals that scare me sometimes. Marxist campus is whats up.

Um. No Marxist campus. Huzaifa would be running around throwing flowers everywhere in happiness.

Originally Posted by andrew22

coming from the guy that made the worst youtube video i have ever seen, and says he doesn't read books.

And this comes from the guy with some weird ass anime picture and jibberish in his name? And my youtube videos have something to do with my personal views?

And the guy who obviously doesn't understand a joke..I'm in university, I think I've had to read a few books lately, buddy. I think that might've been the stupidest argument yet, but thanks for the publicity?

Exclusive contracts of any kind just solidify corporate monopolies. I dont care if its Coke, Pepsi, or anyone else, exclusive contracts destroy competition and they will lead to us all paying more.

I really think people should be more upset about the fact that nearly 100% of the beverages on campus are sold by two corporations.

McMaster is a huge market that Im sure lots of food and beverage companies want a piece of... instead of even considering giving one company an exclusive contact, we should be ensuring that companies fairly compete for the student market and give us the best value for our money.

That's why I voted no.