If they're shareholders, they probably have standing to sue over lost shareholder value or some such bullshit like that
laurelraven
joined 2 years ago
If they were apathetic they wouldn't fight so hard to prevent a single red cent being used to help people
I thought they didn't block political figures... Guess the muskrat just meant the figures he agrees with...
Probably more because of how easy it is to drink than raw strength... It's way easier to put away a bunch of 70 proof sweetened liqueur than the same amount of alcohol worth of 80+ proof hard liquor, very easy to not realize how much you've had until way too late
I'm pretty sure that's regular Coke zero, unless they've changed the packaging again
But yeah, something about the artificial sweetener just doesn't work with alcohol
I would love to have that level of optimism again... Here's hoping it actually works out that way
And then Biff Tannen was elected US president
It's the modern day book burning
Let's see if it actually plays out that way in practice
That statement could be applied to a lot of things he's done and gotten away with so far so forgive me if that fails to give me hope
Last I heard was a couple weeks ago them stating clearly that they would not comply, and doing a bit of searching I can't find anything more recent that contradicts that stance... Where did you see that they'd reversed that decision?
Where did murder come into this?