Pepsi Omits 'Under God' in Patriotic Can Promotion

I really would like to know how many people refuse to use cash because of the word God printed on it....let me take a guess...mmmmmm...maybe less than 0.000000001 of the population.I do not think that seeing the word God can honestly offend anyone that much or else money etc would be boycotted for the same reason. Obviously it would only be offensive to non believers but after saying that does the word Allah actually offend Christians if they see it, I don't think so.
If you are a believer you will believe but I can see how annoying it is to have all this political correctness going on. It is by doing just this kind of thing that people get divided on issues. Divide and conquer, it works 100% of the time. Personally I think it should carry a health warning but that is just my opinion.

I can see why they'd omit that, us British have had to put up with a lot of silly stuff from the last government in trying to unite all religions (when members of all religions here thought it was all just petty) but at the same time, if it's part of the Pledge of Allegiance and every child has to recite it every morning in school (or so tv and movies tell me) then why leave it off the Pledge on a can?

If you're born in America, you learn it from an early age and if you want residency there you have to learn it before you gain citizenship so what's wrong with adding something that makes up the fabric of America?

Then again, I never liked Pepsi anyway, tastes like crap. I prefer Coca-Cola.

Originally posted by baddmove
atcually..it's all a lie..here read this..

www.snopes.com...

edit on 26-3-2011 by baddmove because: (no reason given)

Reading the entire OP is sometimes VERY important.

Kudos to baddmove for providing the truth.

reply to post by masqua


Glad to see someone actually got it...

Kudos to you too!

reply to post by baddmove


PHHHSSST! Typical Anti-Sugar propaganda. The Carbonated powers that be are not pleased by your shenanigans, tom foolery and going ons. I sense conspiracy to defraud ladies and gentlemen!

reply to post by idonotcollectstamps


It amazes me how many people did not read the whole thread..really..

i posted the source..

and then i debunked it too..

but most of you chose to ignore that part..

hmmm...

Here is the entire post:

snopes.com

Who's a Pepper?
Claim: A new Pepsi soda can design omits the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

FALSE

www.snopes.com...

The Mod said he was glad someone "got It" by reading the entire post. .. Oh Mod.. WTF Are you talking about?


The post the the OP posted did not have all this information.. being that this whole thing is a HOAX. So now Mods on ATS are defending HOAXES? Pepsi never did what the OP claimed they did.. making us all look like fools because we didn't check the source.. And YOU MOD support this?! The Op should have given more information in the Original Post to really tell us what was going on in the thread.. and YOU MOD.. should have called him on it ! Oh Entire post reader that you are.. You Are BUSTED! as being a bad Mod in my opinion !!!!

reply to post by baddmove



so.. you decided to play games with us here at ATS? And you got a Mod to back you up.. you Both should be Banned !


I'm alerting both of you to the ATS Staff for improper behavior..


Edit:

Done. Both OP and Mod reported.

I don't like being tricked in my threads on ATS and I don't believe Mods should back trickery up either.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by baddmove

 

so.. you decided to play games with us here at ATS? And you got a Mod to back you up.. you Both should be Banned !

Yeah, they should be totally banned for making ATS members who can't bother to read look bad.

second line.

reply to post by eNumbra


It's not about being able to read.. I read and can quote the entire OP quote.. he didn't mention anything about the fraud that appears later down the post - but you will only see that if you check the source..

It has been my understanding in fairness to the reference material and the readers on ATS that if siting a reference such as this, the Op MUST give a full enough synopses of the contents so a member can make an informed decision. This was not done..We were tricked only because we didn't go to the link and read it ourselves.. that is wrong.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by eNumbra

 

We were tricked only because we didn't go to the link and read it ourselves.. that is wrong.

You we're tricked because you trusted a second-hand posting of the story and didn't read the source article for yourself.

You admit this, so how is OP responsible for what you didn't do?

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by eNumbra

 

We were tricked only because we didn't go to the link and read it ourselves.. that is wrong.

You we're tricked because you trusted a second-hand posting of the story and didn't read the source article for yourself.

You admit this, so how is OP responsible for what you didn't do?

It is simple. As I stated: "It has been my understanding in fairness to the reference material and the readers on ATS that if siting a reference such as this, the Op MUST give a full enough synopses of the contents so a member can make an informed decision. This was not done..We were tricked only because we didn't go to the link and read it ourselves.. that is wrong. "

If something will be moved to the HOAX forum it must be moved after the hoax was discovered. I posted in this thread thinking the Op had given a true synopsis of events, before it was moved to the HOAX forum. People cannot just willy nilly post Hoaxes whenever they feel like and get away with it - it's fraud and against the ATS rules. We just cannot have people allowed to fill up the servers with trash on purpose on ATS - that's not fair to anyone.

reply to post by againuntodust


My thoughts exactly, but either way they offend SOMEbody right? But to be honest, What ever happened to freedom of speech, everywhere you look something is happening about someone saying something and some sort of negative result happens because someone gets offended. just my $0.02

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Here's the deal: the OP found a story and posted a thread on it.

Cool.

The OP then did some digging, found it to be a hoax and added the Snopes to the OP with an edit.

I do NOT believe the author to have commited the T&C violation of intentionally posting a hoax. The edit in the OP is enough to dispense with that charge.

You, however, have forgotten to use [ ex] tags for the external content in your post, kept it to a maximum of 3 paragraphs AND neglected to add the link. But, don't worry, I'll put those required changes in for you.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Stop blaming other people for your mistakes.

The source that proves it was a hoax was edited into OPs post; you are accusing him of doing it on purpose despite having no proof and are calling for him and a mod to be banned.

If it's the truth, that he did it on purpose he should face some consequences no doubt, but you need to stop acting like it's his fault you couldn't be bothered to look into this further than his post. You weren't "tricked" by OP you were too lazy to find the info for yourself.

We just cannot have people allowed to fill up the servers with trash on purpose on ATS - that's not fair to anyone

Indeed; personal responsibility.

Right, I understand this is a hoax but my question is.

Pepsi Max contains 'Aspartame', right?

So, why are we worried about the packaging of the contents more than the contents itself. I mean, I find it odd that people are effected by the fact that the words "Under God" be taken out of a quote but not so effected by the fact that one of the ingredients of this drink is a poisonous nuro-toxin.

Once again, I know this is a hoax but my point is, health issues are more important then religous issues, no matter what.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
[
yeah well it was added in 54.. so what.. it's what we know of today as part of the pledge and therefore I say it stands and stinks Pepsi didn't put it on the can.

did you also boycott Time Magazine over their 9/11 cover "One nation, indivisible"??

www.time.com...

they didn't even put in dots in the middle showing that something was missing