Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (998656)	2/3/2017 9:59:26 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570523

"That should apply to their opponents as well, but unfortunately many global warming alarmists don't agree." Yeah, I've heard the same thing from people about smoking, and certainly the tobacco companies would agree with you. Would I settle for Exxon, Koch, Peabody et al paying a $5T fine and admitting that the FFs they push are an addiction (GWB even said it), but not that they funded climate denial and lied about the dangers of carbon? I don't think so. Court finds American tobacco companies won't have to admit lying about the effects of smoking WASHINGTON (AP) — America's largest tobacco companies must inform consumers that cigarettes were designed to increase addiction, but not that they lied to the public about the dangers of smoking, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday. The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a partial win for cigarette makers in the long-running legal fight that began in the Clinton administration in 1999. In this latest round, the companies objected to running court-ordered advertisements that would have branded themselves as liars. The ads would have begun with a preamble statement that the companies "deliberately deceived the American public." The ads stem from a 2006 court ruling ordering the companies to admit they had lied for decades about the dangers of smoking. The companies called that statement overbroad and misleading. But government lawyers argued that the language was meant to provide context for the public. businessinsider.com