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: RetiredNow who wrote (1063275)	3/30/2018 8:46:09 AM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576830

which all are hyper liberal. I think they are trying something new out, which is to pretend to have a character who represents the conservatives, but then to sneak in moderate or left positions into that character. Nothing new imho. The West Wing with Martin Sheen tried their best change the image of the left wing Clinton White House through conservative views and actions.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1063275)

3/30/2018 4:19:25 PM

From: Brumar89

Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576830

Could be, I only know the show through commercials for it .. Re CA, I see coffee is now officially disapproved in that state now.

California Court Rules Coffee Needs Cancer Warning Label

.......
According to the Washington Post, The Council for Education and Research on Toxics filed a lawsuit under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, which the state’s voters approved as Proposition 65 in 1986, against Starbucks and about ninety other companies selling coffee in the state, including grocery stores and coffee shops.

This law requires warning labels if a product contains any among a long list of chemicals deemed to cause cancer, including acrylamide, which is produced in trace amounts during the process of roasting coffee beans.

California residents, advocacy groups, and attorneys have the right to sue on behalf of the state for violations of this law. If a suit is successful, the plaintiffs are entitled to collect a portion of the civil penalties, to the tune of up to $2,500 per person exposed each day to the alleged toxic substance — a potentially terrifying sum for companies operating in a state of almost 40 million people.

It’s not hard to see how a law like this creates major incentives for nuisance litigation. This is why local and state elections matter, y’all.
...........
Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle noted that the plaintiffs’ experts had testified that acrylamide presented a risk to humans who consumed it, the defendants’ experts had testified that they had “no opinion on causation.”

“Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving…that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health,” wrote Berle.
............
Perhaps instead of warning about a fantastical cancer risk, they should warn Californians about voting for oppressive regulations and the legislators who love them.

redstate.com