prop 37 in Cali

[dredge]

Originally Posted by Reiker000 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm sure that will accomplish a lot.

I accomplished what I set out to do. I came here to rant and rave about prop 37 results, done.

I'm also getting entertained and fighting boredom at school

[Spitty]

Browsing RNF at school.

Yeah, you're future's so bright you'll need a mob and a paper hat.

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by Spitty [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Browsing RNF at school.

Yeah, you're future's so bright you'll need a mob and a paper hat.

Also, your*

[Spitty]

Originally Posted by Hailto [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, your*

Your right.

Your missing a period, by the way.

[doraf]

Originally Posted by dredge [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You obviously know nothing on the subject. Why don't you read up and come back when you have some facts

Originally Posted by Spitty [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your right.

Your missing a period, by the way.

You're missing an apostrophie and an "e." But, I typed "educated" in a previous post when I meant "educate," so who am I to correct anyone either. LOL

[Shaun421]

I haven't even played this shit for a year, but honestly, this discussion drove me up a wall.

WE GET IT. You dont like GMOs. You want to know what products contain them.

We're talking about fucking PROP 37 and the LANGUAGE contained in that specific prop. Get off you're fucking hippy high horse and READ what people are trying to tell you. Many of whom AGREE with your stance on the labels.

In addition to the potential damage to "mom and pop" shops, Prop 37 would have opened the door to all sorts of frivilous (fuck you spelling) lawsuits, akin to the ADA bullshit suits. Prop 37 allowed ANYONE to file a suit against any company alleged of failing to meet the new regulation, regardless if that party received damages in any sort of way. This can be extrapolated to mean anyone could sue a company without even needing PROOF of a violation. The burden is now on business to defend themselves against baseless accusations that caused no harm, EVEN IF THE COMPANY DID EVERYTHING BY THE LAW.

We don't need any more fucking bullshit suits. They either A, clog up an already fucked court system, or B, companies settle out of court to avoid court costs of defending themselves, which encourages more bullshit suits.

It was a poorly written proposition. Good intention, we all love transparency, but fucking READ what the shit says before you whip out your graphs and argue something that no one was even talking about.

Fuck.

[Spitty]

Originally Posted by doraf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're missing an apostrophie and an "e." But, I typed "educated" in a previous post when I meant "educate," so who am I to correct anyone either. LOL

If we're being pedantic, I twice missed an 'e' and twice missed an apostrophe (correctly spelled here) in that two-part statement. However, good sir, I delightfully inform you now that it was completely intentional and designed to evoke the spirits of those that dwell under yonder bridge.

[Spitty]

Mop. MOP! Fuck this forum.

[dredge]

Originally Posted by Spitty [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mop. MOP! Fuck this forum.

lol

I know how you feel

[dredge]

I'm still confused how you two think the private sector "using market forces" is supposed to accomplish and replace what the FDA is there to do.