REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The monster that is Monsanto

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2008 05:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3596
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, April 13, 2008 5:22 PM

FLETCH2


here we go again... always disappear off when you are losing an argument.

Expectation of privacy is from Tort, as previously explained. It is not a "right" Lawyers dont use 2 words for the same thing. It is something different.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 5:34 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Actually you disappeared for quite a while in the middle of an ongoing discussion and though I waited I thought you were gone. But I do need to go soon and I don't feel the need to apologize for having a life and a job. If you bump your preferred argument enough to keep it up at the top I will revisit it when I get back. But you have to make the effort b/c I'm not going to wait around for you to post or keep checking back to see if you have so deigned.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has found that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)." This right to privacy doesn't stem from the constitution, however, it stems from the penumbras of thoughts, practices and assumptions of the common laws of the time.

Anything to say about common law and agriculture ? If you do, say it fast, 'cause I'm outa' here soon. I'll twiddle my thumbs for 25 minutes from time of posting, then I'm gone.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:10 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Fletch, you're such a chicken.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:16 PM

FLETCH2


Let's look at what was actually said shall we, rather than the Rue version.

Griswold vs Connecticut

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html

Quote:



The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender tohis detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described... as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."

We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.




No mention of the common law.

You have chosen to interprete it that way.

Agricultural law is not some kind of parallel governance of the common law, it is the body of statute pertaining to agriculture in the same way that maritime law reflects that body of law specific to the sea.

Thank you for pointing me in that direction though because there was an interesting case



http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/cases/monsanto-david.html

Quote:



The farmer argued that he was not responsible for paying Monsanto a royalty on the retained seed under the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 (PVPA), but the court noted that the Patent Act superseded the PVPA. Id. "[T]he right to save seed of plants registered under the PVPA does not impart the right to save seed of plants patented under the Patent Act." Id. (quoting Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291, at 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, the court rejected the argument that the patent only applies to the gene in its pure form and not contained in plants or seeds, because the patent specifically refers to a man-made gene, not one that naturally occurs, making the argument invalid. See id. at 1093.

Under 35 U.S.C.A. § 284, "upon the finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court." Id. at 1093.

The royalties used to calculate the damages for this infringement were based upon expert testimony and the substantial benefit conferred upon the farmer for his wrongdoing. Id. at 1094. Consequently, Monsanto was awarded $226,214.40 plus fees and costs for the seed that the farmer saved to plant about 2,222 acres of crop. Id.




This stuff makes grim reading BTW.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:21 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

First there are no such things as common law rights.
There are, but in relation to the government.
Quote:

Second the common law is not statute. For example I can make you sign a none disclosure agreement as part of your condition of employment or as part of a contract and sue you if you break it even though you have a common law expectation of free speech.
And that is as good a statement of the problem as any. What needs to happen is statutory limitation of the "rights" of the ALREADY big and powerful. YOu know... socialism.


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:26 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.


heh. They're not my first choice on reliable news either.

Monsanto was on my evil corp list...we all know I'm right about everything except those things I'm not.

It's not so much that Monsanto is inherently evil; they're too big. They, like any business, sometimes make poor legal choices. Not to mention departments not knowing what other departments are doing. I'll give them credit for trying to clean up some (not all) of their past run-off and contamination spots. I still don't like them.


---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.
But if it's in the Bible, you would? Or maybe if it was in the WSJ?

I dunno Rap. Instead of basing your opinion on where you read something, how about looking at the content? Cross-checking with other sources and actually working up a little intellectual sweat?
Yeah, I know... it's hard work, but I'm sure you can do it.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I'm far more likely to believe the WSJ than VF.

Dunno why you brought The Bible into the mix .

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:16 PM

FREMDFIRMA


You'll note that I credited their journalism in this case - something that is pretty rare for me to do, yes ?

That's because I *DO* verify and crosscheck from original source, being a skeptical and suspicious type, and never more so than when someone is telling me something I already suspect, cause then I suspect their motives, heh.

They did a good job on their fact checking and research, and I would not have said such a thing if they had not - go on, check for yourself.

To dismiss a factual, fully researched article simply because of it's source is idiotic, partisan and a damnfool thing to do, especially since the other end is swallowing a faery tale whole without so much as a blink if it comes from a favored source.

I'll even throw in a quote from ole Ronnie Ray-Gun that fits ever so appropriately.
"Trust but Verify."

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 12:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'm far more likely to believe the WSJ than VF.
You STILL don't get it???

Rap, you shouldn't believe anything, and if you do.... that's your first and biggest mistake, and the reason why most here think you're 12 oz short of a six-pack.

Most here have a fiber or two of intellectual muscle and actually check out various postings. I didn't "believe" the article, I cross checked it by looking at other sources, and the facts of the article turned out to be widely documented. And this isn't the first time I've heard of Monsanto shaking down non-customers, suppressing scientific studies of their products etc. As a chemist by trade I read "general" scientific journals like Science and Nature as well as trade journals like Chemical & Engineering News (which BTW represent industry quite well) and the same trend has shown up over the years in technical journals.

I haven't found any reason to doubt the article. So I challenge you YET AGAIN to come up with a solid piece of evidence to show that the article is false on its face, or false in its implications. And since you haven't, you're either a mental midget who is incapable of doing any research whatsoever, or you DID the research and are just whinging because it didn't pan out for you.

Go do your homework Rap instead of blowing go-se all over the board. You dishonor yourself and the people here. You're delusional and dishonest even with yourself, and as a consequence you add nothing to a conversation. So until you manage to bring some facts to the table, I'm not trouble myself to discuss this with your further.

BTW- How's that economy going? ON FIRE! Right?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 12:23 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Why is it so important for you to ridicule me just because I'm skeptical of a muck raking article from VF ? Oh, sure, it does follow the standard Lib fare for accusing big business of being all things unholy, kicking the little guy, just to make a quick buck. We know the drill. I just find it less credible when the writer of this "piece " comes out w/ such biased and slanted language from word one. When that happens, I'm gonna be skeptical. As anyone should be. It's only healthy, imo. I have no stake in the matter either way, other than I hate seeing folks get shaken down for things they didn't do, or for being what they're not.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 1:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'm skeptical of a muck raking article from VF ?
The reason why you get chapped so often isn't because you're "skeptical", Auraptor. It's because you operate in only two modes: You're either believing what you already agree with, or rejecting that which makes you uncomfortable. In other words, your mind is completely closed. In between there's no room for doubt, inquiry, testing of knowledge, or intellectual growth.

For example, you say the article is "slanted" but you haven't disproven a single point in it, nor have you come up with an mitigating evidence: Say, for example, that Monsanto is losing billions of dollars in lost revenue through seed-saving and that it's investigations are generally well-targeted.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 1:48 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

I'm skeptical of a muck raking article from VF ?
The reason why you get chapped so often isn't because you're "skeptical", Auraptor. It's because you operate in only two modes: You're either believing what you already agree with, or rejecting that which makes you uncomfortable. In between there's no room for doubt, inquiry, testing of knowledge, or intellectual growth.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.



no room for intellectual growth ? What a load of go se. Stating that I'm skeptical , and why, isn't the same as claiming cynicism. BIG difference there, if ya don't know. I'll admit that I'm leaving myself open to taking a bath on all this, that I might be wrong. But that still doesn't get the writer for vilifying 'Big FARM ' as being inherently evil, uncaring and greedy.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 4:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


But where are your FACTS????

All you have is opinion.

But no FACTS.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:54 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But where are your FACTS????

All you have is opinion.

But no FACTS.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.



Don't need any facts yet, to be skeptical. And I've already admitted there's a chance I could be all wet on this, and the VF piece is dead on accurate per this issue. I just don't like how it sounds, is all I'm saying.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:53 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I've already admitted there's a chance I could be all wet on this

*falls off chair clutching chest*

You've taken your first step into a larger world....

Obi-Wanisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Don't need any facts yet, to be skeptical. And I've already admitted there's a chance I could be all wet on this, and the VF piece is dead on accurate per this issue. I just don't like how it sounds, is all I'm saying.
Then I apologize for pounding on you some more. Some people can't take "maybe" for an answer, and I guess I'm one of them. Sorry 'bout that!


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:52 AM

GREENBROWNCOAT


Auraptor and Kirkules are the perfect Americans, by which I mean that they believe the party line and are too well indoctrinated to question authority. They watch newscasts on stations with corporate and partisan agendas and believe they are receiving factual, unbiased information. They are compliant and gullible. They are not to be hated, they are to be pitied. Their naïveté coupled with their unwillingness to accept new information ensures that they will support the corporations that systematically poison them. They feed themselves and their children poisoned milk, meat, and produce. They clothe themselves with garments produced using poisonous chemicals in every phase from plant to fiber, from countries that poison the air and water to make them (not to mention the harm to our economy from the trade imbalance), purchased from superstores that poison the local environment and economy. They purchase and purchase, just as they've been trained to do from birth. They consume and waste. They destroy the planet. They are to be pitied. Poor fools. I weep for them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 11:05 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM


Wow, Green.... this would be a good time to plug one of my favorite educational videos.... it follows very closely with what you're saying...

http://www.storyofstuff.com


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 11:51 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by GreenBrowncoat:
They are compliant and gullible. They are not to be hated, they are to be pitied. Their naïveté coupled with their unwillingness to accept new information ensures that they will support the corporations that systematically poison them.



Did I miss the part were you demonstrated your vast knowledge of plant genetics and Bovine husbandry. Usually those here add something constructive to the conversation before they tell me I'm an idiot. What "new information" did you add. Oh right, we all know now that you're a pompous ass.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, he got the bovine part, but I ain't sure husbandry was the end product.

Categorizing folk is stupid - you can teach, learn from and exchange ideas with a person, but you cannot do it with a category or caricture of a person.

That's why even when ripping heads off, I take folk as individuals, cause to do otherwise renders the entire idea of an argument invalid and relegates it to just venting or ranting.

Too many folk wanna break it down to a simple "us and them" but it ain't so, there's us, and then there's more of.. us.

E Pluribus Unum.

And to accept that is the first step towards gettin along with folk.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:05 PM

GREENBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Deadlockvictim:

Wow, Green.... this would be a good time to plug one of my favorite educational videos.... it follows very closely with what you're saying...

http://www.storyofstuff.com



Deadlockvictim, thank you so very much for that link. I'd never seen that video before, but that is exactly what I'm talking about.

Particularly chilling is the the quote:

“Our enormously productive economy...demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption....We need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.” – Victor LeBeau

For those who aren't yet aware of the collusion between Fox and Monsanto to suppress the reportage of the health risks caused by Monsanto's bovine growth hormone in dairy products, the website http://www.foxbghsuit.com may be of some interest.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think the thing is that most everyone on this board has an opinion or two on any particular topic. (We're an opinionated lot!) But the opinions that I value most are informed opinions: those that are reached because of unique life experiences or serious study of a topic. Even if I don't agree I can always learn something new from those kind of folks.

The opinions that really knock my socks off are the predictive ones; I figure that if someone can figure out what's going to happen next they've created a really, really accurate model of a complex system, and it behooves me to pay attention to their assumptions and logic!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:16 PM

FREMDFIRMA


The problem with the Cassandra gig, Siggy...

Is that it is really high in creep factor, and really low in customer satisfaction.

Nobody wants to hear where this is going, and most especially that they are individually powerless to prevent it, within a population unwilling or unable to act cohesively enough to stop it.

I disagree with the system complexity comment for the same reason I disagree with PN's overreaching conspiracies...

Just because a bunch of crabs march across the beach in lockstep, does not mean they are organised and coordinated - although it may look that way, the reality is that their processing is so simple that from the same inputs, within minimal variation, you'll get the same result, see ?

Our system is NOT complex at all, simply add in greed, ambition and a total lack of conscience with a minimal to non-existent set of controls and consequences, to a population concerned only with their own personal power, wealth and comfort.

And then put them in charge of the rest of us, and viola, you've just recreated our entire system, at the root of it - all the rest is just fluff, bullshit and details.

Once you understand how the game works, you only really have to understand the 1% that actually controls any damn thing, and THOSE folk are easy to comprehend.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:01 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by GreenBrowncoat:
Auraptor and Kirkules are the perfect Americans, by which I mean that they believe the party line and are too well indoctrinated to question authority. They watch newscasts on stations with corporate and partisan agendas and believe they are receiving factual, unbiased information. They are compliant and gullible. They are not to be hated, they are to be pitied. Their naïveté coupled with their unwillingness to accept new information ensures that they will support the corporations that systematically poison them. They feed themselves and their children poisoned milk, meat, and produce. They clothe themselves with garments produced using poisonous chemicals in every phase from plant to fiber, from countries that poison the air and water to make them (not to mention the harm to our economy from the trade imbalance), purchased from superstores that poison the local environment and economy. They purchase and purchase, just as they've been trained to do from birth. They consume and waste. They destroy the planet. They are to be pitied. Poor fools. I weep for them.



Welcome to the party, Greenie. Wow, talk about gullible ! You should have died a dozen times over w/ the horrible world you live in! By your comments, it's plain to see that you tote around your agenda everywhere you go. Never mind the fact that I simply stated I was skeptical of the attack on Monsanto. And you seemingly ignore the why, since I gave examples above to show my skepticism wasn't just out of hand.

Poisoned food , air and water ? Wow. So, living longer is a bad thing in your view ? I rarely get sick and suffer from no allergies, so if breathing , drinking and eating from a poisoned planet is bad, then let me be VERY bad.

Greenie, just so there's no misunderstanding, I don't care for your kind. The holier than thou, arrogant and condescending water mellon types ( green on the outside, red on the inside ) who think they know so much more about the planet and it's some how YOUR job to tell us , the great unwashed, how to live our lives in order to " save " this 4.6 BILLION yr old rock in space. I got news for ya , this planet will be around LONG after the species of homo sapiens has become extinct or moved the heck off.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by GreenBrowncoat:

For those who aren't yet aware of the collusion between Fox and Monsanto to suppress the reportage of the health risks caused by Monsanto's bovine growth hormone in dairy products, the website http://www.foxbghsuit.com may be of some interest.




Is this anything like the " collusion" that CNN had w/ Saddam to not report on the atrocities Iraq was committing and to even go as far as to report puff pieces, which made Iraq look better to the world, so as to get favorable interviews and access for reporters that weren't offered to other news agencies ?

Are we talking THAT level of collusion?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

all the rest is just fluff, bullshit and details.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! gasp! HAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! gasp! heheheheheheheh!!!!!!! snort! mrphhHHH!! chuckle! heh heh heh heh...


Yeah but... (you know what "Yes, but..." means? It means "no" ) Every now and again the system ruptures, French- Revolution style. That, or it runs itself off a cliff. Sometimes... rarely... it evolves into a relatively benign, egalitarian form.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 1:37 AM

PSYCHOTIC


Nothing really new here. Check this out if you didn't want to read the long Vanity Fair article. I heard about Monsanto when Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser was on the Guns & Butter radio show back in 2005 Nov 2 & 9. I get pissed now every time I hear their name.

You can get those episodes here:
http://gunsandbutter.net/archives.php
http://www.esnips.com/web/percyschmeisergmo

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 1:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh HUSH, Psych! You're just portraying Monsanto as a big, bad corporation when everybody knows they're the neatest thing since sliced GMO bread! Anyway, Gunsnbutter is loading slow, so here's the story
Quote:

Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Monsanto's position was that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene, or whether or not he took advantage of the technology (he didn't); that he must pay Monsanto their Technology Fee of $15./acre.
www.percyschmeiser.com

This is what I've allued to already, altho nobody picked up on it: About 10% of non-GMO seed stock is contamintaed with GMO genetic materials due to cross pollination from nearby fields.

In addition to potentially giving Monsanto leverage over farmers who have never purchased their seed stock, that FACT might want to give you pause when somebody wants to do GMO field experiments: There is no way to contain genetically-modified seed.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 1:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Is this anything like the " collusion" that CNN had w/ Saddam to not report on the atrocities Iraq was committing and to even go as far as to report puff pieces
Is this a baseless opinion, or do you have anything to back it up?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 5:56 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Our system is NOT complex at all, simply add in greed, ambition and a total lack of conscience with a minimal to non-existent set of controls and consequences, to a population concerned only with their own personal power, wealth and comfort.


Like Robin Hood, you've hit the bullseye.

Friar Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 9:48 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Sometimes... rarely... it evolves into a relatively benign, egalitarian form.

For a while, but it's an inherently flawed and unstable system to begin with and always seems to cycle back to the same dynamic which caused the wreck in the first place, which is why I prefer a Crazy Eddie solution instead of something temporary.

Oh, and Chrisisall ?

That's William Tell, ya berk *thunk!*

Despite the inflated tales, Robin of Loxley was a rather indifferent archer, and not much of a swordsman either - it was his fiendish mind and ability to inspire folk that made him dangerous, rather than his martial skills.

And nor are you stoic enough to be Friar Tuck, but rather more in temperment and behavior common to Alan A'Dale.

-Legendary Fremisall.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:14 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Alan A'Dale.


But I don't remember that he was good at kicking ass....?

Martial Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:48 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Is this anything like the " collusion" that CNN had w/ Saddam to not report on the atrocities Iraq was committing and to even go as far as to report puff pieces
Is this a baseless opinion, or do you have anything to back it up?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.



Nothing I say or post is " baseless". You ought to know that by now, sheesh.


CNN's Iraqi Cover-Up
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/CNNs_Iraqi_Cover-Up.
asp

CNN admits that knowledge of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.


In a shocking New York Times opinion piece, CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan has admitted that for the past decade the network has systematically covered up stories of Iraqi atrocities. Reports of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.

Read Jordan's op-ed at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html

Jordan has not always been so candid -- nor honest. Just six months ago on public radio, when challenged regarding the veracity of CNN's Baghdad reports, Jordan stated:

"CNN has demonstrated again and again that it has a spine; that it's prepared to be forthright... we work very hard to report forthrightly, to report fairly and to report accurately and if we ever determine we cannot do that, then we would not want to be there [in Iraq]."
http://wnyc.org/onthemedia/transcripts_102502_jordan.html

Below, HonestReporting presents a series of op-ed columns and editorials condemning CNN's policy. At the end of this communique is a response that CNN's Eason Jordan sent to HonestReporting.

Now that this senior CNN executive has come clean, it leaves us wondering: In what other regions ruled by terrorist dictators do the media toe the party line so as to remain in good stead? It is known that the Palestinian Authority, since its very establishment, has employed brutal methods of intimidation against journalists.

For specific examples, see HonestReporting's expose, "Palestinian Intimidation of the Press":
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/Palestinian_Intimidati
on_of_the_Press.asp


Have the major international news agencies also withheld information on the PA in order to stay on good terms with Arafat's henchmen? As HonestReporting chronicled on another occasion, CNN has at the very least lent credence to patent lies stated by the Palestinian Authority:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Broadcasting_the_Big
_Lie.asp


Now that CNN has turned sincere, admitting it buried stories that would smear Mideast dictators, perhaps the time has come for more comprehensive, honest reporting in the region.


It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:45 PM

FREMDFIRMA


A note about skepticism and doubletalk.

One thing I have noticed, especially about mouthpiece fronts offering shaded or misleading information, is the use of doublespeak terms to frame it, much like the overblown and melodramatic denials of a caught red-handed perp.

"Real Clear Politics"

"Straight Talk Express"

"Honest Reporting"

As if this overkill notation is not a dead giveaway that they are about to shade the truth on you...

And yes, BOTH ends of the political spectrum do it, I am well aware of that, but one of them has taken it to new levels of ridiculous, and as such, using such labelling severely undermines their credibility right up front, to the point where even if and when honest information is offered, everyone will automatically distrust it due to nausea from doublespeak overdose.

That bein said - what blinding revelation of the bloody obvious are they gonna focus on next, the sky is blue, water is wet ?

Telling us the mainstream media is fulla shit ain't news, hasn't been since at LEAST 1900, and probably before even that.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Nothing I say or post is " baseless". You ought to know that by now, sheesh.
Erm.... uh.... aaahhhh..... no comment.

I don't see a political motivation for this, but I do see a financial one since CNN was the ONLY western media group with a "bureau" in Iraq. I imagine much the same happens with many news organizations in hostile dictatorships. Reporters want to get the news, but they also want to stay alive. Editors want to publish the news, but they also want to maintain their "bureaus". Much the same as the White House Press Corps self-censoring their questions so they get invited back. Or the press self-censors its corporate coverage so they'll continue to get advert revenue. I've spoken off the record with reporters, they know FAR more than they publish.

That's one of the reasons why I keep urging people to look for what ISN'T in the news. The news is distorted not so much by outright lies (unless of course the press is merely passing along lies given to them by various official spokespersons, like Judith Miller and the NYT) but by selection. I get my best information by looking at the timing and tempo of a news item: when it's turned on and off, etc.

Quite honestly Rap, you're not telling us anything new. I think the difference between you and most of the rest of us is that we apply skepticism to the universe of actors, not just to those we disagree with. If all you're doing is cherry-picking the news for what you already agree with, you're not really informing yourself.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:09 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quite honestly Rap, you're not telling us anything new. I think the difference between you and most of the rest of us is that we apply skepticism to the universe of actors, not just to those we disagree with. If all you're doing is cherry-picking the news for what you already agree with, you're not really informing yourself.

---------------------------------



Hold the phone here. You accuse me of making stuff up per my comment of FACT that CNN was distorting the news by being Saddam's puppet so as to maintain "in favor" w/ the Iraqi Government.

Quote:


Is this a baseless opinion, or do you have anything to back it up?



Generally when an accusation as that has been debunked, as I did to your charge, the one making the accusation offers up an admission of being wrong ( at the very least ) and an apology. I see neither in your reply. What oddly appears as a reply on your part is the statement, " Quite honestly Rap, you're not telling us anything new. " , which simply baffles the mind. OF COURSE I'm telling you something something new, as you had no clue about this point of fact in the first place ! If you did, then why the " baseless opinion " charge in the first place ??

And to top it off, you try to some how equivocate CNN's situation to that of the W.H. Press Corps? Where is YOUR evidence, or is this nothing but baseless opinion on you part ? ( Note, I'm asking, not accusing here ) If you got anything to back up your position, lets see it.

Also, whats w/the quotes around " bureau " for CNN in Iraq ? Seems to me that you are some how dismissing that there ever was a bureau, as it was properly called. Feel free to explain that as well.




It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, OK. What you said wasn't baseless, it WAS based in fact. So I should, and do, apologize.

But it wasn't exactly news to me either. I thought you were referring to something recent, like since 2003. I perfectly well recall CNN's vast pride in having a Baghdad bureau, and I also remember thinking Sure. Right. when they claimed we were getting 100% news. I know it's easy to claim knowledge after the fact so I really don't expect to be believed.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS

Even the WHPC felt they needed to defend their performance on important occasions. This is what I could find quickly... I don't have a lot of time right now... but there's a lot more on the topic. Maybe I'll have time later.
Quote:

The press corps's barely-there performance that night, as reporters quietly melted into the scenery, coming at such a crucial moment in time remains an industry-wide embarrassment. Laying out the reasons for war, Bush that night mentioned al-Qaida and the terrorist attacks of September 11 thirteen times in less than an hour, yet not a single journalist challenged the presumed connection Bush was making between al-Qaida and Iraq, despite the fact that intelligence sources had publicly questioned any such association. And during the Q&A session, nobody bothered to ask Bush about the elusive Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind whom Bush had vowed to capture. Follow-up questions were nonexistent, which only encouraged Bush to give answers to questions he was not asked.

At one point while making his way through the press questioners, Bush awkwardly referred to a list of reporters whom he was instructed to call on. "This is scripted," he joked. The press laughed. But Bush meant it was scripted, literally. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer later admitted he compiled Bush's cheat sheet, which made sure he did not call on reporters from some prominent outlets like Time, Newsweek, USA Today, or the Washington Post. Yet even after Bush announced the event was "scripted," reporters, either embarrassed for Bush or embarrassed for themselves, continued to play the part of eager participants at a spontaneous news conference, shooting their hands up in the air in hopes of getting Bush's attention. For TV viewers it certainly looked like an actual press event.

That was not the night's only oddly scripted moment. Before the cameras went live, White House handlers, in a highly unusual move, marched veteran reporters to their seats in the East Room, two-by-two, like school children being led onto the stage for the annual holiday pageant. The White House was taking no chances with the choreography. Looking back on the night, New York Times White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller defended the press corps' timid behavior: "I think we were very deferential because ... it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you' re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war," she told students at Towson University in Maryland. "There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."





---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:53 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Wow, these guys are worse than I thought.
For once, the article didn't tell me anything new.

These people are as unabashedly wicked as they come.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:08 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Some folks simply can't exist w/ out the notion that somebody else is doing something evil and making lots of $$ while doing it. Hey , here's a news flash.....just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's evil or wrong.

Yeah, what sort of person would think like that:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
What really chapped my ass was how the Dems made this a pissing contest between Congress and the FAA.
...
This had nothing to do w/ 'security' or even public safety, as aviation experts will tell you. I had more to do w/ politics, and the money hungry Dems all bent out of shape that the Bush administration hasn't been sticking it to the airlines via fines for every petty little rule and regulation.

There's that question answered.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:37 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Generally when an accusation as that has been debunked, as I did to your charge, the one making the accusation offers up an admission of being wrong ( at the very least ) and an apology.

Unless of course your name is AURaptor, who is constantly lying about what other people have said, and when caught out just says "no no no uhuh you're a pin head".
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing I say or post is " baseless". Every bit of it is based on Rush Limbaugh's personal opinion. You ought to know that by now, sheesh.

There, fixed that for you.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:54 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing I say or post is " baseless". Every bit of it is based on Rush Limbaugh's personal opinion. You ought to know that by now, sheesh.

And you see nothing , er, wrong with that, huh?



Entertainment as educationisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:49 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing I say or post is " baseless". Every bit of it is based on Rush Limbaugh's personal opinion. You ought to know that by now, sheesh.

And you see nothing , er, wrong with that, huh?






I think that was Citizen's "corrected" version not AU's original.

Man, Citizen is angry these days.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:14 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think that was Citizen's "corrected" version not AU's original.

I prefer improved with truth.
Quote:

Man, Citizen is angry these days.
Not mad, even!



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 9, 2008 5:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And in other agribusiness news.....

Government asks court to block wider testing for mad cow.
Quote:

WASHINGTON - The {effing} Bush administration is urging a federal appeals court to keep meatpackers from testing all their cattle for mad cow disease. Government lawyers told a three-judge panel Friday they should reverse a lower court ruling that allowed {not "required"...allowed} Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef to conduct more comprehensive testing to satisfy overseas customers.

The Agriculture Department currently tests less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease. It argues that more widespread testing does not guarantee food safety and could result in a false positive that scares consumers.

Creekstone claims the Agriculture Department has no authority to prevent companies from using the test to reassure customers.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/mad_cow;_ylt=Au.O8QjiIyPj2juRV5S4L8qs0NUE

This is such bullshit (so to speak). Positive results are always be confirmed (or not) by additional testing. And this is typical of the Bush adminsitration leading us... along with cows... to the slaughter.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 9, 2008 5:25 AM

FLETCH2


How exactly can the government prevent a private company from doing MORE testing than is required by statute?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 9, 2008 5:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

USDA can’t argue that the test kits are useful for diagnosing and managing BSE when used by USDA but are “worthless” when used by a private company. We believe that the rapid test kits are useful for both parties and that there is no justification for denying a company the right to use a USDA-validated rapid test kit to screen cattle for BSE. We urge USDA to allow companies to buy and use USDA-validated rapid test kit for detecting BSE, but require the companies both to report any non-negative results to USDA and to supply USDA with brain samples from these non-negative cases for confirmation of BSE by the USDA at the National Veterinary Services Lab (in Ames, IO). USDA should also allow meat from an animal tested using a rapid test kit to be labeled as having been tested for BSE, and require any non-negative to be withheld from the food supply
Part of the problem might be self-reporting. But goodwill effort on both sides can resolves those issues, so I don't think that's the real reason.

--------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL