Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act

Doer

Well-Known Member
See this is why you need a mirror. You are only addressing an idea icon, not a person. You can never know the person. I prevent that, as do you.

This here, Doer, cares not for your scorn one way or another. I've surely been your age and was a hippy as I have been saying. I'm not deluded i woke up.

So, to me you speak from the hippy dream but I woke up and now i'm just repeating myself and getting bored. Take it personally or not. I don't care. You need a mirror, because you said you were not part of WE. Or you said WE don't run this show. I say you are wrong. I'm responding to you, remember. I won't tap dance and I've been innoculted with UBuck. I'm immune to insults and this slipping around of who said what.

Thank you, Uncle Buck. Kiss. :)
 

Thundercat

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure where I said I was not part of the "we" which is society, but yes I said that "we" don't run this show. "We" the people do not have control of this country, if you believe otherwise its yet another sign of having your head in the sand. I have not tap danced, nor have I scorned you. I dont know how old you think I am, but I have enough years behind me to live with open eyes and an open mind. This hardly means I'm deluded.

You said I can never know you, and that I'm only talking to an "idea icon" not a person. Truly that in its self says that you are a fake!, and likely much of what you said can be deemed as false. See I don't present a false image of myself on this site. You all may not know exactly "who" I am, but I share alot of my life in my thread. This is also why I choose to present myself with the same level of personal character as I do in real life. I don't slander people, ordisregard ideas or opinions, I try to be polite, compassionate and simple things like that all being big reasons I often CHOOSE NOT to post on a thread. I don't typically feel it worth my time to engage closed minded individuals over the internet where nothing will ever come of it. Its funny I told Harrekin the other day that I was done with him as he really had nothing to add and had no intention of looking at what others were saying. Now I will tell you the same. I truely hope your garden stays green!

:PEACE:
TC

Lol I have little to say when you just dance in circles. I know the reputation you have on this site for talking out your ass man. I'm a long time member with a reputation for being open minded and fair. I never attacked you doer, I said you needed to open your mind.
 

Rancho Cucamonga

Active Member
So if they "think" something is dangerous they can't ban it without proof...?

Why have you people got such a raging hate boner for Monsanto? Don't buy GM if you don't like it.

Vote with your wallet, crying online holds little real capital.
Asshole. Why the fuck are you even on this forum, in the political section then?
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Asshole. Why the fuck are you even on this forum, in the political section then?
Why are you? Harrekin and I are admitted assholes. What is your excuse? (see how this work, now?) And if you knew the Irish like I know the Irish....toroorelariloo

...you would not bother to ask. :)
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
And I believe btw, you are a fake, nothing more than raconteur software in the back of Mother Jones home office server....in Canada, eh? They feed the mix of all "good" text in, from their informed sources and the forum bots spew back.....see how this works, now?

But, what they don't give the bots is the text of the actual ruling or the text of the actual laws. No real education. And that's why the bots can't keep up. They are not allowed access to google, much less to Thomas. Bots are against it before they read the law. You still think it's about Monsanto, don't you.

See how that works? So, bring something, childern, or change your diappy. You are spewing. Give me the text and I will read it to you. Else, we love to watch the spew and mess. Do you not see how nothing it is you bring to this?

Bot.
 

Thundercat

Well-Known Member
PPfftttt bahahahah thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard I had to post just to laugh at you! Look at how old my account is little buddy, my thread(journal) goes back to 08 bahhahahaha!
 

echelon1k1

New Member
Oh please, fooled by the silly hippies you are. In the late 1950, at Yale, two chemicals were mixed an Agent Orange was created. Arthur W. Galston, a plant biologist, is credited.

And DDT? You didn't make it up, but you swallowed. You've heard of the straw dog, the whipping post, the easy target. Yeah, blame Monsanto like it was the guy across the street??? Funny.

DDT was first made by Othmar Zeidler in 1874. The properties as an insecticide were not discovered until 1939 by a Swiss scientist Paul Hermann Muller. He was awarded the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for his efforts. SWISS!

So, when DOD wants something made up in bulk, do they ask the hippies? NO. They contract with large producers like Dow, Monsanto who are Defense Contractors.

Monsanto is public company run by US citizens and WE contracted them for Agent Orange. WE blame ourselves for that, because it is self rule.

I swear if the world was as simple as most can grasp it, we would have no problems. It would all be solved. Just listen to the hippies. :) But, obviously most folks won't admit that the problems are not someone else at fault. Not the "government" the "corporations" All that is false devils. No, we have met the Devil, and it us.

WE the people, run this place. It's ugly. A lot of people just can't watch it, and they don't have to. They are still responsible.
We the people please... I'm amazed you actually buy into that shit... But you know what they say common sense isn't that common...

More LOLs to the downs boy...
 

Splifferous

New Member
GHHHHHH!!! I give up. You post this hate spew and call it a reference. And it goes on and on, pages of spews. And the personal dirt on people I don't know, don't care. Then they reference other hate spew, cannabis sites. Long live the silly Hippies.

Any Stephen King novel is more entertaining than this, and I hate wading through Stephen King.

I would be glad to show you how wrong you are if you get me text of the Proposition.

On the Mexico landrace question, more evil hand wringing. No evidence. Just fear. Even the title is a stretch. Considerations to try to detect.

The Constitution protects us from hippies, a point I failed to grasp when I was one.
the first link i posted was to http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~asnowlab/Mercer_Wainwright07.pdf... and the second was to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001031/

a .edu reference and a .gov one... and it's "hate spew"?

in college, my professors called those kinds of sources "acceptable for reference".

you want evidence? that's why i linked in scholarly-type articles that have evidence. perhaps you should take a moment to click the first or second link ^ and read up on some of that. it's in there.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
the first link i posted was to http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~asnowlab/Mercer_Wainwright07.pdf... and the second was to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001031/

a .edu reference and a .gov one... and it's "hate spew"?

in college, my professors called those kinds of sources "acceptable for reference".

you want evidence? that's why i linked in scholarly-type articles that have evidence. perhaps you should take a moment to click the first or second link ^ and read up on some of that. it's in there.
yeah you forgot this link you posted

http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/prop-19-monsanto-and-gmo-terminator-cannabis/


but feel free to act all indignant while ignoring the fact you posted that link
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
PPfftttt bahahahah thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard I had to post just to laugh at you! Look at how old my account is little buddy, my thread goes back to 08 bahhahahaha!
Oh, you have an old account and are still an old hippy bot at heart, I get it.. So what? It was stupid and it is still stupid. What thread? What thread goes back....to the old days?

How passe. Did you even read that Legislation before you spoke against it?

How about to my point? 735 is there to protect all the rest of the farmers from guys who think like this? Who think Corporations is a dirty word and the govt is against them. If they think that, WE are.

Is it fair to shut down pan-States worth of farm production just because youse guys bribed some old fool judge into issuing an Injunction at just the wrong few weeks?

This is our system. When WE see these gaps, they get filed. It's something most people would rather just read mother jones about. And what, the Bots didn't know they were Bots in '08? :)
 

Splifferous

New Member
yeah you forgot this link you posted

http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/prop-19-monsanto-and-gmo-terminator-cannabis/


but feel free to act all indignant while ignoring the fact you posted that link
na, it's just that that article had a lot of additional links that it cited and i didn't initially want to link them all in here. i'm not ashamed i posted it; it's good and relevant information. besides, we're not in a college class here. you aren't a professor, and this isn't a term paper. i'm sharing facts. i'm not sorry if they make your butt hurt; but if it does, then this is for you.

it's a long article tho, so i can understand how you must have been intimidated by that veritable wall of text, and opted not to read any of it so that you could hurry on to your goal of wasting keystrokes with your facile reply.

some of the links presented in that article are presented below (strictly for the purpose of baiting your next ignorant response; i know you won't read any of them)
http://www.research.olemiss.edu/ChangeAgents/2009/FindingCuresForKillers
http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Business/Monsanto-Bayer-team-up-on-herbicide-tolerance
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/11153-bayer-a-history
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090035396
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/07-18
http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/TCC401/A_Case.pdf
http://www.grain.org/article/entries/704-fighting-gmo-contamination-around-the-world

o shit... it looks like you caught me being ashamed for posting an article that cited no less than 3 .edu sources, and a bunch of other legit .orgs
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
na, it's just that that article had a lot of additional links that it cited and i didn't initially want to link them all in here. i'm not ashamed i posted it; it's good and relevant information. besides, we're not in a college class here. you aren't a professor, and this isn't a term paper. i'm sharing facts. i'm not sorry if they make your butt hurt; but if it does, then this is for you.

it's a long article tho, so i can understand how you must have been intimidated by that veritable wall of text, and opted not to read any of it so that you could hurry on to your goal of wasting keystrokes with your facile reply.

some of the links presented in that article are presented below (strictly for the purpose of baiting your next ignorant response; i know you won't read any of them)
http://www.research.olemiss.edu/ChangeAgents/2009/FindingCuresForKillers
http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Business/Monsanto-Bayer-team-up-on-herbicide-tolerance
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/11153-bayer-a-history
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090035396
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/07-18
http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/TCC401/A_Case.pdf
http://www.grain.org/article/entries/704-fighting-gmo-contamination-around-the-world

o shit... it looks like you caught me being ashamed for posting an article that cited no less than 3 .edu sources, and a bunch of other legit .orgs
your article is pages and pages long and the best it musters is 3 edu souerces not very promising so far

its a rambling link dump of a piece that never matches up with reality but has enough important looking stuff to fool dupes like yourself

lets look back at your original post



first 2 links are about the same thing but are from gov/ edu websites so looks the part but dont really say anything damming to help your case

the third is an opinion piece written by eco loons


this throw a shitload of useless links out there is a common tactic of your kind
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-sells-out-u-s-citizens-by-signing-monsanto-protection-act-into-law


ood, shelter, and clothing are often considered the three basic needs by humans and the actions by President Obama on Tuesday have now left millions of Americans across the land in shock as the very first tenet has been horrifically jeopardized by his signing the Monsanto Protection Act into law (H.R. 933) as mentioned on the Facebook page for Food Democracy Now.
For those that are new to this situation, the Monsanto Protection Act is the name given to what's known as a legislative rider that was inserted into the Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill.
Using the deceptive title of Farmer Assurance Provision, Section 735 of this bill actually grants Monsanto immunity from federal courts pending the review of any GM crop that is thought to be dangerous.
Under the section, courts would be helpless to stop Monsanto from continuing to plant GMO crops that are thought -- even by the US government -- to be a danger to human health or our cherised environment.
There is certain to be almost immediate legal action from multiple fronts which will hit the mainstream media headlines. For the first time in decades, Americans will have to give serious consideration to the food supply they are consuming from and hopefully begin a brave new moment in grassroots activism.The drastic results of Monsanto's legislation-based actions is that the biotech giant is now essentially guaranteed the ability to wantonly plant experimental GMO crops without any concern of the United States government or subsequent courts; theMonsanto Protection Act was buried within the recent budget resolution.
Monsanto is a publicly traded company (NYSE: MON) and often concerned citizens will invest in a single share of stock as a way of ensuring they are on the front lines of finding out information which is privy to stockholders or to allow them into the annual stockholders meetings.
Organizations such as Food Democracy Now and Natural News are striving to ensure concerned citizens are kept up to date on this fresh, new battle to protect the most basic of our human rights for authentic and natural wholesome foods without any type of genetic modifications.
i don't know much about this (and shocked, so i must investigate further prior to comment) but i do know you can know about a publicly traded company without purchasing stock.. "earnings call" which is free to the public via web/podcast/transcripts..in addition to financial health of a company you also can gain competetive information as well:wink:
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
na, it's just that that article had a lot of additional links that it cited and i didn't initially want to link them all in here. i'm not ashamed i posted it; it's good and relevant information. besides, we're not in a college class here. you aren't a professor, and this isn't a term paper. i'm sharing facts. i'm not sorry if they make your butt hurt; but if it does, then this is for you.

it's a long article tho, so i can understand how you must have been intimidated by that veritable wall of text, and opted not to read any of it so that you could hurry on to your goal of wasting keystrokes with your facile reply.

some of the links presented in that article are presented below (strictly for the purpose of baiting your next ignorant response; i know you won't read any of them)
http://www.research.olemiss.edu/ChangeAgents/2009/FindingCuresForKillers
http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Business/Monsanto-Bayer-team-up-on-herbicide-tolerance
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/11153-bayer-a-history
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090035396
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/07-18
http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/TCC401/A_Case.pdf
http://www.grain.org/article/entries/704-fighting-gmo-contamination-around-the-world

o shit... it looks like you caught me being ashamed for posting an article that cited no less than 3 .edu sources, and a bunch of other legit .orgs
Damn fooled me again. I looked at the first link, a .edu. It is just a long article about human disease research. I took a look at the other.edu link and it is a draft of a rather pedantic paper from 1999, so not peer reviewed or published.

The uky one is 1998 article that goes on and on about the world hemp market.

So, Virginia, Mississippi, and Kentucky Universities had the best chance. But are nothing...not even on point. You have the history of Bayer from GMwatch.

There are some patent application and some news articles.

So, this is not research and these are not references. This is what we science types who are in the business of peer reviewed research call WALL PAPER.

And the way you throw the scorn means, 1) you haven't read this bullshit, 2) you have no ideas what referenced research actually is.

You are like this article writer, lazy thinking, but he as a $$ motive .

I did speed read for pages upon pages and saw and reported these links are stupid and worthless. I spend a lot my work life doing just that. I'm not lazy and I'm a formally trained speed reader.

You know these guys get paid by the WORD. Yeah. The more they can slop up, and get some to buy the better they are at working confusion in and ripping YOU off.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Damn fooled me again. I looked at the first link, a .edu. It is just a long article about human disease research. I took a look at the other.edu link and it is a draft of a rather pedantic paper from 1999, so not peer reviewed or published.

The uky one is 1998 article that goes on and on about the world hemp market.

So, Virginia, Mississippi, and Kentucky Universities had the best chance. But are nothing...not even on point. You have the history of Bayer from GMwatch.

There are some patent application and some news articles.

So, this is not research and these are not references. This is what we science types who are in the business of peer reviewed research call WALL PAPER.

And the way you throw the scorn means, 1) you haven't read this bullshit, 2) you have no ideas what referenced research actually is.

You are like this article writer, lazy thinking, but he as a $$ motive .

I did speed read for pages upon pages and saw and reported these links are stupid and worthless. I spend a lot my work life doing just that. I'm not lazy and I'm a formally trained speed reader.

You know these guys get paid by the WORD. Yeah. The more they can slop up, and get some to buy the better they are at working confusion in and ripping YOU off.
whoa, wait a minute..i have to draw the line at scone throwing..oops it was "scorn"..:oops:
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
And that is all, muttering about a typo? What about my question? Is it fair to halt a planting season over claims that can have gotten a judge to enter in an Injunction? Just claims...no facts are in evidence.

To call off a planting season so the writer hacks can sell more words. Is that fair to WE. 735 is fair to the other farmers, yes or no. (doesn't matter if you agree, it already Law)

And do you not take pause at these pesudo-scientific hack jobs like the one I just reviewed? Lies and spin and $$?

The Monsanto Hate Act, or whatever, just shows the vapid, emotion tampering that these hacks engage in and you swallowed.

Yes??
 

highfirejones

Active Member
So if they "think" something is dangerous they can't ban it without proof...?

Why have you people got such a raging hate boner for Monsanto? Don't buy GM if you don't like it.

Vote with your wallet, crying online holds little real capital.
someone shoulda told the jews to vote with their dollars right, sometimes it's not enough like when the gov is in their pocket(and my grandma fled france from nazis so please no retarded replies about how your family blah blah blah and what an insensitive analogy), But you are right about doing what we can and voting with dollars, did you guys already know that miracle gro lobbies to get the definition of organic changed to suit them, probably got it done by now, MG probably is monsanto, all the home depot ferts and soils seem to be the same corp. with different names
microfarming non gmo crops for our own communities and keeping safe seed stocks is the only choice in my opinion in the case of these chemnazis, shit is really scary imo
 

Totoe

Well-Known Member
There is a growing body of research suggesting that GM grains can lead to liver and renal problems. El-Nahas, A. F., Mohamed, A. A., Zweel, H. H., & El-Ashwamy, I. M. (2011). Hepatorenal and genotoxic effects of genetically modified quail meat in a 90-day dietary toxicity study in mice. International Food Research Journal, 18(4), 1313-1319.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible hepatorenal toxicity and genotoxicity from eating meat meal of genetically modified (GM) Japanese quail in 90 days dietary experiment using micronucleus (MN) test, mitotic index (MI) and RAPD-PCR for genotoxicity assay, ALT, AST, urea and creatinine for hepatorenal toxicity. Four groups of Swiss male mice were used. Control 1 received balanced ration, control 2 received 20% non-GM quail meat, treated 1 received 20% GM quail meat meal, and treated 2 received 40%
GM quail meat meal. Minor differences in body weight were observed between the 4 groups. 40% GM quail meat meal induced hepatorenal toxicity; meanwhile 20% induced renal toxicity only. GM quail meat mealinduced genotoxicity by increased MN and nuclear buds caused by the 40%, while 20% caused nuclear buds only. Our RAPD fingerprints showed differences between the individual of both controls and both treatments in the number and intensity of the amplified DNA bands. The combined data of MN, nuclear buds and RAPD data indicate the genotoxic effect of both doses of GM quail meat which have nearby effects on fragmentation of genetic material.

Séralini, G., Cellier, D., & Vendomois, J. (2007). New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity. Archives Of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, 52(4), 596-602. doi:10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5

Abstract. Health risk assessment of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) cultivated for food or feed is under debate
throughout the world, and very little data have been published
on mid- or long-term toxicological studies with mammals. One
of these studies performed under the responsibility of
Monsanto Company with a transgenic corn MON863 has been
subjected to questions from regulatory reviewers in Europe,
where it was finally approved in 2005. This necessitated a new
assessment of kidney pathological findings, and the results
remained controversial. An Appeal Court action in Germany
(M_nster) allowed public access in June 2005 to all the crude
data from this 90-day rat-feeding study. We independently
re-analyzed these data. Appropriate statistics were added, such
as a multivariate analysis of the growth curves, and for
biochemical parameters comparisons between GMO-treated
rats and the controls fed with an equivalent normal diet, and
separately with six reference diets with different compositions.
We observed that after the consumption of MON863, rats
showed slight but dose-related significant variations in growth
for both sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males
and 3.7% increase for females. Chemistry measurements
reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity, marked also by differential
sensitivities in males and females. Triglycerides increased
by 24–40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week
5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium
excretions diminished in males by 31–35% (week 14, dose
33%) for the most important results significantly linked to the
treatment in comparison to seven diets tested. Longer experiments
are essential in order to indicate the real nature and
extent of the possible pathology; with the present data it cannot
be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.

Walsh, M. C., Buzoianu, S. G., Gardiner, G. E., Rea, M. C., Gelencsér, E., Jánosi, A., & ... Lawlor, P. G. (2011). Fate of Transgenic DNA from Orally Administered Bt MON810 Maize and Effects on Immune Response and Growth in Pigs. Plos ONE, 6(11), 1-12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027177

Abstract
We assessed the effect of short-term feeding of genetically modified (GM: Bt MON810) maize on immune responses and growth in weanling pigs and determined the fate of the transgenic DNA and protein in-vivo. Pigs were fed a diet containing 38.9% GM or non-GM isogenic parent line maize for 31 days. We observed that IL-12 and IFNc production from mitogenic stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells decreased (P,0.10) following 31 days of GM maize exposure. While Cry1Abspecific IgG and IgA were not detected in the plasma of GM maize-fed pigs, the detection of the cry1Ab gene and protein was limited to the gastrointestinal digesta and was not found in the kidneys, liver, spleen, muscle, heart or blood. Feeding GM maize to weanling pigs had no effect on growth performance or body weight. IL-6 and IL-4 production from isolated splenocytes were increased (P,0.05) in response to feeding GM maize while the proportion of CD4+ T cells in the spleen decreased. In the ileum, the proportion of B cells and macrophages decreased while the proportion of CD4+ T cells increased in GM maize-fed pigs. IL-8 and IL-4 production from isolated intraepithelial and lamina propria lymphocytes were also increased (P,0.05) in response to feeding GM maize. In conclusion, there was no evidence of cry1Ab gene or protein translocation to the organs and blood of weaning pigs. The growth of pigs was not affected by feeding GM maize. Alterations in immune responses were detected; however, their biologic relevance is questionable.


Malatesta, M., Boraldi, F., Annovi, G., Baldelli, B., Battistelli, S., Biggiogera, M., & Quaglino, D. (2008). A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochemistry & Cell Biology, 130(5), 967-977. doi:10.1007/s00418-008-0476-x

Abstract Liver represents a suitable model for monitoring
the eVects of a diet, due to its key role in controlling the
whole metabolism. Although no direct evidence has been
reported so far that genetically modiWed (GM) food may
aVect health, previous studies on hepatocytes from young
female mice fed on GM soybean demonstrated nuclear
modiWcations involving transcription and splicing pathways.
In this study, the eVects of this diet were studied on
liver of old female mice in order to elucidate possible interference
with ageing. The morpho-functional characteristics
of the liver of 24-month-old mice, fed from weaning on
control or GM soybean, were investigated by combining a
proteomic approach with ultrastructural, morphometrical
and immunoelectron microscopical analyses. Several proteins
belonging to hepatocyte metabolism, stress response,
calcium signalling and mitochondria were diVerentially
expressed in GM-fed mice, indicating a more marked
expression of senescence markers in comparison to controls.
Moreover, hepatocytes of GM-fed mice showed mitochondrial
and nuclear modiWcations indicative of reduced
metabolic rate. This study demonstrates that GM soybean
intake can inXuence some liver features during ageing and,
although the mechanisms remain unknown, underlines the
importance to investigate the long-term consequences of
GM-diets and the potential synergistic eVects with ageing,
xenobiotics and/or stress conditions.
 
Top