PDA

View Full Version : What has Rand Paul done to represent the interests of citizens concerned with Monsanto?




Natural Citizen
05-20-2013, 07:18 PM
Monsanto Has Taken Over the USDA (http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-has-taken-over-usda-1368111215)

If there are any sources that demonstrate positive actions away from Monsanto's interest, please share.

- Thanks.

kathy88
05-20-2013, 07:56 PM
This issue is also very important to me.

donnay
05-20-2013, 08:16 PM
Support raw milk - Vote YES on Senator Rand Paul's amendment #2180 to legalize interstate shipment of raw milk.

Senator Rand Paul has filed an amendment based on HR 1830/ S 1955, the bill that would overturn the FDA's current ban on the interstate sale or distribution of raw milk and raw milk products for human consumption. States would still be free to impose whatever regulations they think appropriate, but the FDA would no longer be able to harass raw milk farmers and co-ops based solely on the fact that the milk is unpasteurized. Americans have the right to consume these products but access has been severely limited by the FDA's regulations.



Consumers are increasingly seeking out raw milk as a natural, unprocessed food. Consumers and artisan food producers in states where raw milk cannot legally be sold (although it can legally be consumed) are seeking sources of raw milk from neighboring states. For example, consumers in Georgia buy raw milk from farmers in South Carolina, while consumers in New Jersey and Virginia seek out Pennsylvania raw milk farmers. Amdmt2234

Source:
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/aa/aa-14june2012.htm#Amdmt2180

Warlord
05-20-2013, 08:43 PM
Buy organic.

Warlord
05-20-2013, 08:44 PM
Rand is a senator in the minority party.

There's not much he can do.

ninepointfive
05-20-2013, 08:44 PM
HEMP=JOBS

jtstellar
05-20-2013, 08:58 PM
why not talk about ufos and man-made global warming while he's at it.. i mean otherwise he's not a true libertarian. oh right, he already says he isn't

devil21
05-21-2013, 01:31 AM
Damn. Give the guy some time to introduce bills like that. I want it and I want it now! Come on. People are being way too hard on Rand right now. He is a very smart man. Who would question that??

jtstellar
05-21-2013, 01:49 AM
guy introduces bill every other week almost but apparently some people think he's doing jack squat because it's not his turn yet

HigherVision
05-21-2013, 01:57 AM
Monsanto Has Taken Over the USDA (http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-has-taken-over-usda-1368111215)

If there are any sources that demonstrate positive actions away from Monsanto's interest, please share.

Thanks.

Isn't Rand always working to reduce the power of regulatory agencies like the USDA that Monsanto apparently has control over? That would be what he's doing. To the statist who wants government regulation and prohibition of inorganic farming this is unacceptable but to the libertarian who merely wants the uninfringed right to consume foods they consider healthy I'd think it would be satisfactory.

liberalnurse
05-21-2013, 04:55 AM
I read this in our local paper on Sat. 5/18 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ORGANIC_FOODS_POLITICS?SITE=MTBIL&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The organic food industry is gaining influence on Capitol Hill, prompted by its entry into traditional farm states and by increasing consumer demand.

That's not going over well with everyone in Congress.

Tensions between conventional and organic agriculture boiled over this week during a late-night House Agriculture Committee debate on farm legislation that for decades has propped up traditional crops and largely ignored organics.

When Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., a former organic farmer, offered an amendment to make it easier for organic companies to organize industry-wide promotional campaigns, there was swift backlash from some farm-state Republicans. One lawmaker said he didn't want to see the industry get a free ride and a second complained about organics' "continued assault on agriculture."
"That's one of the things that has caught me and raises my concerns, is that industry's lack of respect for traditional agriculture," said Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga. He was referring to some organic companies' efforts to reduce the number of genetically modified crops in the marketplace.

At the same time, Scott acknowledged that he and his wife buy organic foods.
:rolleyes: read more at the link

FriedChicken
05-21-2013, 06:14 AM
I think some have jumped to the conclusion that the OP is dissatisfied with Rand. He might be, I don't know - but nothing in his OP suggests that. Just a posed question.

Having this kind of information would help bring in some liberals I know that are against monsanto. So if Rand has specifically said or done anything on this front I'd like to know as well.
The guy never stops working so I'm not blasting him for not having it done yet. I'd just like to know so I can share with others.

cajuncocoa
05-21-2013, 05:43 PM
I've praised him for a few of his votes and I was very excited to see the reaction across political lines during his filibuster. But when does something I don't like, I'm not going to sit on my hands.

Warlord
05-21-2013, 05:55 PM
I've praised him for a few of his votes and I was very excited to see the reaction across political lines during his filibuster. But when does something I don't like, I'm not going to sit on my hands.

Maybe you should use your energy in getting rid of that Democrat senator from LOUISIANA

cajuncocoa
05-21-2013, 06:14 PM
Maybe you should use your energy in getting rid of that Democrat senator from LOUISIANAI'll use my energy as I see fit. As for Mary Landrieu, she doesn't have my vote but I need to know who is running against her before I commit to just any GOP opponent.

Natural Citizen
05-21-2013, 07:01 PM
I think some have jumped to the conclusion that the OP is dissatisfied with Rand. He might be, I don't know - but nothing in his OP suggests that. Just a posed question.

Having this kind of information would help bring in some liberals I know that are against monsanto. So if Rand has specifically said or done anything on this front I'd like to know as well.

The guy never stops working so I'm not blasting him for not having it done yet. I'd just like to know so I can share with others.

Yeah, I'm not out to put the man in a bad way at all. This is an extremely important issue that has been avoided by the base for the most part though and we need to know our prospective representatives position on such legislation/infrastructure.

Transparency on the issue and steps taken to ensure the interests of natural citizens should be out in the open, I would think. Can't think of any reason why not.

TheGrinch
05-21-2013, 07:09 PM
I've praised him for a few of his votes and I was very excited to see the reaction across political lines during his filibuster. But when does something I don't like, I'm not going to sit on my hands.

Yes, we all know that. What the hell does it have to do with this thread? Oh right, it had Rand Paul in the title, so you had to make sure he's not above criticism on a matter where there's really nothing to criticize him over.

cajuncocoa
05-21-2013, 07:11 PM
Yes, we all know that. What the hell does it have to do with this thread? Oh right, it had Rand Paul in the title, so you had to make sure he's not above criticism on a matter where there's really nothing to criticize him over.My post was edited to remove the quote to which I was replying. It doesn't make sense out of context, but the set up is gone now.

devil21
05-21-2013, 07:13 PM
I think some have jumped to the conclusion that the OP is dissatisfied with Rand. He might be, I don't know - but nothing in his OP suggests that. Just a posed question.

Having this kind of information would help bring in some liberals I know that are against monsanto. So if Rand has specifically said or done anything on this front I'd like to know as well.
The guy never stops working so I'm not blasting him for not having it done yet. I'd just like to know so I can share with others.

You're probably right but it appears there's a few complainers that turbo post and it's getting old. Rand can't seem to get a day off from the ass probing by people that supposedly are a huge chunk of his own base.

Warlord
05-21-2013, 07:23 PM
I'll use my energy as I see fit. As for Mary Landrieu, she doesn't have my vote but I need to know who is running against her before I commit to just any GOP opponent.

Any GOP opponent is fine. This is no time for purity. It gives one more vote for procedure and one less vote for gun control.

cajuncocoa
05-21-2013, 07:39 PM
Any GOP opponent is fine. This is no time for purity. It gives one more vote for procedure and one less vote for gun control.You can decide your own criteria for voting and I'll choose mine.

Maybe you should stop derailing the thread now with this discussion about Louisiana's senate election.

TheGrinch
05-21-2013, 08:44 PM
My post was edited to remove the quote to which I was replying. It doesn't make sense out of context, but the set up is gone now.

Fair enough, and didn't mean to jump on you about it. You know I don't have a problem with you criticizing when warranted (even though I'll be there if I think people are overreacting), I'm jsut getting really tired when there's now even threads about holding Rand's feet to the fire on something he hasn't even done yet. It's getting ridiculous and just as bad as the gotcha media around here.

John F Kennedy III
05-21-2013, 09:13 PM
How about we discuss how to get Rand to fight harder against Monsanto? Monsanto needs to go ASAP.

Natural Citizen
05-21-2013, 09:14 PM
I'm jsut getting really tired when there's now even threads about holding Rand's feet to the fire on something he hasn't even done yet.

Tough shit. People would do well to start holding these representatives accountable to those they are supposed to be representing. That means asking questions so that we are confident that they know exactly where we stand on some of these very important issues.

This Monsanto legislation that seems to be a constant attack against the people is a big deal. And it's a big deal across a broad spectrum.

TheGrinch
05-21-2013, 09:17 PM
Tough shit. People would do well to start holding these representatives accountable to those they are supposed to be representing. That means asking questions.

I agree. But it doesn't mean holding their feet to the fire on a pure hypothetical that hasn't happened. It doesn't mean playing gotcha and having knee-jerk reactions over out-of-context quotes. Get back to me when you have a problem with a vote he's actually made (and yes, I know he's made a couple votes I haven't agreed with, but that hasn't been the subject of criticism for quite some time, and he's done a lot to make up for them and clarify his positions. Sorry to be rude, but it's been nothing but a bunch of drama-queen bullshit people are going after him about since that endorsement)

Natural Citizen
05-21-2013, 09:19 PM
How about we discuss how to get Rand to fight harder against Monsanto? Monsanto needs to go ASAP.

Exactly. Thank you.

Warlord
05-21-2013, 09:24 PM
I bet the calls he gets about Monsanto from KY are really insignificant.

Natural Citizen
05-21-2013, 09:24 PM
I agree. But it doesn't mean holding their feet to the fire on a pure hypothetical that hasn't happened. It doesn't mean playing gotcha and having knee-jerk reactions over out-of-context quotes. Get back to me when you have a problem with a vote he's actually made (and yes, I know he's made a couple votes I haven't agreed with, but that hasn't been the subject of criticism for quite some time, and he's done a lot to make up for them and clarify his positions. Sorry to be rude, but it's been nothing but a bunch of drama-queen bullshit people are going after him about since that endorsement)

Well. I'm not going after Rand. I have no reason to do that. I'm not even criticising him. He hasn't given me reason to do that. But on this issue I'd just like to understand his position better. The only way to find out is to ask.

And I'm not trying to be rude either. Although it does always seem to look that way after reading some of my own posts. I find that it's just more practical to say it like you mean it.

Warlord
05-21-2013, 09:28 PM
Rand gave you an answer today on Monsanto kind of with his Apple praise. He's not going to go after a public company

Natural Citizen
05-21-2013, 09:35 PM
Rand gave you an answer today on Monsanto kind of with his Apple praise. He's not going to go after a public company

No he didn't. I didn't say a word about Apple. I'm asking about Monsanto. Apple doesn't tinker with my genes. I'd like to know his position on the science of it. Not the business of it.

TheGrinch
05-21-2013, 09:36 PM
Well. I'm not going after Rand. I have no reason to do that. I'm not even criticising him. He hasn't given me reason to do that. But on this issue I'd just like to understand his position better. The only way to find out is to ask.

And I'm not trying to be rude either. Although it does always seem to look that way after reading some of my own posts. I find that it's just more practical to say it like you mean it.

Ah, I see what happened here. I was replying to Cajun about a different thread where we were asked IF we'd (publicly) still support Rand IF he votes yes on an upcoming foreign policy bill, which to me serves no practical purpose besides infighting. Cross that bridge if we get there (unlikely).

I should have said thread not threads. I agree that I'd love to see Rand doing something about Monsanto, but honestly I have no clue what that would realistically be, other than removing the structures that enable them like I'm sure he'd love to, but that probably ain't happening soon.

Sounds like a good plan from JFK to come up with some ideas though. I'm sure his office isn't that hard to contact if there is some significant way to help.

John F Kennedy III
05-21-2013, 09:38 PM
No he didn't. I didn't say a word about Apple. I'm asking about Monsanto. Apple doesn't tinker with my genes. I'd like to know his position on the science of it. Not the business of it.

I'm curious as well.

TheGrinch
05-21-2013, 09:39 PM
Rand gave you an answer today on Monsanto kind of with his Apple praise. He's not going to go after a public company

Pun intended, you're comparing Apples to oranges. Granted I didn't see the speech, but to my understanding he was standing against the government's woes against Apple. What woes have they done against Monsanto? Quite the opposite, the Fed is private too, but he still wants to audit them.

Warlord
05-21-2013, 09:47 PM
Pun intended, you're comparing Apples to oranges. Granted I didn't see the speech, but to my understanding he was standing against the government's woes against Apple. What woes have they done against Monsanto? Quite the opposite, the Fed is private too, but he still wants to audit them.

As long as Monsanto is operating within the law why would he care about it?

The Fed is a different creature because its created by an Act of Congress. Monsanto isn't.

John F Kennedy III
05-21-2013, 09:52 PM
What happened to ENDING the Fed?

Warlord
05-21-2013, 09:54 PM
What happened to ENDING the Fed?

The votes aren't there to repeal the Act

TheGrinch
05-21-2013, 09:57 PM
As long as Monsanto is operating within the law why would he care about it?

The Fed is a different creature because its created by an Act of Congress. Monsanto isn't.

Like I said, I'm really not sure what exactly he can do, I'm not that familiar with any laws or anything they might be taking advantage of that he wouldn't already be trying to go after (such as the FDA if he had his way I'm sure).

But if your argument is that because he stuck up for Apple in one instance, that it implies that he won't go against those who are gaming the system (or are a damage to society) in others, I can't believe that at this juncture.

I mean hell, his "America needs a moral cleansing" convictions like his Fathers is plenty enough to show that he isn't just going to go with the flow if he feels it's damaging to society... But again, I agree, I'm not sure that it's even his place to do anything, unless there's something he can do without violating his free market principles.

Origanalist
05-21-2013, 10:00 PM
As long as Monsanto is operating within the law why would he care about it?

The Fed is a different creature because its created by an Act of Congress. Monsanto isn't.

Maybe so, but I still find them to be similar.

Natural Citizen
05-21-2013, 10:01 PM
As long as Monsanto is operating within the law why would he care about it?

The Fed is a different creature because its created by an Act of Congress. Monsanto isn't.

In case you haven't noticed Monsanto is writing the laws. In fact they employ judges and a whole host of other people with some rather questionable previous employment. Heck, you have people flip flopping employment between the USDA and Monsanto.

And then you have the repercussion. Which is the actual science of it as we are left at it's mecy. We elect representatives to support laws in our interest. We don't elect them to be the middle man so that the corporations representation is fulfilled by enacting laws that serve only to support their business/infrastructure model.

Jiminy crickets, warlord. You're going to have our grandchildren paying royalties for every future generation because of some law that Monsanto scribbled up saying they own your genes because we didn't have the common sense to hold our representatives accountable on the science of it. What the heck's the matter with you? This is growth of a business versus survival of a natural species. Ultimately citizenship.

Warlord
05-21-2013, 10:04 PM
Monsanto is not the only special interest who write laws or who buy judges.

There's really nothing he can do. What did Ron ever say about Monsanto? They're a private company. They can do what they like as long as they're not breaking the law.

If you really object to Monsanto then buy organic and avoid their products in the food chain.

sailingaway
05-21-2013, 10:05 PM
Monsanto is not the only special interest who write laws or who buy judges.

There's really nothing he can do. What did Ron ever say about Monsanto? They're a private company. They can do what they like as long as they're not breaking the law.

Ron thinks people should know what is in what they eat and that at some point not telling is a kind of fraud. He also thinks corporations shouldn't be regulated preferences, which is Monsanto to a T.

And Monsanto ex legal eagles head up BOTH the Dept of Ag and the FDA, regulating barriers to competitors and approving Monsanto initiatives.

Warlord
05-21-2013, 10:09 PM
Ron thinks people should know what is in what they eat and that at some point not telling is a kind of fraud. He also thinks corporations shouldn't be regulated preferences, which is Monsanto to a T.

And Monsanto ex legal eagles head up BOTH the Dept of Ag and the FDA, regulating barriers to competitors and approving Monsanto initiatives.

It's unlikely Ron believes in a Federal labeling program for GMO, where did he say that?

Of course corps shouldn't get special interests but that applies to them all not just Monsanto. The whole FDA is corrupt to the core why single them out?

Natural Citizen
05-21-2013, 10:11 PM
Monsanto is not the only special interest who write laws or who buy judges.

There's really nothing he can do. What did Ron ever say about Monsanto? They're a private company. They can do what they like as long as they're not breaking the law.

If you really object to Monsanto then buy organic and avoid their products in the food chain.

Which is why I'd like to have some transparency from our representatives relative to the science of it. What are their positions on the science of what Monsanto is doing to the human genome?

Warlord
05-21-2013, 10:12 PM
Which is why I'd like to have some transparency from our representatives relative to the science of it. What are their positions on the science of what Monsanto is doing to the human gnome?

What has this got to do with Congress?

Natural Citizen
05-21-2013, 10:21 PM
What has this got to do with Congress?

It's got everything to do with it. We need to start asking the correct questions so that Congress maybe gets the idea that they represent us.

Some time ago in a thread that is long since buried (because we don't have a dedicated place for this kind of discussion)I made the point that if people don't ask their representatives what their positions are on the various sciences (Monsanto as far as this thread is relevant) and if they don't make the effort to understand the sciences better and how they are placed into infrastructure through legislation then they'll simply be at the mercy of those who do understand it and use it against you through lobby. Like Monsanto. By not asking your representatives what their position is on the science itself people are basically removing themselves from the democratic process. These companies and the representatives that allow the practices get a free pass because they aren't ever held accountable by the base regarding the legislation that comes from the ignorance of relevance. And they don't even know they are doing it to themselves.

sailingaway
05-21-2013, 10:24 PM
It's unlikely Ron believes in a Federal labeling program for GMO, where did he say that?

Of course corps shouldn't get special interests but that applies to them all not just Monsanto. The whole FDA is corrupt to the core why single them out?

I didn't say he said a federal labeling program. I haven't heard him precisely on Monsanto, I am speaking of principles he's spoken of elsewhere. That packaging that took out oxegyn (or added it, I forget) and made meat past its healthy date still appear red and healthy he said he though was a kind of fraud and when he was asked about labeling that he said he thought people should know what they were eating. He didn't elaborate. But he does believe going after fraud is a proper purpose of government, at least the court system.

But I haven't heard him speak specifically about Monsanto except maybe in the corporate cronyist sense

But monsanto is singled out because patenting something that naturally reproduces with a farmer's other corn then claiming ownership of the naturally reproduced seed corn against agricultural practices of the millenia is a really nasty idea. And if they didn't head FDA and AG, I don't think they'd have those approved. I could be wrong, but there is a term 'shocks the conscience' and that crosses that line, to me.

TheGrinch
05-21-2013, 10:24 PM
Which is why I'd like to have some transparency from our representatives relative to the science of it. What are their positions on the science of what Monsanto is doing to the human gnome?

What would be more effective is to start your own education campaigns and get back to them when you have legislation you'd like to pass.

I thought we were supposed to be against legislating morality. You really expect Rand to take a stance on this without a pragmatic reason to bring it into his discourse?

I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, but Rand's job isn't educator, Ron's was and we're taking over to fuel this momentum we're gaining, but Rand is the implementer. Leave him alone about this stuff until you want him to do something about it.

Does it really matter what he thinks about Monsanto if he's opposed to the things that enable them anyway? Regardless of your intentions here, we need to stop finding ways to draw difference with our allies. It's counterproductive.

If it's important to you, then work on doing something about it. I don't know why some of you seem to want Rand to validate your opinions for you. He's a busy man, and if he doesn't have time or reason to fight your fight, then you can do something about that.

Warlord
05-21-2013, 10:25 PM
It's got everything to do with it. We need to start asking the correct questions so that Congress maybe gets the idea that they represent us.

Really NR, it's nothing to do with them.

I am sure Rand has a few ideas about the FDA in general and how ridiculously corrupt it is but don't think he's going to single out Monsanto for special criticism. There are companies far worse than them getting even worse privileges like Wall St. for instance.

sailingaway
05-21-2013, 10:28 PM
cornering the food market is worse than banking, imho. Both are bad, but seriously, you don't eat money.

But as a clarification, I have no opinion on Monsanto and Rand. I know what I think about Monsanto, and I don't think they should have the federal patents or regulatory preferences that permit them to do what they are doing.

But I'm fine with labeling at the state level. When they so warp the market through patents and preferences, however, I am not sure the market is sufficient to deal with this.

Warlord
05-21-2013, 10:38 PM
Monsanto's legal strategy is absurd but that's for the courts to sort out. As for the patent office that's been owned by special interests for 150 years long before Monsanto showed up.

I also dont think its worse than banking. You can easily avoid Monsanto with enough effort but you can't avoid the dilution of the currency which is mandated by law to be used in all transactions and the investment banks are far worse than Monsanto.

Natural Citizen
05-21-2013, 10:47 PM
cornering the food market is worse than banking, imho.

It's more than that though. I just don't think enough people get it. These are our genomes we're talking about. They shouldn't become some asshat's intellectual property. And that's still only a very small factor in the scope of it all. But they will be though. And apparently the people will love them for it.

I don't know, SA. I'm done with the thread. Gives me a headache when I read some of the logic. Stick it in hot topics or something if you like, I don't care.

TheGrinch
05-21-2013, 10:55 PM
These are our gnomes we're talking about.

Won't someone please think of the gnomes!

Oh nevermind, they're standing up for their rights at the Kokesh rally:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4125/4997621564_c25621fd98_o.jpg

Natural Citizen
05-21-2013, 11:05 PM
Is funny. I can't break the habit. I always spell it like that. Even on white papers I catch myself doing that.

Anyhoo. Funny....:)

Seriously though. Disruption is the only thing that makes things new again. When it comes to Companies like Monsanto in particular the best disruption is to demand accountability from representatives through expectation of transparency regarding their position on the actual sciences that they help to expose the people to via their represention of these companies through lobby.

That's all I'm going to add here.

Origanalist
05-21-2013, 11:10 PM
Is funny. I can't break the habit. I always spell it like that. Even on white papers I catch myself doing that.

Anyhoo. Funny....:)

Gnomes works for me, not everybody is ass anal as TheGrinch. :D

John F Kennedy III
05-21-2013, 11:10 PM
The votes aren't there to repeal the Act

Then let's get them.

Natural Citizen
05-21-2013, 11:12 PM
Gnomes works for me, not everybody is ass anal as TheGrinch. :D

Is all good. It's funny because I actually do that all of the time. And every single time someone posts a gnome. Which is also funny.

So, I keep saying I'm done with the thread. I'll let it die now and remain forgotten with the rest of the science discussion. Screw it. I think I saw some boobie threads some place.

Origanalist
05-21-2013, 11:19 PM
Is all good. It's funny because I actually do that all of the time. And every single time someone posts a gnome. Which is also funny.

So, I keep saying I'm done with the thread. I'll let it die now and remain forgotten with the rest of the science discussion. Screw it. I think I saw some boobie threads some place.

Well, if it's any consolation, I'm on board for a science sub forum. I think it's a great idea, and maybe the whole science vs. theology thing would drop down a notch or two. Or maybe not.

sailingaway
05-21-2013, 11:48 PM
Monsanto's legal strategy is absurd but that's for the courts to sort out. As for the patent office that's been owned by special interests for 150 years long before Monsanto showed up.

I also dont think its worse than banking. You can easily avoid Monsanto with enough effort but you can't avoid the dilution of the currency which is mandated by law to be used in all transactions and the investment banks are far worse than Monsanto.

You can't avoid them if you don't even know what foods they are in, and when 'organic' and 'natural' labeling is permitted to include them. I think this subject doesn't interest you, which is fine, but saying you can easily avoid them also makes me think you haven't looked into it much, to be honest.

jtstellar
05-22-2013, 01:07 AM
why are the same rand skeptical crowd aways absent from threads like these

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415149-Rand-Paul-Opposes-Sending-Arms-to-Syrian-Rebels-in-Committee

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415161-RINO-McCain-Opposes-Motion-by-Senator-Paul-to-Instruct-Conferees-on-Debt-Ceiling

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415160-Rand-Paul-My-colleagues-just-voted-to-arm-the-allies-of-al-Qaeda

all invisible to them? god i hate people whose job is to tell others

HigherVision
05-22-2013, 09:46 AM
How about we discuss how to get Rand to fight harder against Monsanto? Monsanto needs to go ASAP.

If people choose to consume products produced by this company what business is it of yours?


You can't avoid them if you don't even know what foods they are in, and when 'organic' and 'natural' labeling is permitted to include them. I think this subject doesn't interest you, which is fine, but saying you can easily avoid them also makes me think you haven't looked into it much, to be honest.

Perhaps it isn't easy to avoid them, but rather having than a right to have companies be forced to disclose every last detail about a product by the government, people have a responsibility to find out for themselves what they're consuming. I mean how the hell are we going to say that they should legalize heroin and then turn around and say that people shouldn't be allowed to consume the kind of produce that they want?

sailingaway
05-22-2013, 09:52 AM
If people choose to consume products produced by this company what business is it of yours?

The FDA, whose VP, I think, is the recent Monsanto counsel (I think it's vp) has taken the official position there need be no testing and no labeling of GMO because there is no difference. Which is odd since to get a patent the primary hurdle is that what you have is different, novel, etc.

But no one 'chooses' if the government colludes to hide the information that the stuff is even in the food.

cajuncocoa
05-22-2013, 09:58 AM
why are the same rand skeptical crowd aways absent from threads like these

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415149-Rand-Paul-Opposes-Sending-Arms-to-Syrian-Rebels-in-Committee

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415161-RINO-McCain-Opposes-Motion-by-Senator-Paul-to-Instruct-Conferees-on-Debt-Ceiling

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415160-Rand-Paul-My-colleagues-just-voted-to-arm-the-allies-of-al-Qaeda

all invisible to them? god i hate people whose job is to tell othersWhat is there to say? I'm not one of Rand's cheerleaders, so I'm not likely to jump for joy every time he does something he should be doing.

HigherVision
05-22-2013, 09:58 AM
The FDA, whose VP, I think, is the recent Monsanto counsel (I think it's vp) has taken the official position there need be no testing and no labeling of GMO because there is no difference. Which is odd since to get a patent the primary hurdle is that what you have is different, novel, etc.

But no one 'chooses' if the government colludes to hide the information that the stuff is even in the food.

If consumers don't demand this labeling themselves by refusing to buy food without it, what right do you or the government have to force companies to require it? And the fact that the FDA is made up of top officials from the very companies that they're supposed to be regulating to me only further drives home that we need to get rid of these regulatory agencies. And have less government interference in the market, not more.

XNavyNuke
05-22-2013, 11:03 AM
Monsanto Has Taken Over the USDA (http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-has-taken-over-usda-1368111215)

If there are any sources that demonstrate positive actions away from Monsanto's interest, please share.

Thanks.

An excellent question NC. Unfortunately its scope is WAY too narrow. The question should be what has he done/doing/will do to represent the interests of the citizenry over the Neo-Mercantilists using the regulatory bodies of the FedGov to promote their own interests.

Monsanto and the USDA is just a small part of the Megacorporations revolving door of quislings operating within the regulating agencies. Defense contractors in DoD, Banking interests in the SEC, yadda, yadda.

The American Revolution was as much about throwing off the British mercantile system in favor of free market capitalism, as it was about individual liberty. The two issues were pretty much inseparable.

XNN

Natural Citizen
05-24-2013, 05:26 PM
An excellent question NC. Unfortunately its scope is WAY too narrow.

Yes, I understand that. Didn't want to get too broad here in this thread though. Seems to be a lot of whining when we bring up important questions that are on the minds of prospective voters who value the notion that their prospective representatives will support their position before just putting them into office. Was basically just looking for references on his specific position and regarding this specific issue. Is a big deal with many people that I talk to. I had shared a thread regarding the issue itself elsewhere in the board so as not to hurt anyones feelings here which discussed the foreign policy implications of the free pass Monsanto is getting from our representatives on a far broader scale and relevant to the scope you reference. Of course, that's been buried and ignored too so....go figger.

HigherVision
05-25-2013, 05:22 AM
Yes, I understand that. Didn't want to get too broad here in this thread though. Seems to be a lot of whining when we bring up important questions that are on the minds of prospective voters who value the notion that their prospective representatives will support their position before just putting them into office. Was basically just looking for references on his specific position and regarding this specific issue. Is a big deal with many people that I talk to. I had shared a thread regarding the issue itself elsewhere in the board so as not to hurt anyones feelings here which discussed the foreign policy implications of the free pass Monsanto is getting from our representatives on a far broader scale and relevant to the scope you reference. Of course, that's been buried and ignored too so....go figger.

The question is, do you support property rights and the free market or not?

Natural Citizen
05-25-2013, 05:30 PM
The question is, do you support property rights and the free market or not?

No, that's your question. And it's the wrong one. Is misleading and has historically been used to redirect the issue. Monsanto is a government controlled market that extends itself as far as foreign policy. The correct question is "what is my prospective representatives position on the sciences that these multi-national corporations introduce to the natural population whom are illiterate to the consequences as a majority?" Is a simple question of representation on behalf of the people. The real ones, mind you. Not the ones who exist solely via a pen stroke and a few billion dollars.

This isn't grandma and grandpa we're talking about here with the corner store. This is growth of a trillion dollar eugenics industry versus the survival of a natural species. A true battle for citizenship/representation to be clear. We know who speaks for them. But who speaks for us? That, my friend, is the question?

brandon
05-25-2013, 05:35 PM
It's been probably like 10 years since I've last really researched this but I gotta say I just don't care about this at all. Food is cheap and plentiful. Western agriculture is a roaring success.

Natural Citizen
05-25-2013, 05:55 PM
It's been probably like 10 years since I've last really researched this but I gotta say I just don't care about this at all. Food is cheap and plentiful. Western agriculture is a roaring success.

Codex Alimentarius has come a very, very long way. Almost completely under the radar thanks to political dissuasion of any discussion/questions in the direction of our prospective representatives relevant to the most fundamental facts of the matter. My previous response in this thread was one directed toward misguided enablement of the phenomenon and a prime example of the practice that concerned citizens are up against. Spin...

Brett85
05-25-2013, 06:20 PM
Why are libertarians arguing in favor of increased government regulations on private businesses and then getting angry at Rand for supporting the pro liberty position of not supporting government regulations on private businesses?

Natural Citizen
05-25-2013, 06:29 PM
Why are libertarians arguing in favor of increased government regulations on private businesses and then getting angry at Rand for supporting the pro liberty position of not supporting government regulations on private businesses?

Monsanto is writing legislation. This is a merge of corporation and state. Do you know what the word is for that?

Liberty for whom? Living, breathing, walking and talking natural beneficiaries of the constitution and bill of rights or those multi-national entities who do none of that and exist solely to interfere with the natural schematics of those natural representees through bogus representation via lobby? A glorified hijacking of government processes itself.

As I said earlier. This isn't grandma and grandpa's candy shop on the corner. This is a multinational corporation assuming the actual role of government processes at a level that actually dictates some elements of foreign policy.

This is not a free market process. People can sell it like that but they are either misguided or are in favor of these government controlled markets.

Brett85
05-25-2013, 06:33 PM
This is not a free market process.

I never said it was, but the solution is to advocate for a free market process, not support having even less of a free market by using the force of the federal government to force these companies to label their food as GMO or non GMO.

Natural Citizen
05-25-2013, 06:57 PM
I never said it was, but the solution is to advocate for a free market process, not support having even less of a free market by using the force of the federal government to force these companies to label their food as GMO or non GMO.

I don't disagree with that at all. Need to get these multi-national corporations out of position to legislate though. And that's exactly what they are doing. They are legislating for growth and specifically against survival of a natural species via the sciences that they implement from this position of control of government processes. The only way to logically do that is to demand that our reps provide a position on what it is that they actually do though. My genes aren't some asshat's intellectual property although this is only one gripe on a long list of many. Standard political narrative like free market principle only breeds more of the same policies though because people assume that these government controlled corporations are free market entities. They are not. Monsanto is an excellent means to reposess the 14th amendment and repatriate citizenship/representation as Kucinich pointed out previously. Or at least wake people up to what is happening. And as I've said many times, scientific literacy on the part of the people gets it done where status quo politics can't and won't. We need to demand from or reps what their positions are on the science that this company in particular is unleashing upon the world. And it is the world. No reason why what this company is unleashing shouldn't be spoken of in terms of foreign policy. Foreign policy isn't all about them thar terists.

HigherVision
05-25-2013, 07:29 PM
No, that's your question. And it's the wrong one. Is misleading and has historically been used to redirect the issue. Monsanto is a government controlled market that extends itself as far as foreign policy. The correct question is "what is my prospective representatives position on the sciences that these multi-national corporations introduce to the natural population whom are illiterate to the consequences as a majority?" Is a simple question of representation on behalf of the people. The real ones, mind you. Not the ones who exist solely via a pen stroke and a few billion dollars.

This isn't grandma and grandpa we're talking about here with the corner store. This is growth of a trillion dollar eugenics industry versus the survival of a natural species. A true battle for citizenship/representation to be clear. We know who speaks for them. But who speaks for us? That, my friend, is the question?

So in other words, your answer to the question is no.

Natural Citizen
05-25-2013, 08:13 PM
So in other words, your answer to the question is no.


My answer to the question that you asked is that a genuine free market will work itself out. But the question that you asked isn't the root problem. This is a government controlled market.

Krzysztof Lesiak
05-25-2013, 10:44 PM
Idk. He shoul've gone to an anti Monsanto rally. There was one in DC and probably even a few in Kentucky.

Natural Citizen
05-26-2013, 08:26 AM
Idk. He shoul've gone to an anti Monsanto rally. There was one in DC and probably even a few in Kentucky.

March Against Monsanto, Louisville, Kentucky May 25, 2013.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INsHy_BADCw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiXnBun03js



Lexington, Kentucky...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOeqEOEu_E



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRIoddKR8LA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5jodZQIPCg

HigherVision
05-27-2013, 07:54 AM
My answer to the question that you asked is that a genuine free market will work itself out. But the question that you asked isn't the root problem. This is a government controlled market.

So are you against stuff like mandatory labeling & GMO being banned then? You only want to personally inform people about how you think GMO is bad (rather than using government to do it forcefully) and use the state against Monsanto only if they violate other people's property rights? I'm against Monsanto patenting kinds of seeds and having a government enforced monopoly on them but my solution would simply be to get rid of the patents. Because patents are protectionist and anti-competition. Virtually no one in the anti-gmo movement that I can see hold this position, they all seem to want more government regulation. Which leads me question the validity of the whole premise of gm being super bad.

FrankRep
05-27-2013, 08:06 AM
What has Rand Paul done to represent the interests of citizens against Monsanto?


Rand Paul Voted NO on the "Monsanto Protection Act"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415648-Rand-Paul-Voted-NO-on-the-quot-Monsanto-Protection-Act-quot

Natural Citizen
08-25-2013, 10:45 PM
This remains an important topic of discussion. The issue isn't over with just because the thread is buried.

LibertyEagle
08-25-2013, 10:49 PM
What is it that you want him to do? He voted against the Monsanto Protection Act.

Natural Citizen
08-25-2013, 10:53 PM
What is it that you want him to do? He voted against the Monsanto Protection Act.

I'd like his position on the actual science of what they want to do. If he's to lead during these times of technological advances (that's broad, btw) then it should be expected that he understand what it is that the technology does and how it affects the people before we just go and let them scribble up legislation willy nilly. Rest assured that those whom the lobbies represent understand fully how any given applications will affect the people and infrastructure.

This requires a more scientifically literate community and support base so then discussion regarding the many outlying factors should also be stimulated so that the correct questions are asked.

Frank plucked my nerves though and so I started bumping these important threads. Want me to stop? I'm kind of tired of it right this second anyhow. There are more though.

LibertyEagle
08-25-2013, 10:56 PM
I'd like his position on the actual science of what they want to do.

Had you thought about either calling or writing his office?

FrankRep
08-25-2013, 11:00 PM
Frank plucked my nerves though and so I started bumpoing these imporatant threads. Want me to stop? I'm kind of tired of it right this second anyhow. There are more though.

This is a silly thread because Rand Paul voted Against the "Monsanto Protection Act."


Rand Paul Voted NO on the "Monsanto Protection Act" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415648-Rand-Paul-Voted-NO-on-the-quot-Monsanto-Protection-Act-quot)

Vote Date: March 20, 2013

- Rand Paul (R-KY), Nay
- Mike Lee (R-UT), Nay
- Ted Cruz (R-TX), Nay

T.hill
08-25-2013, 11:04 PM
Write or call his office and post a reply on here.

Natural Citizen
08-25-2013, 11:08 PM
Write or call his office and post a reply on here.

Yep. I've started a paper with some questions and will complete it. I'd like to see the issue(s) develop further though so then I'm comfortable all relevance is recognized.

Barrex
08-26-2013, 07:05 AM
This issue is also very important to me.

RonPaulMall
08-26-2013, 03:10 PM
What is it that you want him to do? He voted against the Monsanto Protection Act.

Honestly, he needs to be a hell of a lot more vocal on this issue. If Rand wants to win the White House, he needs to associate himself with popular issues that belie the stereotype the mainstream media has successfully tarred the GOP brand with. He's doing that to some extent with the whole mandatory minimums thing, but lets get real- the mistreatment of prisoners and the unfairness of the judicial system is not an issue that resonates deeply with voters. I'm glad he's pounding on it, because it is the right thing to do, but if he spent a tenth of as much time on the issues of Food Freedom as he did mandatory minimums he could be making some serious progress towards flipping states he needs to flip in 2016. The interest in organic/natural foods dwarfs prison and sentencing reform in pure numbers, and the demographic profile (overwhelmingly female, almost totally white) is the target demo Rand needs to improve in if he wants to win.

And I'm not talking about just standing up on a soapbox and railing against Monsanto like some leftists authoritarian hippy. Talk about it in our terms, but for God's sake, talk about it. I saw somebody upthread who said Monsanto wasn't created by an Act of Congress. Well, that's true. It was created by acts of Congress over many years. Monsanto is the poster child for crony capitalism. Rand and his entire staff should head down to Polyface Farms for a weekend and have some in depth talks with Joel Salatin. The fact that Rand didn't even know what the Monsanto Protection Act was when he was asked about it indicates just how far behind he and his staff are.

RabbitMan
08-26-2013, 10:00 PM
Write, email, and call his staff about this. Big Agro is in the dumps as far as public perception goes right now, and talking this kind of stuff up rather than the ACA would DEFINITELY turn a lot of heads in progressive strongholds....like Seattle. 8)

If Hillary really is going to be running for 2016, all he has to be is authentically anti-status quo and I think he would have a huge chance of winning.

Natural Citizen
08-26-2013, 10:13 PM
Honestly, he needs to be a hell of a lot more vocal on this issue. If Rand wants to win the White House, he needs to associate himself with popular issues that belie the stereotype the mainstream media has successfully tarred the GOP brand with. He's doing that to some extent with the whole mandatory minimums thing, but lets get real- the mistreatment of prisoners and the unfairness of the judicial system is not an issue that resonates deeply with voters. I'm glad he's pounding on it, because it is the right thing to do, but if he spent a tenth of as much time on the issues of Food Freedom as he did mandatory minimums he could be making some serious progress towards flipping states he needs to flip in 2016. The interest in organic/natural foods dwarfs prison and sentencing reform in pure numbers, and the demographic profile (overwhelmingly female, almost totally white) is the target demo Rand needs to improve in if he wants to win.

And I'm not talking about just standing up on a soapbox and railing against Monsanto like some leftists authoritarian hippy. Talk about it in our terms, but for God's sake, talk about it. I saw somebody upthread who said Monsanto wasn't created by an Act of Congress. Well, that's true. It was created by acts of Congress over many years. Monsanto is the poster child for crony capitalism. Rand and his entire staff should head down to Polyface Farms for a weekend and have some in depth talks with Joel Salatin. The fact that Rand didn't even know what the Monsanto Protection Act was when he was asked about it indicates just how far behind he and his staff are.

A big problem regarding this issue is that way too many people like to tout the free market argument but fail to address the reality that this is a government controlled market given the extreme knot that ties the two together. So when we say to do it on our terms there seems to be a severe shortcoming in seeing the issue as it really is. Sure, everyone is all for a free market but what is going on here with monsanto (and others like them...big pharma is another) is that they are dictating legislation on their own terms via lobby and then the representatives are treating it as a free market situation...which it isn't. It baffles me as to why so many choose to argue this issue as if it's a free market issue when it absolutely is not that at all. This is one of citizenship, ultimately, and what further compounds that is that monsanto is using it's illegitimate gift of contstitution to try to force genetic change through marketable sciences on the actual human people that the constitution and bill of rights were written for and proceed to force them into a guinea pig scenario where they go so far as to own their very being after a generation or so follows this one...this one that allowed it to happen because "Oh, it's the free market". Growth versus survival to be clear. Talk about a literal hijacking of personhood through science. Gosh. This is exactly what is happening which is why prospective representatives should lose the luxury of not being asked the correct question regarding the matter. That being "What is you position ion this science...how would you lead the people knowing that this is happening?"

ClydeCoulter
08-26-2013, 10:27 PM
A big problem regarding this issue is that way too many people like to tout the free market argument but fail to address the reality that this is a government controlled market given the extreme knot that ties the two together. So then we say to do it on our terms there seems to be a severe shortcoming in seeing the issue as it really is. Sure, everyone is all for a free market but what is going on here with monsanto (and others like them...big pharma is another) is that they are dictating legislation on their own terms via lobby and then the representatives are treating it as a free market situation...which it isn't. It baffles me as to why so many choose to argue this issue as if it's a free market issue when it absolutely is not that at all. This is one of citizenship, ultimately, and what further compounds that is that monsanto is using it's illegitimate gift of contstitution to try to force genetic change through marketable sciences on the actual human people that the constitution and bill of rights was written for and proceed to force them into a guinea pig scenario where they go so far as to own their very being after a generation or so follows this one...this one that allowed it to happen because "Oh, it's the free market". Growth versus survival to be clear. Talk about a literal hijacking of personhood through science. Gosh. This is exactly what is happening which is why prospective representatives should lose the luxury of not being asked the correct question regarding the matter. That being "What is you position ion this science...how would you lead the people knowing that this is happening?"

Exactly. And this is not just an "American" problem. The U.S. uses it influence to affect other countries legislation on these products.

I don't see it any less important than the NSA or Drones (which he needs to study more).

Natural Citizen
08-26-2013, 10:37 PM
Exactly. And this is not just an "American" problem. The U.S. uses it influence to affect other countries legislation on these products.

I don't see it any less important than the NSA or Drones (which he needs to study more).


It's a scientific endeavor they are taking on and it's essentially being legislated onto a species by entities who can do so under the illusion of personhood via the subsequent representation that traditionally has come with that.

Natural Citizen
09-13-2013, 09:00 AM
‘Monsanto Protection Act’ quietly extended by Congress (http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-protection-extended-house-741/)




“The rider represents an unprecedented attack on US judicial review, which is an essential element of US law and provides a critical check on government decisions that may negatively impact human health, the environment or livelihoods,” they wrote. “This also raises potential jurisdictional concerns with the Senate Agriculture and Judiciary Committees that merited hearings by the Committees before its consideration.”

Following the original vote in March, President Barack Obama signed (http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/) the provision into law as part of larger legislation to avoid a government shutdown. Rallies (http://rt.com/news/march-against-monsanto-gmo-776/) took place worldwide in May protesting the clandestine effort to protect the powerful companies from judicial scrutiny.

“It is extremely disappointing to see the damaging ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ policy rider extended in the House spending bill,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety. “Hundreds of thousands of Americans called their elected officials to voice their frustration and disappointment over the inclusion of ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ this past spring. Its inclusion is a slap in the face to the American public and our justice system.”