We Come In Peace

Stop, Promo. Every single historical record has been altered by the gay boogey man. Don't you know?!

It's doing more than that in reality. It prohibits consumers and small farmers from filing suit against big agro, taking away the only legal recourse available to them. The Plant Protection Act, specifically 411 and 12 deal with the spread of dangerous plants and plant pests. It grants the Sec of Ag the power to stop imports, exports and spread of harmful plants and plant pests (including GMO). That all sounds great until you consider the reality of what the small farmer is facing. Monsanto has proprietary control over its seed which is being spread (naturally and unnaturally) onto other lands besides their own. Monsanto has a policy that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year -- and if they use Monsanto seed (knowingly or unknowingly) they are liable to lawsuits (like the one that was just before the Court). So now Monsanto is protected on every level when it comes to their seed. If it spreads to other lands and causes damage, they're immune to any lawsuit or regulation REGARDLESS OF THE SCIENCE/PROOF/EVIDENCE and, if some how the seed blows onto a farmer's land and he makes a profit from it, they have a legal precedent to sue that small farmer for all the profits made from those seeds. This is not about judges legislating from the bench. It's about a powerful corporation positioning themselves with legal immunity and impunity just in time for the hearings on their patents. The timing is not a coincidence, nor is the the motive a secret. This is about money.

(Part 2) And yet you're making the supposition that we are all slaves to our base functions. Besides having no point in this discussion, it paints a startlingly ignorant portrait of how you believe human beings make decisions. For the record, your statement was this: "Evolution doesn’t know we have turkey basters now. The biological design of humans hasn’t evolved to know we have sperm and egg banks." Which again, has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever. Hence my reply: "Great point. Meaningless, but great." Clearly we can add sarcasm to the long list of things you fail to understand. Thank Christ for that because if you were trying to win you are doing a terrible job of it. I haven't leveled a single one of those charges against you. I don't need to because you've done a wonderful job of showing your own ignorance on the topic. You don't have to be a bigot to be wrong.

Part 1 Prove to the board that gays had no desire to have families of their own until the 1970s. I'll wait. Just for reference, this was your original statement: "Why would a homosexual orientation manifest into a desire to procreate?" It's an absurd question and even a more absurd deduction. And your response is to swim upstream against logic. You're stating that the only reason people procreate is because we're genetically wired to reproduce. It's a factor, but certainly not the only factor at play. So again, your argument is unfounded, illogical, and incorrect. It's nice that you can so easily dismiss over 2,000 years of historical records as being "revised" by the pro gay rights movement. Kind of makes it difficult to offer the proof you seek to contradict your claim. But in reality, we are forced to rely upon facts. As a historian myself, I can assure you that there is evidence of homosexuality throughout the entire history of the human species. Pick up some primary source documents and do some reading. Woefully ignorant of history and the human experience, not to mention the fact that humanity has existed in a largely patriarchal society and the ramifications from that when it comes to recorded history. But please, continue to demonstrate your ignorance. This is a clear cut example of inappropriate generalization. Just because it's possible for straight men to engage in homosexual acts and still be straight doesn't mean that everyone performing homosexual acts is actually straight. Logic 101. Step your game up. Considering I quoted you directly, word for word, it's not odd. I said you have a right to your opinion but it doesn't make it fact. Amazing you could find a way to argue this point, but since you're the one claiming that all of history has been retouched by the all powerful gay rights lobby, then I guess it probably shouldn't amaze me. Sure. Spell it out for me. Here's your original sentence: "Can you give me an example of a scenario where homosexual same sex sexuality would have a feature built into it that would ignore its intrinsic mechanism (same sex attraction and no other) of sexual gratification, only to still procreate?" You want an example of a scenario where "homosexual same sex sexuality" (redundant much) would have a feature built into it that would ignore its naturally occurring attraction to members of the same sex in order to procreate? Because if so, that's just gobbily gook. And I'm being kind. Your mastery of the language needs work if you think that's a coherent question or even a complete statement. Based on your writing skills and diminished capacity for coherent thought and reason, I don't find that hard to believe.

Oh, you don't? Awesome! ...Hey! Wait a minute....

That's very noble of you, but you're the one assuming it's humiliating to be true to who you really are. Not to mention the incredible amount of advertising dollars that will be available to the first player who comes out. We're talking BIG money. HUGE.

Except for the fact that every Spanish speaker isn't inherently Mexican.

You are. You're failing to think of the ramifications of what that language actually means in a legal sense. How does a court determine a non-regulated status? It doesn't reach its decision through magic, it requires a legal action to be initiated by a plaintiff. The language makes any such case moot, regardless of the findings of the court -- whether it be a farmer claiming environmental harm or even a proprietary case about the design of the seeds. In essence it prevents the court for adjudicating ANYTHING with regards to GMO seed. Worse than that, it makes it mandatory for the Sec Ag to overturn ANY ruling that goes against big-agro. It used to be optional. Specifically, this language was designed in response to the successful sugar beet lawsuits against Monsanto in '09 and '10 -- both of which the USDA ignored the federal ruling and allowed Monsanto to continue to plant and harvest.

The joke was that the majority of Californians would be Spanish speaking. Not necessarily that they'd all be Mexican.

So, in your mind it's better for that player(s) to suffer in silence and continue the current system of discrimination and bigotry that exists in regards to gays in the NFL rather than break through and make the league better for the gay players who follow in his footsteps? You're advocating, in essence, that it would have been better off if Jackie Robinson had declined Branch Rickey's contract offer and played in the Negro League instead because it'd be easier for him. That's a great message to send.

Because it makes them question their own sexuality in uncomfortable ways. Nothing more dangerous in this world than a fool with a cause.

Many men have entered... none have returned.

Nope. You make your point VERY clear with the phrasing you chose: What's strange is your inability to deduce that it's not new for gay and lesbian couples to want their own children. What is new is the majority of society being accepting of such non-traditional families. As for the rest of your nonsense in this post: You're already making a false assumption that it's their sexual orientation that is manifesting into a desire to procreate. That's an assumption and it's wrong. Except... it doesn't correlate since homosexuality has existed in homosapiens since the beginning of time. If homosexuality is only the result of environmental and societal factors then it would be a relatively new development for our species. But it isn't. So, you're wrong again. It is your opinion and you have a right to it. But it doesn't mean it's factual. If you learn how to properly convey your thoughts, maybe I could. But this sentence is gibberish. Stop trying to use big words you don't understand. Now you're just showing how foolish you really are. Adoption as a formal institution has been around for over a century. Adoption as an informal institution has been around as long as people have been. There are more ways than one to start a family. Great point. Meaningless, but great. Considering the phenomenon you're referencing is entirely a product of your irrational logic and fantasy, no. But you can't either so I guess we both lose.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah, it's super weird that people want to live their lives and have families of their own. It's even stranger that you feel this is a new development.

Entire generations of "sleeper" agents with legit US citizenship. Awesome.

Duh... right here obviously:

I understand where you're coming from but I really think you're misreading the language of the bill. This isn't about legislation from the bench, it's infringing on the court's ability to fully adjudicate any violations of law by big agro and Monsanto specifically. There's a massive difference between those two points. "In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412© of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner:" The lawyers here will tell you the importance of the bolded word. This was the big change in the language that makes the Sec. Ag's action mandatory rather than optional. In other words, the Sec Ag has no choice but to allow the permits and exemptions the moment a petition is filed. In other words, let's say that it turns out a new seed designed by Monsanto turns out to have a negative health effect that's proven empirically to be harmful and ruled as such by a federal court (hypothetically of course). With this legislation, there is no recourse available to the public in such an instance because now, all that Monsanto has to do is file a petition and the the Sec of Ag MUST issue them permits to continue planting and harvesting their crop, regardless of the court's findings or even the USDA's own findings. This is a back door work around that protects the bottom line for big-agro but f*ks the citizenry. You aren't making that up at all. There are plenty of people that believe in that kind of paranoia. I know I take the piss here a lot when it comes to those sorts of extreme but you know I don't march all the way down that line. Removing the two extremes from the equation (the NWO order conspiracy on one end and the 'Monsanto is entirely benevolent' on the other) -- the middle ground is what I'm talking about and why this rider is alarming. Without any hearing or public knowledge, the rider is a direct attack on separation of powers. But why? Is it to protect Monsanto from massive class action lawsuits -- even frivolous ones? Or is it something else? Why should we willing concede control of our national food supply to one company and then write legislation that prevents any legal recourse should said company be found negligent in any way shape or form?

I can't confirm that these two stories are linked... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9953821/Student-spots-mystery-primate-stalking-though-park.html But I won't deny it either.

(Shakes fist at sky) Dammit! Well played.

That's not what the language is saying. It's not preventing the judicial branch from making up regulations, it prevents them from enforcing decisions. It's an audacious power grab that strips the courts of their constitutional power without so much as a public hearing on the issue. What the language allows is a backdoor immunity clause for Monsanto. Essentially, if any court case against them or their crop -- be it for health reasons, proprietary reasons or environmental -- goes AGAINST Monsanto, now they can delay the enforcement by petitioning the Sec Ag who now has the authority to delay action for as long as they see fit. During that time, the seed in question can continue to be planted/grown/sold/spread with complete legal impunity. This should outrage people. Especially someone who's way smarter than I am in many areas. The reality of the rider is that it has a life span of only 6 months. But it sets a dangerous precedent, especially when you consider the deafening silence on the issue in the public debate.

And well over 75% of the corn crop. Do not think that the passage of this rider and the timing of the upcoming patent issues are a coincidence. There's way too much money at stake. Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) worked with Monsanto to craft the language.

You're more worried about insurance companies being given federal immunity than you are about a company that is very quickly gaining proprietary control of our entire food supply? In other words, a federal judge is no longer allowed to enforce any decision regarding seeds until the Secretary of Agriculture permits it.

They should be pissed. But it's an issue that impacts everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

When bills like this are passed, and everyone shrugs, it makes the rest of you look like the crazy ones.

A rider inserted into the Budget Resolution, hilariously titled the "Farmer's Assurance Provision", grants food-giant and small farm killer Monsanto federal immunity from planting GMO crop -- even if said crop is proven to be dangerous to our health or the environment. I know I have a lot of fun on this board posting about conspiracy stuff, but this is absolutely outrageous and terrifying. This won't make the news, it will be quickly forgotten, and tomorrow another small farmer will be crushed by the jackboot of Monsanto and their Capital Hill lackeys. I know there are many posters here who have been quick to defend Monsanto in the past, I urge them to read the Farmer's Assurance Provision and comment. http://www.infowars.com/senate-passes-monsanto-protection-act-granting-monsanto-power-over-us-govt/