3rdnlng Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) (Shakes fist at sky) Dammit! Well played. You need to lighten up if you are going to stay here on earth. We have much less gravity here than where you came from. We have what we call levity. Edited March 28, 2013 by 3rdnlng
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 No, not really. It is the common Uhmerikan view. That power should not come from an office, especially when you can't elect them. Let the Supremes decide. Think about that and get back to me.
boyst Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Think about that and get back to me. it is not my attitude or viewpoint. I am saying it is the viewpoint of the common American. My viewpoint is 180° of that. Let the people decide.
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 it is not my attitude or viewpoint. I am saying it is the viewpoint of the common American. My viewpoint is 180° of that. Let the people decide. Oh, okay... That's even more depressing...that the average American thinks that judges can make regulations."because they're elected," and the executive can't regulate. I don't know if I agree (I think I do - it wouldn't surprise me if the common American's view of the court system were as it being all-powerful), but it's sad to think about.
Gary M Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 That's completely wrong. The amendment says that, when a court voids the non-regulation of a plant, and a grower or producer petitions the Department of Agriculture to examine the court's finding, the Secretary of Agriculture is granted the authority to stay the implementation of the court's decision for such time as it takes the Department of Agriculture to "complete any required analysis or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status." THIS IS WHY WE DON'T USE INFOWARS AS A SOURCE. Why, when you read a BS story from Infowars like this one, is it so God damned difficult for you idiots to take five minutes to actually look up the text of the legislation and see what it really says? No it's better to think that they are selling stuff that kills the ground it's planted in or kills the people that buy it. A better marketing plan has never been thought of.
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 No it's better to think that they are selling stuff that kills the ground it's planted in or kills the people that buy it. A better marketing plan has never been thought of. No, the thinking is actually that it's a Zionist NWO plan to introduce genetic modifications into humans to make us more pliable and dependent on the One World Government. Just like the Archons are doing with chemtrails. Clearly, you're unfamiliar with InfoWars. I'm not even making that up.
Gary M Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 No, the thinking is actually that it's a Zionist NWO plan to introduce genetic modifications into humans to make us more pliable and dependent on the One World Government. Just like the Archons are doing with chemtrails. Clearly, you're unfamiliar with InfoWars. I'm not even making that up. Oh no, I've watched one of those chem trail videos. Scares the crap out of me that there are people that dumb on this earth, and they vote.
boyst Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Oh, okay... That's even more depressing...that the average American thinks that judges can make regulations."because they're elected," and the executive can't regulate. I don't know if I agree (I think I do - it wouldn't surprise me if the common American's view of the court system were as it being all-powerful), but it's sad to think about. I work with morons. They're the perfect americans. Don't know NAFTA from Nasdaq, that Clinton was impeached, Obama is not from Africa, Bush doesn't speak to God... I asked them who is more powerful. A Senator or a Judge. Judge won. who is more powerful between sec of commerce or a judge? Judge. Vice pres or judge. Vice pres.
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 I work with morons. They're the perfect americans. Don't know NAFTA from Nasdaq, that Clinton was impeached, Obama is not from Africa, Bush doesn't speak to God... I asked them who is more powerful. A Senator or a Judge. Judge won. who is more powerful between sec of commerce or a judge? Judge. Vice pres or judge. Vice pres. I've got no problem with people believing Bush speaks to God. The ones that believe God spoke back...they're the ones who scare me. If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're schizophrenic.
We Come In Peace Posted March 28, 2013 Author Posted March 28, 2013 Oh, okay... That's even more depressing...that the average American thinks that judges can make regulations."because they're elected," and the executive can't regulate. I don't know if I agree (I think I do - it wouldn't surprise me if the common American's view of the court system were as it being all-powerful), but it's sad to think about. 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. No, the thinking is actually that it's a Zionist NWO plan to introduce genetic modifications into humans to make us more pliable and dependent on the One World Government. Just like the Archons are doing with chemtrails. Clearly, you're unfamiliar with InfoWars. I'm not even making that up. 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?
Adam Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Daily Caller reports on Obama fans NOT happy about Obama getting bought by Monsanto. http://dailycaller.c...-for-him-video/ Congress passed it and Obama signed it. Fail and fail
boyst Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 I've got no problem with people believing Bush speaks to God. The ones that believe God spoke back...they're the ones who scare me. If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're schizophrenic. Spoke to same people:Demographics. 1 woman, 60's. two men over 60, one man under 50, two men over 20. All speak to god, and have god speak to them. So, chances are I will not be speaking to them much, either. I did speak to one guy, though, got the first answers right but the second ones wrong... although, he said God speaks to him in that he gives him each day to live. I really should not mock him, though, because Dodge said he blessed me, the farmer.
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 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. "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..." THAT a court deciding regulation, not determining violations of such. I'm not the one misreading it.
IDBillzFan Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Spoke to same people: Demographics. 1 woman, 60's. two men over 60, one man under 50, two men over 20. All speak to god, and have god speak to them. So, chances are I will not be speaking to them much, either. I did speak to one guy, though, got the first answers right but the second ones wrong... although, he said God speaks to him in that he gives him each day to live. I really should not mock him, though, because Dodge said he blessed me, the farmer. That's interesting. I didn't take you for an atheist.
We Come In Peace Posted March 28, 2013 Author Posted March 28, 2013 "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..." THAT a court deciding regulation, not determining violations of such. I'm not the one misreading it. 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.
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 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. Consistent with sections 411 and 412 of the Plant Protection act. Which again means that the amendment is just placing the regulatory power back in the hands of the USDA. In response to the sugar beet lawsuits, in which the federal ruling ignored the USDA's authority under the Plant Protection Act and tried to assume regulatory powers itself.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 That's interesting. I didn't take you for an atheist. Yeah... Same here. Paul Harvey is rolling over in his grave.
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 That's interesting. I didn't take you for an atheist. I thought he was Hindu.
We Come In Peace Posted March 28, 2013 Author Posted March 28, 2013 Consistent with sections 411 and 412 of the Plant Protection act. Which again means that the amendment is just placing the regulatory power back in the hands of the USDA. In response to the sugar beet lawsuits, in which the federal ruling ignored the USDA's authority under the Plant Protection Act and tried to assume regulatory powers itself. 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.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 "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:" * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. . . . I'm not up to speed on this issue, so I consulted my oldest brother Darryl (he plays chess). He had a few questions. Is it clear to you that Monsanto qualifies as "a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer?" Are those terms defined elsewhere by statute? Some corporate and other "farmers" who bought Monsanto seeds would be pretty closely aligned with Monsanto's interests with respect to seeds already sold (licensed?) by Monsanto. But how does Monsanto avoid any adjudicated liability for damages if it is not "a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer?" I don't think Darryl has any grasp of how various statutory provisions here are inter-related, so I'm not suggesting he knows the answers - - he just has questions.
Recommended Posts