3rdnlng Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 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. Here's the litmus test. If you were experiencing a 100 year drought but you knew prayer would bring rain, would you pray for that rain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Here's the litmus test. If you were experiencing a 100 year drought but you knew prayer would bring rain, would you pray for that rain? first, define pray... Second, after 100 years it would not much matter, that is if you were talking not a drop of rain. Also, I have like 7 springs on my land, and 2 very large creeks forming a river...so yeah... and second, I would also grow deep rooting grass, Sudex, etc.. That's interesting. I didn't take you for an atheist. I am still a NY born damned Yankee who grew up in suburban Toledo... I have only been officially farming now 7 years. I have never been an athiest. Yeah... Same here. Paul Harvey is rolling over in his grave. Paul Harvey was a crazy nut, no joke, the guy was out there, man. I thought he was Hindu. Thank you, come again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 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. And again, no. Read the amendment again. Read the party where it says USDA can grant a TEMPORARY permit on request, in response to a vacatur of non-regulation. Then read it again. Then read it AGAIN. Then try to realize that your argument that it indemnifies Monsanto from liability in the case where their product proves harmful is a giant leap of complete illogic, because it does no such thing, because under the strictures of sections 411 and 412 of the PPA the amendment still requires the USDA to make the determination of regulatory status based on scientific evidence. Thus, you'd be right in that the amendment denies the courts the ability to make a scientific judgement on the regulatory status of a plant...but you completely miss the point that that's not a determination the court should be making to begin with, because courts don't regulate. And they don't judge science, they judge law (that was ultimately the decision in the sugar beet lawsuit - that the paperwork was improperly filed. That was a decision entirely within the district court's scope. What was NOT in the court's scope was the following decisions on how the USDA should regulate the crop in the interim period while they got the paperwork in order, which was the finding of the federal appellate court that heard those cases - the district court overstepped its bounds when it stopped judging the deregulatory process and started dictating regulations to the USDA.) None of which indemnifies Monsanto from liability for their product. The timing is not a coincidence, nor is the the motive a secret. This is about money. No ****. Why do you think the original lawsuit was filed in 2008? Growers were afraid of losing money on their non-GMO crops, because they had greater costs and couldn't compete with the "Roundup-Ready" crops. It's all about money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 ...it indemnifies Monsanto from liability in the case where their product proves harmful is a giant leap of complete illogic, because it does no such thing, because under the strictures of sections 411 and 412 of the PPA the amendment still requires the USDA to make the determination of regulatory status based on scientific evidence. “This lawn supervisor was out on a sprinkler maintenance job and he started working on a Findlay sprinkler head with a Langstrom 7″ gangly wrench. Just then, this little apprentice leaned over and said, 'You can’t work on a Findlay sprinkler head with a Langstrom 7″ wrench.' Well this infuriated the supervisor, so he went and got Volume 14 of the Kinsley manual, and he reads to him and says, 'The Langstrom 7″ wrench can be used with the Findlay sprocket.' Just then, the little apprentice leaned over and said, 'It says sprocket not socket!'” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 “This lawn supervisor was out on a sprinkler maintenance job and he started working on a Findlay sprinkler head with a Langstrom 7″ gangly wrench. Just then, this little apprentice leaned over and said, 'You can’t work on a Findlay sprinkler head with a Langstrom 7″ wrench.' Well this infuriated the supervisor, so he went and got Volume 14 of the Kinsley manual, and he reads to him and says, 'The Langstrom 7″ wrench can be used with the Findlay sprocket.' Just then, the little apprentice leaned over and said, 'It says sprocket not socket!'” You know, I'm just going to save you the trouble and make this my signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 You know, I'm just going to save you the trouble and make this my signature. That would take all the fun out of it for me. I swear sometimes you get so deep into the weeds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 first, define pray... Second, after 100 years it would not much matter, that is if you were talking not a drop of rain. Also, I have like 7 springs on my land, and 2 very large creeks forming a river...so yeah... and second, I would also grow deep rooting grass, Sudex, etc.. I am still a NY born damned Yankee who grew up in suburban Toledo... I have only been officially farming now 7 years. I have never been an athiest. Paul Harvey was a crazy nut, no joke, the guy was out there, man. Thank you, come again. I'm comparing a 100 year drought with a 100 year flood. In other words something that is rare enough to happen only once every 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) I'm comparing a 100 year drought with a 100 year flood. In other words something that is rare enough to happen only once every 100 years. Gotchya. We had two of those in the last 10 years. 2002 and 2007. Both were droughts that were records of the last tons of years, with 2007 beating 2002. We got 60 rolls of hay for the first cut, 15 for the second in 2007. Normally we get 500 or so. I did not pray. Edited March 29, 2013 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Gotchya. We had two of those in the last 10 years. 2002 and 2007. Both were droughts that were records of the last tons of years, with 2007 beating 2002. We got 60 rolls of hay for the first cut, 15 for the second in 2007. Normally we get 500 or so. I did not pray. You need it to rain to get more rolls in the hay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 That would take all the fun out of it for me. I swear sometimes you get so deep into the weeds... And every time I do, I start thinking "LA's going to quote Steve Martin again..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 You need it to rain to get more rolls in the hay? Just need her... (I seriously hope you are joking. Rain makes grass grow. Grown grass makes hay. Hay gets baled in roles.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Just need her... (I seriously hope you are joking. Rain makes grass grow. Grown grass makes hay. Hay gets baled in roles.) Roles you say? I know everybody has a role but only bakers and farmers make rolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Roles you say? I know everybody has a role but only bakers and farmers make rolls. damn it, now I am confused. Ok, think this out with me. A role is like an actor takes. A roll is like the dice, or dinner piece...and you have a roller bar in the baler, so that would definitely mean I make hay rolls. I would like to roll with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 damn it, now I am confused. Ok, think this out with me. A role is like an actor takes. A roll is like the dice, or dinner piece...and you have a roller bar in the baler, so that would definitely mean I make hay rolls. I would like to roll with her. I could even role play with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 I could even role play with her. You'd probably have to role play just to convince her to let you touch her. ZING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 You'd probably have to role play just to convince her to let you touch her. ZING! Not once she understood the reason for my screen name. But, you wouldn't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 http://xrepublic.tv/node/2832 John Stewart's take... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 http://xrepublic.tv/node/2832 John Stewart's take... I would think after this, HSBC, LIBOR, TPP, MF Global, Citizens United and about a thousand other things that most people would understand that the whole country is run for the The big financials and multinational corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 http://xrepublic.tv/node/2832 John Stewart's take... It's not like anyone here doesn't know how the sausage is made (even the ACA). But that was funny as ****, nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 Democracy also hurts my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts