-29 votes

Rand votes for Big Agra against GMO labeling.

So...what was that some were saying was so great about this guy?

http://farmwars.info/?p=8686

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

so 'b-eeeee-g' company is bad and you vote for big government?

grow a fuking brain? this is from the man ron paul himself:

"The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to ‘capture,’ where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of ‘modified’ to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically- engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone." - Ron Paul

now kindly gtfo his supporter site?

and wow, you're 5 years into the libertarian theme and you don't understand government can simply change the definition on "GMO" and play around with the rules, that it isn't reliable, like ever, to depend on the government and its regulators to mandate labels? how fuking stupid are you?

Hey Newb,..

Read the discussion before writing your foul-mouthed insults.

You are making the wrong argument.

This was about ALLOWING STATES to over-ride current federal "law" preventing labeling.

Rand is SIDING WITH THE FEDS AND BIG AGRA and some of you are trying to tell us that's somehow a good thing! LOL....

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

the bill was over a thousand page long

and from some sources, it was loaded with junk and other hidden details common in washington business. so you managed to refine it down to one sentence

how fu-cking expert are you?

"newb"? are you a 16 year old shut-in unemployed that plays world of warcraft or are you just a stupid old piece of sh-it?

Stellar, you posted the key post on this subject.

Ron Paul's statement on the topic.
Perfect!

Notice Steve Martin's posting history says 5 years, but for 4 of those years he was AWOL, and really only appeared here significantly for the last 6 months.
He did have a short spate here in late 2007-early 2008 for about 23 posts, in which he primarily engaged in.............
guess what?......
...........
Bashing Ron Paul's campaign, just like he's coincidentally been doing since he came back this year.

LOL

I believe the formal explanation is that he's a whiner with an ax to grind.

Eric Hoffer

There is something radically

There is something radically flawed with Rand Paul's and Mike Lee's libertarian hands-off mentality about not labeling GMO food. Joel Salatin, America's premier LIBERTARIAN holistic farmer "Blue skies, green grass, clean air, responsible living. We can all make a difference" type of guy, says this about GMO's in his recent book "Folks, this ain't normal",:
"What can we do about this transgenic fixation in our culture?
1. Don't buy food with transgernics in it. That means buy organic, buy local, buy unprocessed, and know your farmer.
2. Develop a study group in your place of worship to examine what the apologists for transgenics say against the tenets of your faith tradition.
3. As a culture, we should admit our error in patenting life, and criminalize this insidious slavery in which one being owns another.
4. Look in the mirror and decide once and for all: Am I biological or mechanical? Is my deepest essence a machine or not?"
"Let's be frank. If you and I walked into a garden and saw a tomato getting it on with a pig, we'd freak out"
I recommend reading pages 225 - 239 , the chapter called "Scientific Mythology: Centaurs and Mermaids Now in Supermarkets" from Joel Salatin's new book "Folks, this ain't normal".

What's "flawed" about it?

Your list is what people/individuals should do.
This list is NOT at odds with Rand's/Mike's votes.

Yes it does have to do with

Yes it does have to do with Mike Lee and Rand Paul's votes. Because GMO's are criminal. And even Libertarians would protect us against criminal behavior.

Another quote from Joel

Another quote from Joel Salatin's book and there are many about GMO's.
"The world of transgenic manipulation is full of intrigue, secrecy, backroom deals, and evil intent. The even conceive of a plan to patent wild seeds and then charge groups of indigenous people royalties to harvest them is evil. This is no competition in the marketplace. This is not normal business. The devil incarnate could not be more conniving and sinister. These are strong words. But I am tired of these mega-outfits, with evil agendas, wining and dining our elected officials, revolving in and out of regulatory agencies, receiving accolades for their United Way contributions, and parking their recruitment trailers on college campuses to snatch the best and brightest of our young people to become their next storm troopers. Folks, this ain't normal"

Are they?

Please cite the criminal law statute number making GMO criminal.

Adj. 1. criminal - bringing

Adj. 1. criminal - bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure; "a criminal waste of talent"; "a deplorable act of violence"; "adultery is as reprehensible for a husband as for a wife"
condemnable, reprehensible, vicious, deplorable
wrong - contrary to conscience or morality or law; "it is wrong for the rich to take advantage of the poor"; "cheating is wrong"; "it is wrong to lie"
2. criminal - guilty of crime or serious offense; "criminal in the sight of God and man"
guilty - responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; "guilty of murder"; "the guilty person"; "secret guilty deeds"
3. criminal - involving or being or having the nature of a crime; "a criminal offense"; "criminal abuse"; "felonious intent"
felonious
illegal - prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules; "an illegal chess move"

I see.

So, you didn't really mean "criminal" in the way that it would be legally criminal.
You just use the word "criminal" to mean something that you personally don't like. Like, "I consider that to be criminal."
Understood.

Is it your position then that Rand and Mike should be "protecting" us from anything any individual privately considers to be "criminal" as an opinion, but has no root in law? Just anything that you don't happen to like?

If you are looking for a law

If you are looking for a law to be against Monsanto and their GMO's good luck. There isn't one and that's the problem.
"But Monsanto enjoys special dispensation - indeed, a brand-new interpretation of personal property and responsibility. In fact, a brand-new interpretation of the Golden Rule. In this hubris, according to Monsanto, it's "Do unto others whatever you want with blatant disregard for their well-being, their security, or their desires." Because, dear people - are you sitting down? The courts of our culture have ruled that the poor abused neighbor, the one with the new life forms that came in from Monsanto's plants, is liable for this unsolicited orgy in his fields". (Joel Salatin)

Monsanto runs the three branches of federal government. Monsanto makes the laws, controls legislators and controls the judges, controls the president and controls the bureaucracy, the fourth branch of the government.

Not Monsanto alone...but in conjunction with the...

...big oil, big banking, and major war-profiteering corporations they absolute do control all of that!

Big agra, big pharma, big oil, big war, big banking, big media ALL EQUALS big NEED FOR CORPORATE REFORM! They are not "people my friend" (direct quote from the Rand-endorsed Mitt Romney.) They are, historically, supposed to be set up for limited purposes and for a limited period of time, intended to accomplish a specific purpose--like to build a canal, or an airport, etc. We need to seriously think about ways to reign in corporate "special rights" and ways to encourage charter removal/surrender and getting back to other forms of business models....i.e. the route BACK to REAL CAPITALISM...not oligarchical cronyism passing as "capitalism."

Behind it all lurks the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, the black nobility, and all of their secret societies.

Of course, to those who pooh pooh the oncoming NWO freight train, that is all "tin foil hat" "nonsense."

Can you say, "PART OF THE PROBLEM"???

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

I'm Really Getting Sick of the Anti-Rand Stuff

He's no Ron, but nobody is. Next year when Ron is out of the Congress, who will you root for? There's Justin Amash, true. Other than him, who? Get over your anti-Rand rants. They're getting old. We were all taken back when he endorsed Romney. We reacted emotionally. He explained himself and I accept his explanation. Move on.

I'm not anti Rand myself. I

I'm not anti Rand myself. I really appreciate Rand Paul. But we don't have to agree with everything he does. And I do think he is wrong about GMO's. GMO's are criminal and we should do our best to convince Rand Paul of this. And it's our responsibility to point this out to all of our legislators.

Right on, Jan.

.

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

GMO grass kills cattle by releasing cyanide

http://www.ktvq.com/news/gm-grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-dea...

Also I have found many products that now label themselves as non-GMO. Just go here:

http://www.nongmoproject.org/

With liberty and justice for all...who can afford it.

And that is just ONE story from TODAY....

...about the whole travesty of genetically modifying stuff AND NOT STUDYING ITS EFFECTS BEFORE USING IT IN HUGE QUANTITIES within the food chain. There are hundreds of similar concerns out there.

Livestock in the Middle East also have died in large numbers from eating other GMO crop gleanings, and that's been years ago now. That stuff would have gone into people had it not killed the livestock first!

BTW...yes, I posted about the GMO grass in the 8th post, early on....

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

And that reminds me, Steve.

I asked you to provide the list of human deaths in the US that can be provably caused by GMO items in the food supply.

Have you got that yet?

Since you think we need to sacrifice freedom by increasing gov't control over the population of the US, we'd like to see the size and scope of this deadly problem.
I'm waiting.

You are right SteveMartin

There should absolutely be accurate labels so we know what is in our food. This society has made it impossible for people to provide their own food and the only way we can know what we are eating is with proper labeling.

Now these idiots who are against labeling say that we, the consumer, should just research to find out what is in our food ourselves or that the producers of non GMO food should have to foot the bill to label their products. But these are arguments of the intellectually deficient. Do you see the ignorance in their statements?

How can you or I "research" to find what is in our food if there is no requirement of disclosure? You can't!! If there is no regulation regarding labeling then just because someone did put "nonGMO" on their product means nothing because they can put what ever they want on their labels to appease the consumer. And this doesn't just apply to GMO either.

Rand was Wrong.

If there's no disclosure then

If there's no disclosure then don't eat it. Untill then, work to encourage companies to volunteer this info. Create a non-profit group which can give out seal of approval to companies which it verifies are gmo free. It's always easier to let the thugs of government use force on your behalf but it's just as wrong as using the force of government to make pot illegal.

That's just rediculus

What seal of approval? How the heck dose your non profit group tell what is in the food? Hey let's buy these hot dogs because this non profit group funded by Monstanto says there is no GMO in it. Get real. You live in fantasy land.

And you need to get off the POT comparison because it is making you sound ignorant. You are comparing a prohibition of a natural product to content disclosure of a man made product. And as much as you may disagree, man has not only the right but the obligation to regulate the things that man makes.

Let me say that again. Man has not only the right but the OBLIGATION to regulate man made things.

Thank you.

Ron Paul is NOT an anarchist. The Federal government does have a VERY FEW specific duties, and this is one of them!

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

Actually, no it's not one of them.

Yes, Paul is not an anarchist.

Labels are needed but there does not have to be a government law forcing companies to label their products in a certain way.

I am surprised you are not getting what labeling implies.. it ads cost to the product making it more expensive to the consumer, it requires a government bureaucracy to keep those who break the 5000 page rule book (guessing..) under control, costing tax payers more money..

In a free market, you are not forced to buy products with, or without labels.

Everything clicks once you get it. Liberty is the way to go.

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

Stop with the "FORCING" nonsense...

Rand voted AGAINST ALLOWING STATES TO DECIDE what to do.

1. Monsatan and the other out-of-control, Wall-Street bankster-linked corporations have forced the feds to OUTLAW THE LABELING OF PRODUCTS as non-GMO.

2. Most Libertarains here don't know that, and are knee-jerk reacting with their down votes.

3. Rand Paul voted AGAINST STATES RIGHTS and is being thanked for it.

4. No forcing is involved in a bill that just says "let the states do what they want with the issue."

Some of you are just plain totally missing what the argument is about here. You are really on our side on this if you stop and read a tad more carefully. Thanks!

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

He voted against the federal government..

He voted against the federal government having the power to decide that States should decide. Get it?

Why would he vote for a silly law that is not based on the Constitution?

He is keeping the government out of what ALREADY IS within the competence of the States.

States do not need PERMISSION.

Cool?

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

Right...

Pretty esoteric. His vote prevents states from deciding, so no, not cool.

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

What?

What the heck? No it doesn't. Get your damned facts straight before you come flabbing your gums here.

Eric Hoffer