Content on the Daily Paul is the opinion of the original poster, not necessarily of the Daily Paul, its owner, moderators.

Danny Devito: Vote Yes on Prop 37

Submitted by JO4RP on Sat, 10/27/2012 - 16:50

http://dailybail.com/home/danny-devito-your-right-to-know-vo...

In November, Californians will vote on Prop 37 requiring that GE foods be labeled. Just as labels list fat, sodium and sugar, labels should tell the buyer whether or not the product includes genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs). Unfortunately, major corporations like Monsanto are pouring billions of dollars into this election in order to confuse voters, and protect their bottom line.

You can see the future now can you?

Submitted by rp4pres on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 15:56. Permalink

I recently bought a years worth of non-GMO food so what..because we can still do that doesn't mean we will be able to continue doing it.

If Monsanto isn't stopped their goal I believe is to control the food.

So do we never use government for anything?

—

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

As little as possible. The

Submitted by rpjazzer on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 18:24. Permalink

As little as possible. The Federal govt is for national defense and enforcement of contracts. States have much more leeway according to the US Constitution, but govt works on the state level just like the federal level, only at about 2% the scale (depending upon which state you live in).

There is no substitute for accomplishing good tasks through voluntary means. Convince your friends and family and neighbors. Get them involved. Take the power of the individual and stick it to Monsanto. IIf you use the gov, you are no different than the dems pushing for socialized medicine (though not quite as bad, since this is currently a state issue and won't affect me, yet, in NC). Ironically, we share a common desire to have labels for GMO. I am concerned about the process.

The future is easy to see with government because it works the same every time. Did you sarcastically ask Ron Paul if he could predict the future when he described how the housing bubble was going to play out with government support of Fannie and Freddie? I not as smart as RP, but the point is that the process is entirely predictable.

So if we can use them as little as possible by your own words

Submitted by rp4pres on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 20:17. Permalink

you are no different either.

—

That makes absolutely no

Submitted by rpjazzer on Mon, 10/29/2012 - 06:10. Permalink

That makes absolutely no sense.

Sure it doesn't..

Submitted by rp4pres on Mon, 10/29/2012 - 08:05. Permalink

You're a hypocrite and a dumb one to boot. You don't even realize when you're being one. lol

—

We don't need government intervention INTO

Submitted by rp4pres on Sat, 10/27/2012 - 17:44. Permalink

our lives but seriously.. How do you suppose that we should find out if those large corps aren't required to tell us?

GMO's are an attack on Life and the Pursuit of Happiness. I will have neither if I am poisoned. Liberty won't matter if I lose my life over it.

When and if we ever get government collusion out of our lives then we can get back to the rights of individuals.. not that of a corporate "entity".

Fuck the corps. My life is more important than their profits.

—

"How do you suppose that we

Submitted by dfwrider on Sat, 10/27/2012 - 20:00. Permalink

"How do you suppose that we should find out if those large corps aren't required to tell us?"

I think we take a stance that if it doesn't say, then the assumption is YES, it's GE or GMO.

The real way we should go about this is to STOP Monsanto and STOP the Food and Drug Administration from attacking small farms, companies and people, when they label their food as "GMO Free".

That's the real way to go about this.

If you force the government's hand to get involved, when they go to write the regulation about GMO and GE, I guarantee you the big corporations will have their lawyers and lobbyists "assisting" with that regulation.

You can't be so naive to think that if Monsanto is saddled with additional regulation, that they won't ensure that the very same regulation crushes Monsanto's small competitors. Making them disappear, or throwing in the towel and selling out to the Monsanto's of the world.

Seriously. Haven't we seen this every single time?

I am now up to about 25% of

Submitted by rpjazzer on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 08:03. Permalink

I am now up to about 25% of the food I eat coming from small local farmers whom I know personally. Trying to make that percentage go up every year.

We pay only a little bit more than at the big grocery stores, but the food is fresh and tasty and locally grown.

And what happens when Monsanto

Submitted by rp4pres on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 14:32. Permalink

shuts down local farmers? And what happens when they get the rights to every seed on the planet? When their are no more heirloom plants that we can buy seeds.. What will you do then?

I think labeling GMO and then letting the "free market" decide what it would rather purchase is a better way.. I think we deserve to know what we are being fed.

—

You tell government to get

Submitted by rpjazzer on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 14:51. Permalink

You tell government to get out of he food business, that's what. Monsanto will never take it over and there will always be choices, so long as the government stays out of it. You, on the other hand, are arguing for them to enter the equation more than they already do!

Using force of government is immoral and UNCREATIVE! I would like to see labels, too, but not by the mechanism you suggest. Your way involves stealing, usurping of liberty, and encourages the DISengagement of the public. They will stop paying attention to the issue if they see the nice little GMO-free sticker. Sounds like a great way for sinister companies and corrupt politicians to make some money.

Using force against individuals is immoral

Submitted by rp4pres on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 15:58. Permalink

using it against corporations isn't.

—

Message from Willard

Submitted by finallyjoined on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 20:08. Permalink

Corporations are individuals, my friend. ;)

The only force you need to

Submitted by rpjazzer on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 19:31. Permalink

The only force you need to use against corporations is the force of purchasing prerogative.

hear hear

Submitted by Delvin on Sat, 10/27/2012 - 21:03. Permalink

i'm always surprised when dpers run to the govt to protect them from the corporations whom control the govt.

—

"The War Prayer - Mark Twain"

Not everyone in the government is bad.

Submitted by rp4pres on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 14:29. Permalink

The Liberty movement does have friends.

—

of course, wheat and tares can grow together

Submitted by Delvin on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 15:25. Permalink

And its hard to tell them apart at first. They will expose themselves by the fruit they bear. (Somebody must like the book of Matthew lol)
Lets not get our hopes up too high, instead bind them with the chains of the constitution, held together by the tireless minority.
I just saw your signature about how the govt loves you, so they spray us with the epa's 'clean' air. Haha; and apparently the fda's 'non gmo' approved food.

—

"The War Prayer - Mark Twain"

"I think we take a stance that if it doesn't say, then the

Submitted by rp4pres on Sat, 10/27/2012 - 20:34. Permalink

assumption is YES, it's GE or GMO."

They are pushing hard for GMO to not be labeled.. In the current climate pretty much everything you would eat would wind up with GMO ingredients in it.

Then they'd probably outlaw small farms in one way or another, then you and your family wouldn't have a choice.

One large corporation would eventually own every plant on the planet. Since I can't really see the future, you probably can't either so we don't know what they might do... All I know is I want to know what I'm eating.

—

The pressures for GMO

Submitted by rpjazzer on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 08:20. Permalink

The pressures for GMO labeling should NOT come through government. This is how it always works... People are willing to use the force of government for an idea they value because it's for the "common good" -- like universal health care or low interest rates or free schooling for everyone, or criminalizing drugs.

The best way to achieve this is through social pressures, education of your fellows, and by purchasing the products of the competition. Using government force to obtain labeling is antithetical to the principles of both liberty and free markets. We should not engage in actions that continue to train the American people that government protects them.

This is my one I suppose.

Submitted by rp4pres on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 12:23. Permalink

I agree that it would be the best way but maybe not the way that would work in this case. Food is a very big issue, not something I want to take a chance on unless I knew it would work.

—

I understand, but that is

Submitted by rpjazzer on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 12:36. Permalink

I understand, but that is what people say about health care.

I know because I've fought against it.

Submitted by rp4pres on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 14:27. Permalink

As crappy as healthcare is, it is no comparison to the fiasco that fucking with a worlds food source could be.

—

But you are still incorrectly

Submitted by rpjazzer on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 14:41. Permalink

But you are still incorrectly assuming that the government can protect you. When you say it's too big of an issue to take a chance, you undermine the principles of liberty and free markets by insinuating you think it might not work while also insinuating that you think government intervention will work. Govt intervention will assuredly cause it to fail in that it will pick winners and losers, over regulate, and cause prices to go up.

I'm not assuming anything.. cause there is no guarantee.

Submitted by rp4pres on Sun, 10/28/2012 - 20:08. Permalink

Here's my take sweetpea.. The Constitution has made way for government.. To stand here and argue that government does everything wrong and then in your other statement you say use it as little as possible, makes you a hypocrite.

I am for using government as little as possible.. This is one of very few times I have EVER advocated getting the government involved..so it is as little as possible for me.

—

You're not nearly smart

Submitted by rpjazzer on Mon, 10/29/2012 - 06:19. Permalink

You're not nearly smart enough to be calling me "sweetpea."

Access to health care is important. Are you going to vote to involve government in that because its too important to take a chance?

Why would you believe what the government food label says is true? The govt never tells the truth when big business is involved.

LOL okay sweetpea.

Submitted by rp4pres on Mon, 10/29/2012 - 14:17. Permalink

Why would you believe that it's okay to bring them in at all if you're going to ask a question like that?

That is what you have said isn't it? That they should be brought in as little as possible?

So you're here telling everyone that the "little as possible" shouldn't be in this case because you think it shouldn't be.

This IS my "little as possible" so tough shit bud. By the way... anytime someone becomes a hypocrite in a so called debate.. The debate is over for me.. they have lost their credibility in the discussion.

Commence to explaining it away.

—

As little as possible means

Submitted by rpjazzer on Mon, 10/29/2012 - 18:32. Permalink

As little as possible means to me "if there are no other ways to accomplish the goal." I see other ways here.

Anyway, dude, we are on the same team, so how about a truce?

I don't care what it means to you

Submitted by rp4pres on Mon, 10/29/2012 - 21:46. Permalink

because I define it the way I want to.

I have no idea if we're on the same team or not but a "truce" is fine.

—

Maybe you're right. Maybe

Submitted by rpjazzer on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 07:55. Permalink

Maybe you're right. Maybe were not on the same team. I'm opposed to more government. Truce off.

No, you're opposed to being consistent

Submitted by rp4pres on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 09:03. Permalink

and anti-hypocritical.

As for the "truce".. I never believed you meant it to begin with.. You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

—

There are zero intellectual

Submitted by rpjazzer on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 15:51. Permalink

There are zero intellectual inconsistencies in my arguments on this thread. I challenge you to find one.

1) Just because something is GMO does not necessarily make it bad for you. There is little doubt that many GMO foods that ARE bad for you, but it is highly unlikely that all of them are. Whether or not that is true, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW, nor would all your bleeding-heart friends.

2) Using the force of government does not protect the people or protect liberty, especially when alternative means are available.

3) Monsanto's practices are loathsome, but that does not make all GMO food bad. You think them despicable, but you think they will label accurately and not use government to their own advantage? Their representatives are in government!

You beg for protections that government cannot deliver. California is the most pathetic state in the nation regarding their budget, and you are voting to make it worse.

How's that for hypocrite on a page devoted to liberty and free markets?

As for the offered truce, you took a shot in your response, so you are the first to not honor the truce.

Originals
Ask DP
Video
Project
Idea
Quicklink

Primary links