Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:15 PM Mar 2013

Before you jump on Obama over the Monsanto amendment, take a minute and read this

The problem here is that the “Monsanto Protection Act” (section 735) was attached (anonymously) as a rider to a short term spending bill (HR 933). “The President does not have line item veto power; it’s all or nothing. This is called a poison pill. As part of the short term spending bill, President Obama had to sign the resolution in order to prevent the federal government from shutting down today, March 27, when the current funding was set to expire. He doesn’t get to cherry pick what parts he signs into law. He either lets the government shut down or he signs the poison pill.

(snip)

That little rider your little conspiracy theory is up in arms about does not protect Monsanto from prosecution. What the rider does is simple. To plant a restricted crop, the farmer needs to have permission from the federal government. The bill does not change that part because the farmer always needed permission to plant restricted crops.

Where the bill comes into play is right now. If a farmer has permission to plant restricted crops, but the paperwork gets lost somewhere, the farmer is protected from lawsuit. As long as he can prove he has permission beforehand, he will not get sued or anything of the sort. Before, if a farmer is caught planting restricted crops without permission, he could face fines and be ordered to destroy the crops. It does not matter if the farmer gets permission before hand.

Nowhere in that rider does it give Cargill blanket protection from lawsuit.


The rest: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/03/dear-liberals-its-not-king-obamas-fault-its-ours/

I'm not a fan of the snide tone, or the accusation that "liberals want a king," but the facts included amid the snark are important. Many links included.

On edit: the rider isn't anonymous anymore: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-mikulski-under-fire-for-monsanto-rider-in-funding-bill-20130328,0,7542852.story
133 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Before you jump on Obama over the Monsanto amendment, take a minute and read this (Original Post) WilliamPitt Mar 2013 OP
“The President does not have line item veto power; it’s all or nothing." Tarheel_Dem Mar 2013 #1
It remains true whether it was in the report or not. Richardo Mar 2013 #3
What about Presidential signing statements? They_Live Mar 2013 #80
Many of us didn't regard that as legitimate then, nor would we now. freshwest Mar 2013 #83
Signing statements have no legal weight, or force of law. Using a signing msanthrope Mar 2013 #99
you mean that mean ol Obama isn'tthe debbil? them's fightin' woids! dionysus Mar 2013 #4
C'mon dion. Don't beat me up. I'm not the one who posted a blatant hitpiece with glaring omissions Tarheel_Dem Mar 2013 #8
Please, Obama hit piece with glaring omissions? That NEVER happens here. stevenleser Mar 2013 #15
You're right. Please forgive me? I'm so ashamed. Tarheel_Dem Mar 2013 #21
THANKS! Nothing like facts, elleng Mar 2013 #2
I don't understand portraying Mikulski as powerless here tkmorris Mar 2013 #7
Understanding how things work and, hence, what our personal commitment to specific outcomes must patrice Mar 2013 #5
Too many DUers don't do "facts" when Monsatan is involved... SidDithers Mar 2013 #6
They don't do facts when Cha Mar 2013 #9
Feels like breitbart posts here at times... freshwest Mar 2013 #91
I have felt that heat timdog44 Apr 2013 #128
Illegitimi non carborundum. freshwest Apr 2013 #129
Thank you for that. timdog44 Apr 2013 #130
Don't feel bad about it. Your life is a success story. Everyone has triggers. freshwest Apr 2013 #131
Yes. I've rage quitted DU a few times over these people... Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #11
So it's no one's fault? Doctor_J Mar 2013 #10
You didn't read any of that, did you? WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #12
If you're not providing them info that looks bad for Obama, they generally don't read it. stevenleser Mar 2013 #16
1% er MoclipsHumptulips Mar 2013 #66
I'm not a 1%'r if that is even what your post means. stevenleser Mar 2013 #68
Hmm. Disruptive post by newbie accusing DUer of being 1% which has nothing to do with the subthread. Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2013 #82
Actually I read the entire thing Doctor_J Mar 2013 #18
Risk a government shutdown over a toothless rider that's gone in 6 months. WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #20
Worry not Doctor_J Mar 2013 #24
My hero. WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #25
And the bu$h tax cuts were supposed to expire several years ago Art_from_Ark Mar 2013 #65
Try being homeless 1%er. MoclipsHumptulips Mar 2013 #67
Derp yourself. I dont think WillPitt is a 1%er either. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #69
The resolution passed by a veto proof margin in the house and senate onenote Mar 2013 #64
That's gotta be a REALLY low number. I'm not saying never, but LOW... nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #70
Could it be the fact that he has had a Democratic Senate for the entire time -and a Democratic House karynnj Mar 2013 #115
So you're saying that the agenda that's passed is his? Doctor_J Mar 2013 #116
I think it was as close to what he wanted AS COULD PASS karynnj Mar 2013 #123
Vetoing an entire spending bill over that one amendment and causing a possible govt shutdown... Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #13
So it's OK to give in to blackmailers/terrorists Doctor_J Mar 2013 #26
Which is why no one like Doc will ever sit inside the Oval Office. We had the chance to elect an... Tarheel_Dem Mar 2013 #27
You're right. Blackmail works again. Why is it the Democrats are always sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #40
This message was self-deleted by its author emulatorloo Mar 2013 #57
So what language in the bill about Monsato has you so worked up? Sheepshank Mar 2013 #71
Explain your last sentence please. It sounds like a personal attack sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #72
I understand your outrage on behalf of farmers Sheepshank Mar 2013 #75
If you want to know why I am outraged over this rider, I have sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #76
And yet there have been other posts with the actual language of the bill. Sheepshank Mar 2013 #77
Lol, no one has ever succeeded in silencing me, so where you are getting this sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #78
"And please post a comment of mine stating that 'people are trying to silence me'." Sheepshank Mar 2013 #81
I absolutely stand by those comments and have made many more along the sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #84
lol Sheepshank Mar 2013 #87
Well, you already failed to produce your 'victim' posts so it's probably a waste of sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #94
your RW tactics are a huge fail Sheepshank Mar 2013 #97
"to conflate all of this with the current bill is disingenious...to say the least." Tarheel_Dem Mar 2013 #101
Someone told me once that when people are engaged in a discussion about an sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #113
Exactly whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #74
So few understand the game. zeemike Mar 2013 #50
"It's not King Obama's fault.. it's ours"! I'm glad we're Cha Mar 2013 #14
Thanks for posting this. Grateful for Hope Mar 2013 #17
But wait...I though it meant that no GMO labeling would be allowed. MineralMan Mar 2013 #19
So you don't know what is in the rider?? Any Democrat following this story sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #73
Well, you seem to be unable to point to the words in the rider that are so objectionable. jeff47 Mar 2013 #88
I've provided, but from democratic sources so maybe they are not credible sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #93
Actually, you haven't. And you don't here either jeff47 Mar 2013 #95
Did you know that courts can only rule on actual existing law? sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #96
You really should take your own advice. jeff47 Mar 2013 #117
There is simply no defense for this no matter how you try to excuse it. sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #120
I have been all over Facebook with my liberal friends glowing Mar 2013 #22
Sanders voted for the Continuing Resolution. MineralMan Mar 2013 #23
Because it was an economic bill to keep paying our bills. glowing Mar 2013 #29
Yes, indeed it was. MineralMan Mar 2013 #31
I was defending on this case. glowing Mar 2013 #62
Good catch MM. Another of DU's internet legends shot all to hell. I wonder if it changes anything Tarheel_Dem Mar 2013 #30
Only one Democrat voted against this continuing resolution. MineralMan Mar 2013 #32
"The Obama-bashing over this bill is bullshit, plain and simple." Tarheel_Dem Mar 2013 #39
Right you are! nt MineralMan Mar 2013 #41
Oh...I forgot...Elizabeth Warren voted for that bill, too. MineralMan Mar 2013 #35
Perhaps I was unclear in my post.. I have been telling them that they cannot hold this over the glowing Mar 2013 #61
Makes more sense now. sakabatou Mar 2013 #28
Thank you, Will Hekate Mar 2013 #33
Thank you. Raine1967 Mar 2013 #34
Thanks for that info but does anyone know Babel_17 Mar 2013 #58
I thought they were answered in the OP. Raine1967 Mar 2013 #59
No, or at least I don't see it. (nt) Babel_17 Mar 2013 #105
Re-read the OP links and the entire thread. Raine1967 Mar 2013 #108
The answers to my questions? Babel_17 Mar 2013 #110
Another one who didn't actually bother to read the linked material. Tarheel_Dem Mar 2013 #89
Or appreciate the fact that there was a deadline or the government would be shut down. freshwest Mar 2013 #90
Is this what "activism" has become? I mean, what separates the left from the teabaggers now? Tarheel_Dem Mar 2013 #98
Yes, the themes are exactly the same. May be in this book which I haven't read yet: freshwest Mar 2013 #103
Thanks fresh, I've been out of the loop for a few days, had a family emergency. I've bookmarked.... Tarheel_Dem Apr 2013 #125
You're welcome and take care. Hope things get better. freshwest Apr 2013 #126
I appreciate that there was a deadline Babel_17 Mar 2013 #107
The communication is there. Get on the OFA email list and contact your representatives regularly. freshwest Mar 2013 #109
Actually, I did Babel_17 Mar 2013 #106
Appreciate this very much. Thanks. byronius Mar 2013 #36
I appreciate this but there will be some who will still argue the obvious with you. grantcart Mar 2013 #37
Yes, I got flamed pointing the obvious last night. freshwest Mar 2013 #85
i tried Enrique Mar 2013 #38
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Mar 2013 #42
Ow. WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #43
Yours! wrong thread! think of the shame sinking into mine! .... nt delrem Mar 2013 #47
LOL WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #48
This rider is the camel with its nose in the tent........... Smilo Mar 2013 #44
Risk a government shutdown over a toothless rider that will die in six months. WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #45
Yes, risk a government shutdown Smilo Mar 2013 #49
And this is exactly the process by which they move the country zeemike Mar 2013 #53
Will...the second link in your OP makes it seem like Milkulsky is clueless... KoKo Mar 2013 #63
K&R JohnnyRingo Mar 2013 #46
I'm curious as to what her reason was for picking Autumn Mar 2013 #51
Just to clarify CitizenPatriot Mar 2013 #52
Thanks. And those finger pointing need to change Congress next year and state governments quickly. freshwest Mar 2013 #92
The way I read it, and I could be wrong as I don't do legalize well, sunwyn Mar 2013 #54
I just want to K&R this. nt Tree-Hugger Mar 2013 #55
Recipe for successful DU OP: hide facts, misquote and add hyperbolic outrage emulatorloo Mar 2013 #56
My God, Obama is likely going to be blackmailed by a veritable passel of poisoned pills: when will indepat Mar 2013 #60
Bullcrap KT2000 Mar 2013 #79
+1 forestpath Mar 2013 #102
That's an excuse, not a reason. It's it's always the same excuse used to screw us. grahamhgreen Mar 2013 #86
k&r... spanone Mar 2013 #100
I don't agree. Imagine if they had attached an abortion ban in the same way. limpyhobbler Mar 2013 #104
^This^ What if someone put in a bill stripping the pre existing clause from the ACA? Autumn Mar 2013 #114
You left a few facts out of your "what if" onenote Mar 2013 #121
"It might be possible to have an intelligent conversation"? limpyhobbler Mar 2013 #122
Yeah, the OP and the link therein are preposterous Doctor_J Mar 2013 #124
THANKS Will! nt Raine Mar 2013 #111
William Rivers Pitt to the rescue again. David Zephyr Mar 2013 #112
Yes, I'm starting to really suspect these types of accusations treestar Mar 2013 #118
K&R Jamaal510 Mar 2013 #119
Will, I have read far anough back into this quaker bill Apr 2013 #127
Goddammit, we elected him to the House to prevent shit like this. Orsino Apr 2013 #132
YAY! The system works!!! Zorra Apr 2013 #133

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
1. “The President does not have line item veto power; it’s all or nothing."
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:19 PM
Mar 2013

That little tidbit was "conspicuously" absent from the initial report that got posted here. Hmmmmm.....

They_Live

(3,222 posts)
80. What about Presidential signing statements?
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 01:23 PM
Mar 2013

seems like BushII often used those. I wonder if that could have been applied in this case...

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
99. Signing statements have no legal weight, or force of law. Using a signing
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 07:06 PM
Mar 2013

statement to circumvent a statute would violate Presentment.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
8. C'mon dion. Don't beat me up. I'm not the one who posted a blatant hitpiece with glaring omissions
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:46 PM
Mar 2013

Is there some "liberal" clearinghouse for Obama hitpieces, where Obama's critics don't practice the same integrity they demand of him? Makes you question the motives of said posters.

elleng

(130,156 posts)
2. THANKS! Nothing like facts,
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:24 PM
Mar 2013

and hopefully will provide insight into the serious complexity of governing!

'the language did not originate with Mikulski. Rather, it was included in legislation that had been developed before she took the chairmanship. Democratic leaders, including Mikulski, were under pressure to pass a funding a bill quickly as Democrats and Republicans in Congress were eager to demonstrate they could deal with a budget deadline without creating the type of fiscal showdown that has defined the last several years.

Congress had until March 27 to pass a funding bill or shut down the government.

Mikulski picked up the previously agreed-to language and attached it, largely unchanged, to the funding legislation. Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, offered an amendment to strike the language from the bill but that amendment never received a vote.

"Her hands were tied by the negotiations that had previously happened," O'Neil said of Mikulski. "We recognize that the tough spot she was in."'

tkmorris

(11,138 posts)
7. I don't understand portraying Mikulski as powerless here
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:31 PM
Mar 2013

She didn't have to attach it to the funding bill at all. Arguing that she had to accept the language as it was written and agreed to prior, due to a looming deadline, is rather beside the point.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
5. Understanding how things work and, hence, what our personal commitment to specific outcomes must
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:28 PM
Mar 2013

be is the difference between serious intent and something else.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
6. Too many DUers don't do "facts" when Monsatan is involved...
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:28 PM
Mar 2013

they're too quick to jump to "Obama is a sellout!!111".

Thanks for posting.

Sid

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
129. Illegitimi non carborundum.
Tue Apr 2, 2013, 11:05 PM
Apr 2013
Just remember that people who are out to hurt others can gain nothing of value from their actions, all they can do is create misery.

Misery is easy to create. It's the tool of the maliciously lazy.

Happiness takes work, it is the reward for a life being well lived.

I understand if they are triggering you it can be a really hard thing to stop once it starts, but we can't change everyone around us and we have to learn to live with and tolerate the intolerable.

Make the choice to not let others steal your hard earned joy.

Take the negative energy they fill you with and create something beautiful.

~ Anon.
 

Comrade_McKenzie

(2,526 posts)
11. Yes. I've rage quitted DU a few times over these people...
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:53 PM
Mar 2013

But it's DUers with a sensible head on their shoulders (like you) that keep pulling me back in...

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
10. So it's no one's fault?
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:52 PM
Mar 2013


We heard the same crap when the Bush tax cuts became the Obama tax cuts - "He's not a king!!!11!1!1!!!!" is code for "He has to sign anything the Repuke minority wants, so shut up and get on the bandwagon"
 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
12. You didn't read any of that, did you?
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:55 PM
Mar 2013

The entire federal government would have shut down if he had not signed the bill. It wasn't something "the Repuke minority" wanted. It was a bill to fund the entire fucking government.

Oh, P.S., the amendment was added by A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR from Maryland.

Knee-jerk anger is fun. It's also really, really dumb.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
16. If you're not providing them info that looks bad for Obama, they generally don't read it.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:01 PM
Mar 2013

Add a few "Obama wants a cat food commission!!!!!1!!111" and similar phrases and that person would have read the whole thing... and would only have taken in the phrases that were bad for Obama.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
68. I'm not a 1%'r if that is even what your post means.
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 08:57 AM
Mar 2013

Nice try, and welcome to DU. Ad-hominem is generally not appreciated here.

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,789 posts)
82. Hmm. Disruptive post by newbie accusing DUer of being 1% which has nothing to do with the subthread.
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 01:43 PM
Mar 2013

Something going on here? I can't see the newb's posts so I don't know, but the "1% er You got yours" attack stinks.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
18. Actually I read the entire thing
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:06 PM
Mar 2013

speaking of knee-jerk reactions. And for those who claim that "he's not a king - read the Constitution", I would respond, "The Constitution gives the president the power of the veto. This president, despite dealing with a malignant right-wing Congress, has vetoed fewer bills than any president in history. Why?" This would have been an excellent bill to veto - it would have been very easy for the Congress to fix it and send it back.

P.S. This OP belongs in the Fan Club forum

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
20. Risk a government shutdown over a toothless rider that's gone in 6 months.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:08 PM
Mar 2013

Please stay out of government, Doc.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
24. Worry not
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:21 PM
Mar 2013

The government wouldn't have someone like me. I actually have a belief system that isn't for sale to the NRA, Monsanto, PHARMA, or Big Oil. Sort of like the one I thought Barack Obama had.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
65. And the bu$h tax cuts were supposed to expire several years ago
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 02:53 AM
Mar 2013

And the so-called Patriot Act is renewed every time it's about to expire.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
64. The resolution passed by a veto proof margin in the house and senate
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:18 PM
Mar 2013

Could you point me to the last time a president vetoed a bill that passed by a veto proof margin with the support of a majority of the members of his own party (and all but one Democratic member of the Senate)? If it would have been an easy thing to do it must have been done lots of times, right?

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
115. Could it be the fact that he has had a Democratic Senate for the entire time -and a Democratic House
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 11:07 AM
Mar 2013

for nearly half the time. Very little has passed the Senate that was NOT approximately the compromise Obama wanted. Therefore, there were fewer bills to veto. (Consider as a contrast that Bush faced a Democratic House and Senate (though only barely) for the last 2 years.)

You don't get that this bill funded the entire government and the deadline was THERE. Had he vetoed it, there was a very good chance that something would go wrong and we would be back in one of the hostage situations.

Here, it seems - from the OP - that the bill protects the farmers. I think the best way to really stop GM products is through education and boycotts. Do you think the farmers would opt to plant the GM seeds if there were a strong boycott - with sufficient people unwilling to buy the product?

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
116. So you're saying that the agenda that's passed is his?
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 11:23 AM
Mar 2013

or at least to his liking?

Most of the apologists claim that the insurance mandates, waffling on DOMA, union-busting, teacher-hating, and general corporatization that's taken place over the past four years was forced on the president by intractable Republicans. Now you're telling me that it's his own agenda, and that all that stuff should be considered a success for him and the entire Dem party. Ouch.

You've got me surrounded. I give up.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
123. I think it was as close to what he wanted AS COULD PASS
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 11:46 AM
Mar 2013

On DOMA, he has taken steps far beyond what many expected. What "union busting" "teacher hating" legislation are you speaking of? (At worst, they have not passed "pro"legislation - and the reason is that THERE WERE NOT THE 60 VOTES NEEDED

 

Comrade_McKenzie

(2,526 posts)
13. Vetoing an entire spending bill over that one amendment and causing a possible govt shutdown...
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:56 PM
Mar 2013

Is not worth it.

And I would be disappointed if President Obama were that petty and careless with the nation's financial standing.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
26. So it's OK to give in to blackmailers/terrorists
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:22 PM
Mar 2013

as long as it's for a good cause.

I think I am beginning to see how we got so deep into this mess.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
27. Which is why no one like Doc will ever sit inside the Oval Office. We had the chance to elect an...
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:22 PM
Mar 2013

actual Green President, but when people stopped laughing, they voted for Obama. Ignore the scoffers, they can't actually elect anyone, so the internet is really all they have.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
40. You're right. Blackmail works again. Why is it the Democrats are always
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:56 PM
Mar 2013

in a position where they can be blackmailed? The President has the power to order the assassination, without charges, trial or conviction, of an American citizen but he doesn't have the power to do anything else, or so we are constantly being told.

And once again, the people lose, and the expected excuses and explanations are forthcoming.

And none of this explains the presence of Monsanto personnel in a Democratic administration, does it?

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #40)

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
71. So what language in the bill about Monsato has you so worked up?
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 11:32 AM
Mar 2013

The inserted portion seems benign. Maybe I need some direction?

Or are you continuing the normal process of Sabrina on another outrage against Obama?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
72. Explain your last sentence please. It sounds like a personal attack
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 11:42 AM
Mar 2013

and I want to be sure before deciding how to respond. I am outraged about what this means for farmers and for ordinary people who are have been subjected to Monsanto's damaging genetically altered foods for a long time, and if you are not aware of the damage done by this huge, crooked Corporation around the globe, then I suggest you learn about it. If you are and still support the power they have over our government and others, then I have nothing to say to you.

But you made an allegation here, prove it. I will oppose any policy that is damaging to the people. I am a Democrat. If elected officials support damaging policies, then they will be challenged, because this is DEMOCRACY.

If you are of the opinion that the people should remain silent in the face of harmful policies, then why are YOU a Democrat?

Please post a comment of mine demonstrating this: Or are you continuing the normal process of Sabrina on another outrage against Obama?

I don't know you so I am wondering where you are coming from with this false allegation. I will and have supported any politician who is doing what is right for the people. I have not changed my views, democratic views, and will not be doing so even if they are not supported by some politician or another.

I will look forward to some proof of that allegation. This might come as a shock to you, but most of us do not wake up every day worrying about politicians, we Democrats tend to worry about issues.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
75. I understand your outrage on behalf of farmers
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 12:04 PM
Mar 2013

And I have never touted silence. No need to be a martyr on that account. But your "certain to be outraged at Obama" posts are predictable. And clearly, the bill itself doesn't have language that you are focusing on. Your outrage on behalf of farmers is admirable.

My question to you, and very well avoided I may add, was about the specific language in the bill and Obama signing the bill that has you up in arms. You seemed to use this thread as reason to tout your being a democrat several times..I actually don't care that you pound your own chest and want to sound wounded. You used this same tactic last time in a discussion I had with you. likely I'm unimportant enough that you don't remember.

Try to answer the question without diversions...if you can. What language in this particuylar bill has you up in arms and flogging Obama, again?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
76. If you want to know why I am outraged over this rider, I have
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 12:34 PM
Mar 2013

posted the reasons why here http://www.democraticunderground.com/12526879 The rider has been around for months yet we are supposed to believe that Democrats could do nothing to oppose it.

Please do not imply that my objection to policies which I have always opposed, are an 'excuse' to go after the president I supported and supported long before most people even heard of him. If policies I and most democrats have always opposed happen to be getting support from this president, that is not our fault, is it and the only way to avoid being accused of being out to get him, is to remain silent. Well no, that is not an option.

I did not support a Democrat with the expectation of getting Republicans and Monsanto CEOs appointed to powerful positions in the government. I supported a Democrat in order to get rid of them from our government.

As far as stating I am a Democrat, it has become necessary. There is a lot of right wing garbage being posted her, support for Monsanto appointees, that when Bush did we on the Left WERE outraged, and justifiably so imo.

I have no changed, nothing I am saying now is anything I did not always say. I was never accused here on DU or any Dem forum of 'being out to get Bush'. I was correctly understood to be concerned about POLICIES. So if I did not change, then what did?

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
77. And yet there have been other posts with the actual language of the bill.
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 12:46 PM
Mar 2013

Those other threads indicate that it builds on language already in law. Your post and the link does neither. I understand keeping up pressure on Congress to ensure existing language regarding Monsato is permitted to expire on it's term....but the arguements against Obama you and several others give, clearly are trying to imply so much more in the bill that isn't really there.


"...to remain silent. Well no, that is not an option. "
And again with the silence? Good lord, no one has asked you to be silent on this subject. I've asked to you speak out and clarify. That you constantly jump on this "people are trying to silence me" bandwagon appears to be some sort of diversion or defensive reflex and at least on my part getting pretty tiresome. I appreciate strong people with something to say, but not when they have to claim nonexistant melodramatic victimhood, to try and make a point.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
78. Lol, no one has ever succeeded in silencing me, so where you are getting this
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 01:07 PM
Mar 2013

from only you know. Your use of the word 'martyr' brings back memories also. Liberals who speak out against bad policies, are 'martyrs' or poor, beleagured 'Bush' haters'. Same insults, same policies, different time.

You refer to the author of the article's explanation as to why this rider is bad for this country as a 'diatribe'. Interesting choice of words. But you do not contradict the points made. You'll have to forgive me for thinking that if Bush had appointed a Monsanto CEO and if Bush had signed a bill with a rider like this, you would not be excusing it, in any way. Neither would I.

I think you have made the point clearly. If Bush does it, and he did, it is bad. If a Democrat does it, it's excusable.

And please post a comment of mine stating that 'people are trying to silence me'. I doubt you'll find one, I have always said the opposite, that regardless of who is passing bad policies, I will not be silent. That you interpret such a clear declarative statement as a complaint, is just plain silly . I have never complained that anyone might be capable of doing that.

So you approve of the rider then? Can you explain why you approve of it? I am fascinated that Democrats have learned to love Monsanto frankly and would love to hear something other than personal attacks as to why you support this rider?

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
81. "And please post a comment of mine stating that 'people are trying to silence me'."
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 01:33 PM
Mar 2013

I did quote you in my previous post. But for posterity, here we go again:

But you see the effort here to try to stop the people from even registering their disagreement with what just happened.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022583224#post2

that the people should remain silent in the face of harmful policies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022580015

to avoid being accused of being out to get him, is to remain silent. Well no, that is not an option.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022580015

I am glad to have the confidence to take a stand for what is right regardless of the opinions of anyone else.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2474344

It almost appears like you put yourself in this place of being suppressed and how brave for overcoming this suppression. I think you don't even realize you are doing it.

I don't approve of the rider. But I also don't think it's deserves the non specific outrage towards Obama you and several others are trying garner either. I think there were much bigger fish to fry and this little blib has an endlife, and there are better ways to end it that crapping on POTUS and ignoring the Congressional hand in it's last minute passage.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
84. I absolutely stand by those comments and have made many more along the
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 02:17 PM
Mar 2013

same lines. There is absolutely no complaint in any of them. They state facts. There IS an effort to silence people. That is not a complaint about being oppressed, it is a fact. And I will be repeating those facts whenever there is a reason to do so. It is well known that Corporate America attempts to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Are you objecting to anyone pointing this out? Seems to me you are the one complaining, or as you put it 'acting the martyr' because I am pointing out something you would prefer we ignore. Sorry, that's not going to happen.

Thanks for the links though, I thought maybe I forgot something I said.

To you this may be a 'little blib' not worth bothering with but to America's and the world's btw, farmers (see India and the suicide rate among Farmers. Thanks Monsanto) not to mention those who are being poisoned all over the world by a Corporation that now, dangerously, controls the World's food supply. And every 'little blip' along the road to placing our food supply in their hands was dismissed, just as you are doing now, although in the past it was Bush supporters doing so. Democrats from early on, saw the potential disaster of placing the world's food supply in the hands of ONE corporation, and one that has proven its willingness to destroy lives, to destroy farmers and anyone who get in their path.

So I am very grateful to the 'hand-wringers' when it comes to Monsanto and am sorry you don't view this Corp as a threat to the world's people. I can assure you that people in third world countries know exactly how dangerous they are.

Finally, I have not changed, I am not saying anything I didn't say during the Bush years. I never ran into any opposition on Democratic forums for criticizing Monsanto or their influence over our Government.

But now, for what to me is an obvious reason, and one of the least defensible, the exact same criticisms are attacked right here on a Democratic forum. What does that mean? It means some of us are hypocrites. It means that if Bush does it, it's bad. But if Obama does it, it's a 'blip', nothing to worry about. As if every victory Monsanto achieves, such as this one, strengthens their grip on the world's food supply.

I wish we had the support of our former friends so we could succeed in at least curbing this awesome power being handed to Monsanto. It makes me sad that now things are even worse than under Bush when at least the Left was united against these evil Corporations.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
87. lol
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 03:25 PM
Mar 2013

transparent. You accuse me of misrepresenting your talking points, you set yourself up as some victim with a cause, and when it gets pointed out...you move onto a new unrelated topic.....Indian farmer suicides. Really? This bill does that?

While I admire anyone who stands up for farmers, I completely fail to understand how crapping on Obama regarding this bill acheives this goal.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
94. Well, you already failed to produce your 'victim' posts so it's probably a waste of
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 04:53 PM
Mar 2013

time to ask you to provide some comments of mine which are 'crapping on Obama' but I'm asking anyhow.

I know you support Monsanto's rider and I also know that this is a difficult position to find yourself in as a Democrat. But it would be more admirable if you were to explain why you support it, rather than these feeble attempts to distract from the actual issue.

This, fyi, is not about Obama. Not everything is about Obama, although maybe for you it is. Try not to project your own feelings onto others. We are not all so wrapped up in one politician that we become blinded to what is important.

This is about a dangerous Corporation that already has been allowed to write legislation for this Congress. I always thought that Congress was the legislative body that wrote the laws. I don't know when Giant, Global, abusive Corporations were granted the right to write our laws. Do you?

If Obama is your main concern, which apparently he is as every one of your comments so far have shown far more concern about Obama than about those who will be adversely affected by this rider, and you admire anyone who stands up for farmers, then you must be very disappointed that he has done the exact opposite.

But, and I'm trying hard to understand this, you won't say you are disappointed in any of the Democrats who did not stand up for farmers. And anyone who, iyo, expresses their opinion on the lack of support for farmers by supporting Monsanto's legislation (yes, they wrote it) is 'crapping on Obama'.

What kind of logic is this? What do YOU suggest we do in order to do what you say you admire, stand up for farmers? Should we applaud Monsanto and its supporters in Congress and the WH? I just can't do that, sorry.

Help me here, I'm trying to not get you upset over someone you obviously are emotionally connected to. But it's hard to give those who did not stand up for farmers credit for something they failed to do.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
97. your RW tactics are a huge fail
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 06:26 PM
Mar 2013

I've given you quote after quote where you claim to be victimized and silenced and you pretend it was never presented to you...links and all.

As for he rest of your post...you continue on the same vein. Dip, dodge, dive and divert. I get this all the time form a RW'er and until now, they were the only ones that employed this tactic.

How I feel about farmers, about Monsato, or how I feel about Corporate influence in politics was not part of this discussion, and I refuse to have you divert the topic, even though you persistently attempt to pull it in this direction to avoid addressing the issue at hand.

And one more time (for what, the 5th time?) Specifically what language in the bill, THE BILL RELATIVE TO THIS THREAD, is so distressing and killing Indian Farmers?

If you want to start a thread on corporate influence in politics, ensuring we all stay on board to make sure the Monsato insertion dies in 6 months as promised, that you want to change something to do with dying indians...lets do this but to conflate all of this with the current bill is disingenious...to say the least.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
101. "to conflate all of this with the current bill is disingenious...to say the least."
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 07:15 PM
Mar 2013

I think that's the point. I think anyone reading through this exchange knows that you are definitely on the winning end. You provided solid examples of said poster's false claim that there was some attempt to silence her, and your primary question still hasn't been answered. Good job.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
113. Someone told me once that when people are engaged in a discussion about an
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 10:25 AM
Mar 2013

issue with a right winger, to watch for the number of times s/he uses personal pronouns such as the words 'you' or 'your' or 'you're'. I found it to be a very good way to identify who is interested in sincerely discussing issues, and who is unable to discuss actual issues, or does not want to when the facts are not to their liking. The use of personal pronouns is an excellent way to identify who is actually interested in a serious discussion about issues.

But back to the topic. The current bill completely removes all regulations on one of the most evil Corporations in the world. The deregulation of Monsanto circumvents the Federal Courts' right to hear complaints regarding the protection of our food supply. Aside from what that means in terms of protecting consumers, it is a direct attack on the separation of powers.

No matter who tries to white wash what just happened, the facts are clear. We are now being told that many Democrats 'did not read that part of the bill which is why it got signed'.

Six months provides Monsanto with enough time to do whatever they want with NO fear of interference from the courts or from Congress, who now have no power to stop them from contaminating our food supply. After six months, it will too late to undo the damage they are now free to do.

They got what they wanted. Used to be that Deregulation was a bad thing for Democrats. Corporations rule now with little opposition from anywhere.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
50. So few understand the game.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 05:21 PM
Mar 2013

in the end, no one's to blame.
And for the rest of us...it's all the same
Cuckold or shamed

Cha

(295,926 posts)
14. "It's not King Obama's fault.. it's ours"! I'm glad we're
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:57 PM
Mar 2013

out here being Activists against frankenfood fascists monsanto but we need to know the rules of government or it takes away our credibility.

thanks Will Pitt

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
19. But wait...I though it meant that no GMO labeling would be allowed.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:07 PM
Mar 2013

And that everyone would be forced to eat GMO foods and that every farmer had to plant only Monsanto soybeans and corn.

Do you mean to tell me none of that is true about that section of the bill that kept the government running for a few months?

What a shock! Thanks for clearing it up. I thought there was something screwy in those threads yesterday.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
73. So you don't know what is in the rider?? Any Democrat following this story
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 11:55 AM
Mar 2013

for the past year, I doubt Republicans bother much with actually understanding what they support so blindly so often, doesn't have to ask why it is so damaging.

.

Why is something that will so adversely affect farmers and so many others so amusing to you? Could you help us out and explain how harming people has become amusing to democrats? Maybe we 'liberals' don't have a sense of humor, but I see nothing funny about the harm this is going to do to so many people. Not to mention the attack on the Constitution.

Enjoy your fun at the expense of so many others. I always thought that laughing at the misfortune of others was not a Democratic principle.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
88. Well, you seem to be unable to point to the words in the rider that are so objectionable.
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 03:45 PM
Mar 2013

You're sure that it's some sort of gigantic evil give-away, yet can't point to the actual give-away.

Perhaps you could clear that up for us? All you have to do is point to the section of the actual rider that's so bad.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
93. I've provided, but from democratic sources so maybe they are not credible
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 04:35 PM
Mar 2013

here anymore, the reasons why this rider is so destructive to so many people, mainly farmers.

I assumed, obviously wrongly, that the defenders of the rider actually knew what was in it. Since you are asking for the wording, I assume you just support it, but you never read it? It's available on Google which is where I found it.

Much was written about this rider over the past year. It's not like it dropped into the bill overnight.

Since you support it, how about you state why you support it? If you want to know why I do not, you can read my OP here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12526879


I find these people to be credible and respect their views on Monsanto and its destructive practices. If you do not, then I can't help you.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
95. Actually, you haven't. And you don't here either
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 04:54 PM
Mar 2013

Instead, you provide other people's analysis of the bill.

The danger of relying on other's analysis of the bill is they may be wrong. And the person you quote is:

A so-called “Monsanto rider,” quietly slipped into the multi-billion dollar FY 2013 Agricultural Appropriations bill, would require – not just allow, but require - the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a temporary permit for the planting or cultivation of a genetically engineered crop, even if a federal court has ordered the planting be halted until an Environmental Impact Statement is completed.


First, there is no such permitting requirement in the actual law. That's why I'm asking about the actual law.

Second, Congress can't overrule a court order like that. Heck, in your own damn article, you point out that Congress can't overrule a judge like that.

The fact that their analysis is wrong about the most basic parts of 'separation of powers' kinda indicates the rest of their analysis might not be trustworthy.

But hey, as long as you get to attack Obama and other Democrats as sufficiently impure, who cares about the quality of the actual analysis.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
96. Did you know that courts can only rule on actual existing law?
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 05:46 PM
Mar 2013

Do you know what 'deregulation' means? You have either not read this bill or did not understand how it ties the hands of the Federal Courts regarding going after Monsanto should there be health problems with their product. This is an OUTRAGE! To circumvent the courts, the only recourse people have when they are poisoned by a Big Corp!! Please stop pretending you understand what just happened, you don't.

Is Mikulski lying about the language of the rider? Tester? Everyone who has been trying to stop this rider from being passed into law for the past year?

Monsanto writing our laws. I'm sure they wrote it for OUR benefit!


Here is the language and you are incorrect, the courts' hands are now tied even if it is found that a food product is dangerous. This is in effect, deregulation and certainly beneficial to Monsanto, though not so much the rest of us.

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/03/what-do-we-need-to-know-about-the-monsanto-protection-rider/

What Do We Need to Know about the “Monsanto Protection” Rider?

The language of the rider:

“Sec. 735. 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(c) 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: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.”


And what does it mean?

In effect, the government is now barred from preventing the sale or planting of any genetically modified or genetically engineered seeds. The deregulation is temporary and lasts through September 2013. Though it is named as something as a protection for farmers, it has very little impact on individual farmers, as current regulations do not allow for farmers’ crops of GE plants to be destroyed, even when found to be in violation of USDA standards. This rider protects the creators and distributors of genetically engineered seeds, far more than the farmers themselves.

To reiterate, even if tomorrow we were to discover that the genetically engineered products had harmful effects, nothing can be done to stop the distribution or planting, or hold the companies in question responsible for those effects.

3. Not only does the six-month deregulation benefit Monsanto in the short run, but it prevents them from being prosecuted by federal courts, even if health risks from GMOs are discovered in the future.

To put this another way, imagine that a product that the rest of the civilized world has already deemed a potential health risk was deregulated and allowed for a six-month period of time. We have chosen to deliberately limit our government’s ability to hold the makers and distributors of these products accountable should health or environmental risks arise. This, to me, is the biggest concern with this rider. Neither the Secretary of Agriculture nor the USDA, nor the federal courts system has any recourse should problems arise due to the deregulation of these genetically engineered seeds and plants.


Tying the hands of the courts on a matter as important as this to the American people? There are NO rules now regarding what Monsanto can do! This is what happened with Glass Steagal. Deregulation, poison the people and suffer no consequences.

YOU support this if you want to, but it is unconscionable that any Democrat voted for this vile piece of legislation, and I have no further interest in discussing it with anyone who does.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
117. You really should take your own advice.
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 02:22 PM
Mar 2013
You have either not read this bill or did not understand how it ties the hands of the Federal Courts regarding going after Monsanto

Apparently, you haven't either. Because you seem to be unable to actually quote the parts of the bill that do what you claim. You just keep quoting analysis that gets the basics of our system of government wrong.

To circumvent the courts, the only recourse people have when they are poisoned by a Big Corp!! Please stop pretending you understand what just happened, you don't.

The law doesn't say anything about overriding that court order.

Is Mikulski lying about the language of the rider? Tester? Everyone who has been trying to stop this rider from being passed into law for the past year?

They aren't saying the same thing as you, nor the people you quote.

In effect, the government is now barred from preventing the sale or planting of any genetically modified or genetically engineered seeds. The deregulation is temporary and lasts through September 2013. Though it is named as something as a protection for farmers, it has very little impact on individual farmers, as current regulations do not allow for farmers’ crops of GE plants to be destroyed, even when found to be in violation of USDA standards. This rider protects the creators and distributors of genetically engineered seeds, far more than the farmers themselves.


Um.....apparently they only read the first 1/4 of the rider. 'Cause there's this part:
subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) 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: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.”


Further, there's this:
3. Not only does the six-month deregulation benefit Monsanto in the short run, but it prevents them from being prosecuted by federal courts, even if health risks from GMOs are discovered in the future.

Did you notice the words "court", "liability", "blameless", "immunity" or similar terms are not present in the rider? So where the heck does this assertion come from? Could you highlight what part of the rider accomplishes this?

YOU support this if you want to, but it is unconscionable that any Democrat voted for this vile piece of legislation, and I have no further interest in discussing it with anyone who does.

I support reality. If you, or the people you're trusting to analyze it, are utterly unable to tie their analysis to language in the bill, that's not reality.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
120. There is simply no defense for this no matter how you try to excuse it.
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 03:51 PM
Mar 2013

Even those who voted for it, have admitted how bad it is.

Deregulation of the laws protecting consumers, written by one of the most evil Corporations in the world, is simply shameful. But then, that is what our country has become, a Corporate state where Corporations now write legislation and our elected officials, as they have now admitted, do not even read the bills they vote on.

It's really amazing to me to see any defense of this on a Democratic Forum. Many of the Dems who voted for it are now stating they did not read it, did not know it was attached to the bill.

It is a disgrace that Congress thinks so little of the job we gave them to do that they would either allow Monsanto to write such legislation and place it in a bill, or they don't bother to read the bills they vote on.

Monsanto, our new un-elected legislators. I'm sure they wrote a rider that would benefit US! Just that thought makes me laugh.

 

glowing

(12,233 posts)
22. I have been all over Facebook with my liberal friends
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:18 PM
Mar 2013

explaining the poison pill that is swallowed with these riders. You either save the economy or let Monsanto get away with more shit. Because its causing a firestorm on both sides of the aisle (since nutritious food is actually a big deal for most people), there is hopefully some sort of initiative that could be taken with getting rid if the nastyBig Agri- bills.

Quite honestly, until we have a majority of reps that are like Sanders and Warren and more Greyson's, we are going to get stuck with poison foods, water, and air.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
23. Sanders voted for the Continuing Resolution.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:20 PM
Mar 2013

Explain that, please. In fact, every Democratic Senator, save one, voted for it.

Are they all in on this conspiracy, do you suppose?

 

glowing

(12,233 posts)
29. Because it was an economic bill to keep paying our bills.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:26 PM
Mar 2013

If the senate was full of Sanders the rider wouldn't get stuck onto a bill like this. Lets face it, the person who stuck it in was paid to stick it in.

Also a reason that senators rarely make it into the White House because they have very nuanced votes.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
31. Yes, indeed it was.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:28 PM
Mar 2013

The portion of the bill being complained about was introduced by a Democrat, too. What's that about?

Perhaps it doesn't do what the advocacy sites say it does, eh? I read it. I don't see that it does much of anything, really. I think it's way overblown.

Finally, I think trashing the President over signing a bill that was voted for by every Democratic Senator except one is pretty weird. Really I do. But, never mind...

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
30. Good catch MM. Another of DU's internet legends shot all to hell. I wonder if it changes anything
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:26 PM
Mar 2013

now that we know that Bernie signed on?

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
32. Only one Democrat voted against this continuing resolution.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:29 PM
Mar 2013

The Obama-bashing over this bill is bullshit, plain and simple.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
35. Oh...I forgot...Elizabeth Warren voted for that bill, too.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:35 PM
Mar 2013

Warren, Sanders, and the entire Democratic Caucus of the Senate, except for one, voted for it. And you're spreading bullshit all over Facebook. I hope you're not using their names incorrectly. You are telling everyone that the likes of Sanders and Warren voted for it, right?

 

glowing

(12,233 posts)
61. Perhaps I was unclear in my post.. I have been telling them that they cannot hold this over the
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 09:24 PM
Mar 2013

President's head like this because it was a rider and the actual bill was important. Why a Democrat stuck it on? I assume they have Monsanto friends... I think you misunderstood.. I've been defending having to sign the actual bill and not liking the rider ad on. Sorry, we are actually in agreement.. I've been telling the liberal friends they need to understand they are attacking the wrong person for this and that the actual bill that was passed was more important, the Monsanto crap is the bitter pill to swallow and was added onto a bill that had to pass and be signed.. I'm sorry if I wrote my original post as an "Anti-Obama"... President Obama didn't write this bill. However he did have to sign it, not signing it would be bad news.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
34. Thank you.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:33 PM
Mar 2013

Especially for the second link:


But, O'Neil added, the language did not originate with Mikulski. Rather, it was included in legislation that had been developed before she took the chairmanship. Democratic leaders, including Mikulski, were under pressure to pass a funding a bill quickly as Democrats and Republicans in Congress were eager to demonstrate they could deal with a budget deadline without creating the type of fiscal showdown that has defined the last several years.

Congress had until March 27 to pass a funding bill or shut down the government.

Mikulski picked up the previously agreed-to language and attached it, largely unchanged, to the funding legislation. Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, offered an amendment to strike the language from the bill but that amendment never received a vote.

"Her hands were tied by the negotiations that had previously happened," O'Neil said of Mikulski. "We recognize that the tough spot she was in."


Sometimes, here on DU and other places, it is worth going a little deeper to get the entire story. Much appreciated, Mr. Pitt.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
58. Thanks for that info but does anyone know
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:39 PM
Mar 2013

why there wasn't a vote to remove the language?

This isn't the House, we chair the committees and have a majority.

Did the administration read the language? Did they call up Mikulski?

How did the language get there originally? Did our side cut a deal to let it in? If so, was the administration notified? Who in the Senate was party to any (hypothetical) negotiations for getting the language included? Who knew anything about this, and who was truly in the dark?

Lots of unasked questions for how our Senate and our President treated this.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
108. Re-read the OP links and the entire thread.
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 08:16 PM
Mar 2013

it is pretty clear for myself. This isn't snark, I promise you that.

What is it that you do not see?

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
110. The answers to my questions?
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 09:11 PM
Mar 2013

I'll boil it down. Who knew what, and when? What were the discussions? Why did the Senator propose the language get taken out? Why couldn't there be a vote on doing that?

I've read the thread but considering the comments that have been made I think this is about the OP and the links therein. Though I'm happy to broaden the discussion.

What I see is that our side was taken aback at the amount of focus directed their way. The original spin was that our side was equally outraged as well as mostly ignorant of the language's genesis.

From there the new spin became that they had no good choices in the matter.

Imo there was only one good time to come clean about the whole matter and then have our party deal with it as best we could. That time was right away and that time has passed.

So now, and I can only guess at what many think, I suppose there is a lot less appetite to take the stories being told as gospel. They can't credibly vouch for each other.

I never blamed the Administration for this bill. I know the pressure that is there to keep the nation afloat. But that doesn't mean I don't keenly watch how negotiations are proceeding. And that is an ongoing, never ending, process.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
90. Or appreciate the fact that there was a deadline or the government would be shut down.
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 04:09 PM
Mar 2013

No funding for the VAWA and numerous other acts passed would be dead. Facts like that don't affect the vitriol. I wonder why it tastes so good.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
98. Is this what "activism" has become? I mean, what separates the left from the teabaggers now?
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 07:03 PM
Mar 2013

It's all reflexive outrage, all the time. The left used to be much smarter, which leads me to believe it's not really "the left" we're dealing with here.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
103. Yes, the themes are exactly the same. May be in this book which I haven't read yet:
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 07:23 PM
Mar 2013
The Obama Hate Machine



NEW FROM BILL PRESS: THE BOOK THE KOCH BROTHERS DON’T WANT YOU TO READ.

In Toxic Talk, Bill Press exposed the ways in which the extreme right-wing media has done an end run around the American voting populace by exerting a disproportionate control over open political debate. In The Obama Hate Machine, Press returns to show how the Right has taken rhetoric to slanderous new levels in attacking the nation's forty-fourth president.

But presidents have always been attacked like this, right? Wrong. As the author shows, while presidents and presidential candidates routinely have been subject to personal attacks, the outright disdain Obama's extremist opponents have for the facts has inspired an insidious brand of character assassination unique in contemporary politics.

Obama was born in Kenya... Obama sympathizes with Muslim terrorists... Obama is a communist who wants to institute death panels and touch off class warfare... The extent to which these unfounded assertions have taken hold in the American mindset shows just how ruthless, destructive, and all-powerful the right-wing machine hijacked by extremists in the media and fueled by corporate coffers has become. The author reveals how corporate interests such as the infamous Koch Brothers continue to steer political coverage away from fact-based dialogue into the realm of hysteria. Bill Press also observes this phenomenon is not limited to the airwaves and provides an Hate Obama Book Club list, calling out the scores of anti-Obama tomes and even some from the Left that have helped drag politics even deeper into the mud.

In his characteristic on-the-mark arguments sure to appeal to anyone on the Left or in the Center, Press shows how the peculiar nature of Obama-hating subverts issue-driven debate and threatens not only the outcome of the 2012 election but the future of the American democratic system.


http://www.billpressshow.com/obama-hate-machine/

Full video here at C-SPAN:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/304985-1#


Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
125. Thanks fresh, I've been out of the loop for a few days, had a family emergency. I've bookmarked....
Tue Apr 2, 2013, 07:44 PM
Apr 2013

for when I get home this evening.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
107. I appreciate that there was a deadline
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 08:05 PM
Mar 2013

I don't appreciate the lack of communication between our government and the public.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
109. The communication is there. Get on the OFA email list and contact your representatives regularly.
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 08:18 PM
Mar 2013

Last edited Tue Apr 2, 2013, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)

We can't count on conservative billionaire owned media to tell us anything except that which feeds the passions by making people feel angry, fearful or helpless. To ignore the ocean of influence we are living in is to let them get away with it:

Thom Hartmann: Conservative Millennials, Boomers & Libertarians all being Conned


Multigenerational political influence by a very narrow special interest group is rare, but we're seeing it played out right now in front of us. A billionaire family - the Kochs - have gone from influencing my father's generation, to my generation, to my kids' generation - and very few Americans realize it. Daddy Koch - Fred - made his first millions palling around with Joe Stalin in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. As the fascists rose to power in Europe in the 1930s, he was an enthusiastic supporter of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, who invented the word "fascist," meaning essentially the takeover of democratic governments by big business interests. Mussolini went so far as to dissolve the Italian parliament, and replace elected politicians with representatives of each district's largest corporations. Fred Koch and Mussolini both particularly hated the trade unionists and their sometimes allies, the communists. So after Mussolini, along with his ally Hitler, lost World War II against America, Fred Koch brought the anti-communist pro-business-running-goverment - what some would call "facist" - torch to America big time, helping start the John Birch Society.

Two of their biggest efforts are pretty well known. After the Supreme Court ruled, in 1954, in the Brown versus Board of Education case, that segregation in schools was unconstitutional, the John Birch Society put up billboards all across America calling for the impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Court, Earl Warren. Daddy Fred Koch was very concerned about the integration of our schools - in fact, he wrote, "The colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America." With JFK's election, Fred Koch's John Birch Society went off again - this time against JFK. Using rhetoric not that different from the "secret Muslim" plots the Tea Party promotes about Obama, in a 1963 speech Fred said that " infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the President is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.”

When JFK was scheduled to come to Dallas that year, the JBS distributed flyers saying, "Wanted, for Treason" all around the town two days before his arrival. On the day JFK was assassinated, large ads ran in the Dallas newspapers attacking Kennedy as being soft on Castro, among other things. That was my dad's generation. Daddy Koch died, and his sons Charles and David took over the family business of promoting the business and billionaire takeover of our American government.

They're doing it with a two-pronged attack. For people over forty, they're funding the Tea Party through a variety of groups, most notably Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks. And for people under forty, they're funding Libertarian think tanks, like the Charles Koch Foundation (which was renamed as the Cato Institute), and the Reason Foundation, where David Koch is a trustee, which happily embraces a new generation of young people with the idea that "freedom" means the "freedom" to buy politicians and the "freedom" to pollute. For the young people, of course, the Libertarians throw in the "freedom" to smoke dope and hire a hooker, but those are just bones being cynically tossed to young potheads and young protoge's of Dick Morris.

But the Koch's have been inside the Libertarian movement from its beginning - 32 years ago this year, David Koch was the Libertarian Party's official candidate for Vice President of the United States. It's really pretty incredible, but it's all true. The main agenda of the Koch's John Birch Society was to enhance the power and control of our government by big business and billionaires, while fighting organized labor and people like me who were protesting the Vietnam War. The main agenda of the Koch's Tea Party is to get millionaires elected to Congress and have them cut taxes and regulations for Koch Industries and other polluting corporations, while fighting organized labor and people like me who were protesting the Iraq War.

And the main agenda of the Koch's Libertarians - again, funded and trained by the Koch Brothers - is to keep intact the power of big money over our government, cut taxes and regulations on billionaires and polluting industries, while fighting organized labor and people like me who are protesting the corporate takeover of the United States of America. Three generations of Americans, all duped by the same billionaire family. Three generations buying into the idea that "what's best for industry and billionaires is best for America" - and that government is our "enemy" rather than something that our nation's founders fought and died to create for all of "We The People" And, increasingly, it's not just the Koch family. The Walton family - whose combined wealth is greater than 40 percent of all Americans - funded a covert campaign to rename the estate tax as the "death tax" and lobbied so hard they got the estate tax eliminated entirely in 2010.

Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out yesterday that - so far - we know of 26 billionaires - worth over $146 billion - who have already "invested" or committed to invest over $561 million dollars in this election cycle - most of it to defeat Democrats who want to raise their taxes. The good news is that young people are waking up and realizing that the Libertarian hustle the billionaires are feeding them is just that - a hustle. Just like Tea Partiers are waking up to their having been had by billionaires who want to privatize their Social Security. Hopefully, soon, America will regain its sanity and we'll go back to viewing cranky billionaires the way my Dad's generation did - as Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower did - when Eisenhower referred to their ilk as "small in number and stupid" They're not stupid any more, and if we really value American traditions, we really must push back on this kind of power and influence in American politics...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/101744227

The voices of hatred, fear and despair are never our friends. We do not accomplish things by taking as gospel the voices of the maliciously lazy.

Action conquers fear. To give in by imagining an inevitability or defeat before one has done one's best to change things, is exactly what is wanted with all of the faux outrage. Follow the money and associations to see who is saying what. Consider their reasons for selling it to you and who paid them.

Only the people can make changes, millions of them singly acting to bring out their vision. The other side is doing so, but they have the media to cheer them on and we don't. It's up to us.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
37. I appreciate this but there will be some who will still argue the obvious with you.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 04:53 PM
Mar 2013

And some others who would argue that it would be worth it to go off another cliff.

Actually what this shows is how isolated DU can be from reality from time to time.

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Smilo

(1,944 posts)
44. This rider is the camel with its nose in the tent...........
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 05:07 PM
Mar 2013

So there is no line item veto - then just veto the whole thing and sent back to Congress to have the Monsanto Protection Act removed from the bill.

Yes it would take balls - but it is time we showed corporations that we are not just going to roll over.

I don't care how the GOPT look at this and make their snide little comments - the fact of the matter is that this is wrong and we know it and they know it.

As for the rider's sponser - not only is Blunt the recipient of a lot of Monsanto's money, but

Blunt’s wife, Abigail Perlman, is the in-house lobbyist for Kraft Foods, who donated heavily to battle against mandatory labeling of GMOs. Before this, when the good Baptist Blunt divorced his wife of 30+ years to marry Perlman, she lobbied for Altria/Phillip Morris, where Blunt’s son Andy was also a lobbyist. An article on The Daily Kos pointed out that, “at the time Roy Blunt, the bastion of Missouri values, was helping his lobbyist girlfriend, he was still married to another woman.”

Blunt’s son, Matt, was the governor of Missouri from 2005-2009. According to an article on The Nation, “ Matt Blunt was such a champion of Monsanto’s GM products that its CEO presented him with the annual leadership award of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a Monsanto-backed group.”



 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
45. Risk a government shutdown over a toothless rider that will die in six months.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 05:09 PM
Mar 2013

Please stay out of government, Smilo.

Smilo

(1,944 posts)
49. Yes, risk a government shutdown
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 05:20 PM
Mar 2013

it is about time that we stood up to these corporations and the corrupted politicians and call them out.

And no, just because I happen to disagree with the President occasionally, I will not stay out of the government.

This is not a toothless rider and it won't die in six months - the Biotechs and Monsanto will see to that now.

Because of this rider America will continue to sell genetically engineered (GMO) seeds - an end run around a court order to stop this.

This administration is rolling over time and again and the GOPT are winning the game without really having to do anything more than be sneaky.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
53. And this is exactly the process by which they move the country
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 05:32 PM
Mar 2013

in the direction they want to go...they have done it many times...and it always works.
Which explains why we always go right even if the left is in charge...and why we always seem to cave and they stand their ground.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
63. Will...the second link in your OP makes it seem like Milkulsky is clueless...
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 10:04 PM
Mar 2013

(Why did Senator Tester's Amendment to Strike the Language from the Bill..never get a vote? The Dems control Congress so why didn't it get a vote.? )

"But, O'Neil added, the language did not originate with Mikulski. Rather, it was included in legislation that had been developed before she took the chairmanship. Democratic leaders, including Mikulski, were under pressure to pass a funding a bill quickly as Democrats and Republicans in Congress were eager to demonstrate they could deal with a budget deadline without creating the type of fiscal showdown that has defined the last several years.

Congress had until March 27 to pass a funding bill or shut down the government.

Mikulski picked up the previously agreed-to language and attached it, largely unchanged, to the funding legislation. Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, offered an amendment to strike the language from the bill but that amendment never received a vote.

"Her hands were tied by the negotiations that had previously happened," O'Neil said of Mikulski. "We recognize that the tough spot she was in."


O'Neil said food safety groups nevertheless hope to keep the pressure on Mikulski to get the language removed later this year, when the government must pass its next round of funding legislation. "

JohnnyRingo

(18,581 posts)
46. K&R
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 05:16 PM
Mar 2013

It's appropriate that the phrase "all or nothing" is in the text, because that's the attitude many here express when it comes to liberal values. Sometimes it's like reading a Tea Party blog in reverse.

I consider myself a liberal, and my rightist friends are quick to confirm that, but I expect to compromise some for the sake of the country and the working class.

Thanx for posting.

Autumn

(44,762 posts)
51. I'm curious as to what her reason was for picking
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 05:30 PM
Mar 2013

up the "previously agreed-to language and attaching it, largely unchanged to the funding legislation"? What does "largely unchanged" mean? Did she change it a "little" ? If she didn't do any changing who was the one that made it "largely unchanged" What was the reason that it had to be included in the bill?

She didn't put the language in the bill and doesn’t support it so why did she put it in the bill?

JHC this shit is crazy

CitizenPatriot

(3,783 posts)
52. Just to clarify
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 05:30 PM
Mar 2013

Thanks Will, for the update on the rider. I didn't see any admissions, but this really pissed me off:

"O'Neil added, the language did not originate with Mikulski. Rather, it was included in legislation that had been developed before she took the chairmanship. Democratic leaders, including Mikulski, were under pressure to pass a funding a bill quickly as Democrats and Republicans in Congress were eager to demonstrate they could deal with a budget deadline without creating the type of fiscal showdown that has defined the last several years."


BTW, the first link took excerpts from this post, that someone posted here yesterday and there was a good discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2576469

here's more from the original:

http://www.politicususa.com/congress-sequester-crisis-slip-corporate-give-monstanto.html

"An executive order cannot make new law; only Congress can do that. An executive order tells a President’s administration how he wants a law implemented; it gives direction to officers and agencies of the executive branch. But here’s the real kicker: Even if President Obama were to sign an executive order to label our food (we have no indication as to whether he would be inclined to do so), Congress could deny funding its execution, just as they have with his order to close Gitmo.

When it comes to laws, it always comes back to Congress. Our food safety has been severely compromised by corporate lobbyists’ ever-tightening control over our representatives. If people really want things to change, they need to be able to identify the individuals behind these cowardly acts. "

---
SEETHING.


Edited to shorten/clarify


freshwest

(53,661 posts)
92. Thanks. And those finger pointing need to change Congress next year and state governments quickly.
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 04:17 PM
Mar 2013

It really is up to us and not just every four years. The other side is creating coalitions to make allies for their side and it's a winning strategy. We can too.

sunwyn

(494 posts)
54. The way I read it, and I could be wrong as I don't do legalize well,
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 06:35 PM
Mar 2013

is that it allows the Ag Secretary to fast track approval for companies like Monsanto for the duration of the bill. I think that's 6 months?

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
56. Recipe for successful DU OP: hide facts, misquote and add hyperbolic outrage
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:14 PM
Mar 2013

And sit back and watch the "me too!" recs pour in. Very tiresome and predictable, and I have no idea why the site owners permit that type of dishonesty.

Thanks for your post and getting the facts out.

indepat

(20,899 posts)
60. My God, Obama is likely going to be blackmailed by a veritable passel of poisoned pills: when will
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:53 PM
Mar 2013

the line ever be drawn when blackmailed by this domestic right-wing extremist (terrorist) group?

KT2000

(20,544 posts)
79. Bullcrap
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 01:16 PM
Mar 2013

Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2013, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Let's have an Eli Lilly rider; Boeing rider; Dow Chemical rider; let them renew every 6 months so they can circumvent the Constitution.
This is not about lost paperwork. This is about flooding the market with products that they know will bring legal challenges. In the event of legal challenges the flood continues.
GMO was rushed to market so the wise choice for the farmer is to say "no thank you" until most concerns are settled.

When have we had a Secretary of Ag who is truly concerned about human heath and environmental destruction? Think factory farms that are driving antibiotic resistance etc.

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
104. I don't agree. Imagine if they had attached an abortion ban in the same way.
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 07:27 PM
Mar 2013

Would the President have signed it? No of course not. He would have vetoed it and rightly so because 1)He is pro-choice and 2) it would have been an obvious attempt at extortion, forcing something crappy through by attaching it to the "must sign" spending bill.

The article linked from the OP says 1) The president had almost no choice but to sign it 2) If you think otherwise you are a conspiracy theorist 3) Actually the provision in question is nothing to worry about so just chill.

The whole line of reasoning is condescending.

The fact is most Democrat leaders do support laws promoted by big food companies like Monsanto and haven't done anything to protect the American people in this area.

It's laughable to pretend otherwise.

Autumn

(44,762 posts)
114. ^This^ What if someone put in a bill stripping the pre existing clause from the ACA?
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 10:39 AM
Mar 2013

Would that be fine too? I don't think so.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
121. You left a few facts out of your "what if"
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 04:41 PM
Mar 2013

It should say "Imagine if an abortion ban was attached to a bill to keep the government running and it passed by a veto-proof margin with every single Democratic Senator except for one voting for the bill and a majority of the Democrats in the House also voting for it."

My answer as to what would happen? Well, I suspect that we would never know because we'd all be dead having been shot by flying pigs with bows and arrows.

Now, if you want to consider the real world in which this provision was enacted, it might be possible to have an intelligent discussion.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
124. Yeah, the OP and the link therein are preposterous
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 07:04 PM
Mar 2013

Your post points out one glaring flaw. The other is brought up upthread by sabrina, who notes that the president has the power to unconditionally order drone murder, assassinations, and unwarranted spying/detention, but can't do anything about this. and his fan club laps it up and spits it back out like the Limbeciles during the Bush Reign.

DU has been dumbed down to Fox Nation level.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
118. Yes, I'm starting to really suspect these types of accusations
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 02:27 PM
Mar 2013

Not because of being an Obama cheerleading, but just because so many of them have been exaggerated or in bad faith before. So I refuse to jump on the bandwagon until the facts are out - but so many just jump on the bandwagon. They just want to believe the worst of Obama and looks for ways to have him be in the wrong in some spectacular way.

Sick of the Republicans threatening shut down over everything, too. That is the true problem and for that we should be going after them and having Obama's back even more. We elected him our President and they are trying to get around that with their bad faith shenanigans.

quaker bill

(8,223 posts)
127. Will, I have read far anough back into this
Tue Apr 2, 2013, 10:14 PM
Apr 2013

to figure out that it is a regulatory pis*ing match. Having been a government regulator for the last 20 years, I know one when I see one. The facts are decided and it has been determined that the crops are harmless in the way they are planted and managed. The judge had no issue there. The current argument has moved from fact to procedure, specifically the procedure used to prepare and approve an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The statement found no harm on all the parameters assessed. Those findings are now "findings of fact" in a court of competent jurisdiction. The challenge is that the EIS did not cosider market price impacts on organic growers of the same crop located in the vicinity (but at a court ruled safe distance) from the GMO. This social imact (not environmental, social impact, has been ruled for as a parameter that should have been considered) thus partially invalidating the EIS.

In short, there is no competent proof of actual harm or actual risk of harm. (Not my call, the findings of the judge) There is only speculation of economic harm coming from the scientifically unfounded fear that some GMO genes (from plants not allowed to bloom in this case) will drift into the organic crop destroying or diminishing its value. In that science has no grip on how to evaluate this (as science was use to the maximum extent to prevent it) the next move was to deregulate the crop, ending the legal requirement for further study. This has been challenged as well, again on procedural grounds. The farmers planted deregulated crops. The law prevents them from having to plow them under between now and september.

One thing is clear and it works in any legal case, "when you have lost on the facts, argue procedure". Been there and done that. When the procedure argument runs long enough, often legislatures will step in and change procedure.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Before you jump on Obama ...