"Maybe there’s a way of getting a representative group of actors at the table” to discuss how the federal government could help the Biotech industry with “insurance against risk,” she said. Meanwhile, our government has already written a blank check to the biotech industry for GMO corn to make heaps of ethanol and to support our fast-food nation, as well as for soy, sugar beets, rice, and other ‘staple’ foods. We subsidize the heck out of these Frankenfood and Frankenfuel crops.

Riddle me this, HRC. If there's no risks to people from GMO, why should any govt. insure the Biotech Industry against risk?

"The Orwellian-named "Rural Americans for Hillary" were Monsanto's lobbyists. My greater concern, though, is your former-employer, the Rose Law Firm, whose clients include Monsanto, world's largest GE (genetic engineering) corporation; Tyson, world's largest meat producer; Walmart, the world's largest retailer. Rose is home to the industrialization of food." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/02/21/461425/-Hillary-and-Monsanto-s-Aspartame

Thanks Divernan.

Back in the 80's - the first law firm I worked for after finishing law school had a section of lawyers specializing in representing asbestos victims. As you all may or may not know, asbestosis or mesothelioma resulting from asbestos typically takes decades to develop. However, lung biopsies proves the presence of asbestos fibers. Once a biopsy revealed asbestos fibers, all the plaintiff's lawyer had to do was negotiate a settlement, because causation was beyond dispute.

Reasons for Industry Cover-ups

Even though it was established that asbestos was dangerous decades before the EPA’s regulation, companies, as previously mentioned, continued to stifle any information regarding the hazards of the mineral. Even after physicians, scientists, and even asbestos companies provided details of the dangers after conducting studies, companies still wouldn’t scale back on asbestos usage or inform workers of the dangers.

The reason behind the great cover-ups simply comes down to money. If the production of and the use of asbestos was eliminated, many companies would lose the fortune they built. In fact, in another documented statement, when an executive of a corporation that used asbestos was asked if he would let his workers die if it meant continuing to use the mineral, he replied, “ Yes. We save a lot of money that way.” In other words, the profits of the businesses that used asbestos was more important than the lives of the people who helped these businesses survive.
http://www.mesotheliomalawyercenter.org/asbestos/cover-ups/

Classic examples of an industry that hid harmful effects of their products from the public are the Asbestos industry and the Tobacco industry. Both industries hid scientific knowledge of known toxic doses from their products for decades. These toxic doses have been the subject of government regulations and litigation. There are other examples of large corporations in the $880 Billion a year pharmaceutical industry as well as in the medical device industry.

http://www.toxicdoselaw.com/

A mega corporation like Monsanto has doubtless conducted extensive research on all its products, and deep-sixed that research under the guise of "trade secret". What a convenient place to bury any smoking guns. But hey, you never know when some goddamned whistle blower will come back at them, so better get insurance, guys! Let's put HRC on that!

then the Clinton Foundation exerts pressure on third world countries to accept Biotech companies. Far-fetched? I don't think so. Recall that New York Times expose on the Clinton Foundation and Bill's failure to maintain boundaries between charitable, political and business ventures.

I'm against the very notion of patenting any part of any DNA. I'm against GM designed specifically to be resistant to specific pesticides or herbicides, so that those can then be used to sterilize the earth around those crops. And I'm for open, long-term, longitudinal studies of GM that don't just look for the obvious sorts of detrimental effects, but also look for more subtle effects on metabolic pathways and biologic function. And I'm for labeling, so those who choose to do so can have the 'free market' information they need to avoid eating or drinking what they wish.

Studies on some of the pesticides found roundabout connections between minute amounts of them and colony collapse when exposed larvae developed incorrectly such that they were far more vulnerable to specific parasites in the midgut. So we need far more caution and 'measure twice, cut once' attitudes towards GM as well. (These were not pesticides linked to GM-resistance, btw, just using them as an example of how harmful effects aren't always the obvious ones for which you test.)

But we're still likely to want that technology as climate change worsens. We're going to need to develop far more drought-resistant crops, or ones that grow more quickly, or blight-resistant crops. And it's doubtful if we'll be able to do so simply with traditional breeding methods.

The problem with GM is not that it exists. As with every technology we develop, it's how we use it, and how we decide what 'safe' means in the long term.

Just whose side is she on?

Yes, that's a rhetorical question.

She has no intention of running for president, am I right? Because liberals will not vote for a pro-GMO corporate hack like that, EVER. Especially this liberal.

Last edited Mon Jul 14, 2014, 06:12 AM - Edit history (1)

As long as she is POTENTIALLY the candidate, Big Moneyed interests will keep throwing those $200,000 speaking fees at her. She then turns around and "donates" those fees to the family 5 star "charitable" foundation. Voila! she and Bill get beau coup personal income tax writeoffs, but all those fees stay entirely within their control. Sort of an innovative twist on money laundering. And by 5 star I mean the Clintons' world travel is via private jets, staying at luxury accomodations, and paying their personal assistants, luxury office space, etc.

She's old (I'm a few years older), she's in terrible physical shape, and no one has had access to her health records - she could just be milking the system for as long as possible for every $200,000 fee she can sock away to the Clinton Foundation, before declining to declare. Also, as everyone has observed over the decades, being President ages one noticeably, and takes a physical and emotional toll. We may not know details of HRC's health, but we do know how fragile her husband's health is. Does she want to subject him to 4/8 years of that stressful environment?

the last contest went for her and Obama. The awful things she said about him and then turns around and supports him. I was new to politics back then and didn't realize it was that way. I think Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would get my vote.

You know, that Richard Scaife whose death provoked an outpouring of hatred and loathing on DU. In 2008 she traveled to tiny little Greensburg, PA, where the headquarters for Scaife's conservative chain of newspapers is located, and sought out an "audience" with him. Following that meeting, despite the horrible things HRC and Scaife had said about each other, he gave her his newspapers' endorsement in the Democratic primary. What was the quid pro quo she promised him in exchange for that endorsement? Sciafe took that secret to his grave with him and I doubt HRC will ever tell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/05/us/richard-mellon-scaife-influential-us-conservative-dies-at-82.html?_r=0

Yup, when it comes to rich old white conservatives, they're ready for Hillary, because she promises them what they want. As to HRC, I've been involved in politics and every presidential campaign since my college years (always a Democrat, unlike HRC) and that goes back to when I heard JFK speak at my university campus in 1961. If you look at the details of her behavior over the years - from when she got fired from the Watergate investigation staff for unethical behavior, through the years, it is a truly alarming psycho-profile of a person who has always done ANYTHING to win, keeps an enemies list and seeks revenge (according to the memoirs of her closest friend). Add in to that lethal mixture, the sublimated rage any wife would feel at the public humiliation visited upon her by her serially adulterous husband. I've never seen any Democratic politician the likes of her.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/12/confidants-diary-clinton-wanted-to-keep-records-for-revenge/

I voted for Carter on my first Presidental vote. I didn't vote much after that. For a decade (90s) I didn't vote at all. Politics didn't interest me at all. I tuned out and changed the channel. They were all crooks. And I was just trying to survive.
I got married in '06 and was suddenly unemployed. I watched Obama announce and cheered him on since. Very disappointed today but better than the rest.

This country is messed up, politically, economically, fiscally, cultural and this gun crazy crap has me looking abroad for other living arrangements.

"77 dimensional chess"-type defense for Clinton?

I don't think I can vote for her on this account. We need a primary challenger at least who will stand against this crap being done to our planet.

I'm going to tell everyone I know. None of them like gmo's, no way, no how.

Hillary must balance the interested of far left liberal, and
center left democrats if she wants to be elected. Hillary
when forced to make a decision has always made a more liberal
choice.

If the we do not want more GMO we have to let our leaders know,
just like the Gay rights, issues sift, if we do not want GMO, we have
convince most of America that GMO are wrong, then we can get the
politicians to do what we want.

Big Money interests made no profit from opposing gay rights. Therefore HRC was totally free to support gays. In fact, as far as the MIC goes, gay cannon fodder is interchangeable with straight cannon fodder, and they need that cannon fodder to operate the weapons from which they profit. So that was a win/win for HRC. Gets credits from pro-gays, and serves the interests of the MIC at the same time.

You must be unfamiliar w/ HRC's voting/speechifying records to say she always made a more liberal choice. The only times she sides with traditional, old fashioned, humanistic Democratic values is when there's no corporate opposition.

Plus, the issues do not balance out on a simplistic one for one ratio. GMO/Keystone Pipeline/ Iraq War/foreign trade agreements/child refugees/war mongering,as in unsuccessfully pushing Obama to go along with British General Sir David Richards' blood-thirsty proposition to arm and train 100,000 Syrian rebels. Each of these issues have more far-reaching impact upon the US (and much of the world) than the few liberal votes she's chosen to make. Sadly, HRC still believes she's got to out macho male politicians when it comes to making war.

http://www.thenation.com/article/180564/nsa-spying-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar

IMO Hillary is a political opportunist who likes to employ Bush neocons in the State Department.

...donating huge sums to orgs like NAACP. This is how oligarchs play with identity politics, using them as cover to advance an agenda of massive economic inequality.

Post 15 demonstrates how people get taken in by their bullshit.

They funded the DLC, which HRC was a founding member of. Even if HRC wasn't as well known as she is, we would know her by the company she keeps.