Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

All farmers need to ban together and never buy anything from them. Some one
needs to pass a law that if you are falsely accused you get 1000 times your
legal fees. Then tere would be plenty of big firms to help.

"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
All farmers need to ban together and never buy anything from them. Some
one needs to pass a law that if you are falsely accused you get 1000 times
your legal fees. Then tere would be plenty of big firms to help.


Someone. Who? Big corps own Congress and the Senate. The delegation
system used as part of voting is the thing of the past. A slap in the face
for the typical voter of today. Yet, the lemmings of today are typically
ignorant of this. And, if they are aware, don't care.
--
Dave

Dioclese wrote:
"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
All farmers need to ban together and never buy anything from them.
Some one needs to pass a law that if you are falsely accused you
get
1000 times your legal fees. Then tere would be plenty of big firms
to help.


Someone. Who? Big corps own Congress and the Senate.

And this is why more and more restrictions get placed on tobacco
companies and automobile manufacturers and the like? Because they
_love_ being regulated?

The delegation
system used as part of voting is the thing of the past. A slap in
the face for the typical voter of today. Yet, the lemmings of today
are typically ignorant of this. And, if they are aware, don't
care.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Dioclese wrote:
"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
All farmers need to ban together and never buy anything from them.
Some one needs to pass a law that if you are falsely accused you
get
1000 times your legal fees. Then tere would be plenty of big firms
to help.


Someone. Who? Big corps own Congress and the Senate.

And this is why more and more restrictions get placed on tobacco
companies and automobile manufacturers and the like? Because they
_love_ being regulated?

The delegation
system used as part of voting is the thing of the past. A slap in
the face for the typical voter of today. Yet, the lemmings of today
are typically ignorant of this. And, if they are aware, don't
care.

--

Your kidding, right? Just in case your not:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=896

Karl Rove
In a 1997 deposition, Rove testified that he worked as a Philip Morris
consultant from 1991 to 1996, taking about $175,000 in fees. He said
that Bush was aware of his Philip Morris ties beginning in 1993.

Rove admitted in his 1997 deposition that he steered Bush toward pushing
the tort reform issue as a central prong in his campaigns, though Rove
denied ever misusing his ties to the governor to advance the interests
of Philip Morris. Bush did deliver a major rollback in victims' legal
rights -- highlighted in his presidential campaign -- to the benefit of
Philip Morris.

CAFE Standards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...e_Fuel_Economy

Cars and light trucks are considered separately for CAFE and are held to
different standards. As of early 2004, the average for cars must exceed
27.5 mpg, and the light truck average must exceed 20.7 mpg. Trucks under
8500 pounds must average 22.5 mpg in 2008, 23.1 mpg in 2009, and 23.5
mpg in 2010. After this, new rules set varying targets based on truck
size "footprint."

In late 2007, CAFE standards received their first overhaul in more than
30 years. On December 19, President Bush signed into law the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires in part that
automakers boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg by the year 2020. This
requirement applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light
trucks." Politicians had faced increased public pressure to raise CAFE
standards; a July 2007 poll conducted in seven states revealed 84-90% in
favor of legislating mandatory increases.[19]
-------

I bought a Nissan Sentra in 1990 that got 40 mpg. What is the problem?
--

Billy

Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Dioclese wrote:
"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
All farmers need to ban together and never buy anything from them.
Some one needs to pass a law that if you are falsely accused you
get
1000 times your legal fees. Then tere would be plenty of big firms
to help.


Someone. Who? Big corps own Congress and the Senate.

And this is why more and more restrictions get placed on tobacco
companies and automobile manufacturers and the like? Because they
_love_ being regulated?

The delegation
system used as part of voting is the thing of the past. A slap in
the face for the typical voter of today. Yet, the lemmings of today
are typically ignorant of this. And, if they are aware, don't
care.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



Well, sorta. Laws get passed, the corps "find" legal loopholes for the laws
they permitted Congress to pass. Too much limelight for tobacco and
automobiles. But, they are still dragging their feet regarding gas mileage
requirements. Early Honda Civics (underpowered I admit) were getting real
50 mpg highway.
--
Dave

Dioclese wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Dioclese wrote:
"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
All farmers need to ban together and never buy anything from
them.
Some one needs to pass a law that if you are falsely accused you
get
1000 times your legal fees. Then tere would be plenty of big
firms
to help.


Someone. Who? Big corps own Congress and the Senate.

And this is why more and more restrictions get placed on tobacco
companies and automobile manufacturers and the like? Because they
_love_ being regulated?

The delegation
system used as part of voting is the thing of the past. A slap in
the face for the typical voter of today. Yet, the lemmings of
today
are typically ignorant of this. And, if they are aware, don't
care.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



Well, sorta. Laws get passed, the corps "find" legal loopholes for
the laws they permitted Congress to pass.

Why did they permit the laws to be passed at all if they own the
Congress (by the way, the Senate is part of Congress).

Too much limelight for
tobacco and automobiles.

So how does being widely publicized change anything?

But, they are still dragging their feet
regarding gas mileage requirements. Early Honda Civics
(underpowered
I admit) were getting real 50 mpg highway.

That was without all the safety crap that according to your hypothesis
the automobile manufacturers decided to enact laws to force themselves
to install. The best any Civic ever did was 52 EPA MPG highway. And
I really don't want to try to get on that highway when there's
significant truck traffic in anything with such poor acceleration.



--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:20:23 -0500, Charlie wrote:


Think Farm Bill and subsidies. Think Cargill, ADM, Monsatano. Think
any bills will get introduced, let alone passed with these criminals
helping run this country, and the world?

We would be better off to follow the advice of one of the founding
fathers.

Care
Charlie


perhaps these?

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

"Jan Flora" wrote in message
...
Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

Specifically, I would like to know exactly what Monsanto's patents are. If
its genetically engineered, how is that a patent? How can one patent a
lifeform, good or bad for the humankind? The link kind of said it, profit
is the goal. If the law allows it, they go for it. Lock in their patents,
and attack those who don't adhere.
Mother nature, here in S. TX ain't adhering either. Sprayed half the
dilution recommended roundup on a roadbase driveway in full sun, the native
foliage returned in less that 2 months. Also tried, at the same time in
different area of same driveway, recommended dilution similar results.
This, despite TX summer heat. Worse yet, for Monsanto, all is green in the
same treated driveway this spring despite the severe drought.

The solution for these locked-in farmers is simple, get seed from a
different source. Grow seed bearing crop intentionally for their own use.
Stop using roundup.
--
Dave

How about a tax to support any military conflict/police action over 3 months
old?

An actual war, we can do what's been done in the past.

Dioclese wrote:
"Jan Flora" wrote in message
...
Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

Specifically, I would like to know exactly what Monsanto's patents
are. If its genetically engineered, how is that a patent?

It's not that it's genetically engineered, it's that it's resistant to
Roundup or produces BT toxin or whatever.

How can
one patent a lifeform, good or bad for the humankind?

By going down to the patent office and filing a form.

The link kind
of said it, profit is the goal. If the law allows it, they go for
it. Lock in their patents, and attack those who don't adhere.
Mother nature, here in S. TX ain't adhering either. Sprayed half
the
dilution recommended roundup on a roadbase driveway in full sun, the
native foliage returned in less that 2 months.

Same plants or new ones from seed? Ordinary Roundup doesn't kill seed
in the soil and it doesn't kill roots. They have formulations that
will control weeds for up to 4 months and that will kill the root, but
those features aren't in the "normal" formulation. Try the one that
kills roots and the one that is good for 4 months and if those don't
work, _then_ complain.

Also tried, at the
same time in different area of same driveway, recommended dilution
similar results. This, despite TX summer heat. Worse yet, for
Monsanto, all is green in the same treated driveway this spring
despite the severe drought.

What makes you think that Roundup is supposed to prevent this? It
doesn't permantly render soil infertile you know. Seems to me that
you didn't bother to read the label on the product to find out what it
is and is not supposed to do. You spray it on a weed the weed may die
or may just die back to the root depending on the species and how well
established it is. Anything that tries to grow in the spot the weed
occupied, including another weed, will grow fine. If it rendered soil
infertile, which it would have to do to prevent the driveway from
being "green this spring", then it wouldn't be much use in preparing
fields for planting and every time you used it on a weed in a lawn
there would be a permanent hole in the location the weed had occupied.

Next time, after you use the Roundup, try planting something that will
displace the weeds.

The solution for these locked-in farmers is simple, get seed from a
different source. Grow seed bearing crop intentionally for their
own
use. Stop using roundup.

Stop making money as farmers who don't follow your suggestion undercut
your prices. Farmers aren't in business for fun you know--they have
bills to pay.

Somebody needs to toss some Monsanto soybeans or whatever into various
legislators' flowerbeds and then sic Monsanto on 'em.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Dioclese wrote:
"Jan Flora" wrote in message
...
Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

Specifically, I would like to know exactly what Monsanto's patents
are. If its genetically engineered, how is that a patent?

It's not that it's genetically engineered, it's that it's resistant to
Roundup or produces BT toxin or whatever.

How can
one patent a lifeform, good or bad for the humankind?

By going down to the patent office and filing a form.
Since 1970.

The link kind
of said it, profit is the goal. If the law allows it, they go for
it. Lock in their patents, and attack those who don't adhere.
Mother nature, here in S. TX ain't adhering either. Sprayed half
the
dilution recommended roundup on a roadbase driveway in full sun, the
native foliage returned in less that 2 months.

Same plants or new ones from seed? Ordinary Roundup doesn't kill seed
in the soil and it doesn't kill roots. They have formulations that
will control weeds for up to 4 months and that will kill the root, but
those features aren't in the "normal" formulation. Try the one that
kills roots and the one that is good for 4 months and if those don't
work, _then_ complain.

Also tried, at the
same time in different area of same driveway, recommended dilution
similar results. This, despite TX summer heat. Worse yet, for
Monsanto, all is green in the same treated driveway this spring
despite the severe drought.

What makes you think that Roundup is supposed to prevent this? It
doesn't permantly render soil infertile you know. Seems to me that
you didn't bother to read the label on the product to find out what it
is and is not supposed to do. You spray it on a weed the weed may die
or may just die back to the root depending on the species and how well
established it is. Anything that tries to grow in the spot the weed
occupied, including another weed, will grow fine. If it rendered soil
infertile, which it would have to do to prevent the driveway from
being "green this spring", then it wouldn't be much use in preparing
fields for planting and every time you used it on a weed in a lawn
there would be a permanent hole in the location the weed had occupied.

Next time, after you use the Roundup, try planting something that will
displace the weeds.
Try reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup...logical_impact
Glyphosate and the impurities are just more concerns as our "Body
Burden" of un-natural chemicals increase and we are left wondering just
what their synergistic affect on ourselves and our children are.
http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/

The solution for these locked-in farmers is simple, get seed from a
different source. Grow seed bearing crop intentionally for their
own
use. Stop using roundup.

Stop making money as farmers who don't follow your suggestion undercut
your prices. Farmers aren't in business for fun you know--they have
bills to pay.
The market for organic foods is growing dramatically. It is estimated
that organic sales of food products through supermarkets, mass
merchandisers and natural supermarkets was $3.6 billion in 2006 in the
U.S., double the figure in 2000. The Organic Trade Association estimates
that the total organic food and beverage sales were $13.8 billion in
2006 (Mintel Organic Foods, p.1). From 2004 through 2006, sales of
organic food through supermarkets, drug stores and mass merchandisers
(such as Wal-Mart) increased
2
by 38.4 percent (Mintel Organic Foods, p.31). Furthermore, it is
estimated that sales of organic foods will increase by 71 percent from
2006 through 2011. Clearly, organic food has become mainstream. For
example, out of 125 research and development professionals in the food
and beverage industries 61.4 percent desired increased natural or
organic ingredient innovations (Mintel, FPSA, p.33).
http://www.aec.msu.edu/Product/docum...ganicfood1.pdf

Somebody needs to toss some Monsanto soybeans or whatever into various
legislators' flowerbeds and then sic Monsanto on 'em.

--
The Revolution will not be Microwaved, p. 47

The Enola bean provides a clear example of biopiracy. In 1999 a U.S.
patent was issued for this bean, which was later proven to be
genetically identical to a preexisting Mexican yellow bean variety, one
that had been previously known and grown in the United States. But
meanwhile, yellow beans were stopped at the border, and the patent owner
filed lawsuits against seed companies providing this seed and farmers
growing this bean in the United States, charging patent infringement.
Following intervention from international agricultural institutions, the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviewed the patent, and after years of
study, in 2005 the patent was rejected. "The real crime is that, despite
the legal challenge, the U.S. patent system has allowed the patent owner
to use bureaucratic delays and diversion to legally extend his exclusive
monopoly on a bean variety of Mexican origin for over six years (and
potentially more)‹that's nearly one-third of the twenty-year patent
term," says ETC Group. "In essence, the system enables holders of unjust
patents to monopolize markets and destroy competition." And despite its
rejection, the Enola patent remains in force pending further appeal.
Plant and seed patents are no longer an issue of sovereign prerogative.
The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades
(1986-1994), in which the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created,
"set a milestone on the road towards the privatization of living
matter," observed the Biotechnology and Development Monitor. "It puts
developing countries under the obligation to protect plant varieties by
patents or by an alternative . . . system."" "The State is under siege,"
says Vandana Shiva. Seed patent laws are being forced on people
everywhere by the WTO. The WTO's 1994 Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) treaty requires new intellectual
property rights in the area of plant genetic resources. "Free trade"
demands it.
--

Billy

Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/

An actual war, we can do what's been done in the past.
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Dioclese wrote:
"Jan Flora" wrote in message
...
Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

Specifically, I would like to know exactly what Monsanto's patents
are. If its genetically engineered, how is that a patent?

It's not that it's genetically engineered, it's that it's resistant to
Roundup or produces BT toxin or whatever.

How can
one patent a lifeform, good or bad for the humankind?

By going down to the patent office and filing a form.

The link kind
of said it, profit is the goal. If the law allows it, they go for
it. Lock in their patents, and attack those who don't adhere.
Mother nature, here in S. TX ain't adhering either. Sprayed half
the
dilution recommended roundup on a roadbase driveway in full sun, the
native foliage returned in less that 2 months.

Same plants or new ones from seed? Ordinary Roundup doesn't kill seed
in the soil and it doesn't kill roots. They have formulations that
will control weeds for up to 4 months and that will kill the root, but
those features aren't in the "normal" formulation. Try the one that
kills roots and the one that is good for 4 months and if those don't
work, _then_ complain.

Also tried, at the
same time in different area of same driveway, recommended dilution
similar results. This, despite TX summer heat. Worse yet, for
Monsanto, all is green in the same treated driveway this spring
despite the severe drought.

What makes you think that Roundup is supposed to prevent this? It
doesn't permantly render soil infertile you know. Seems to me that
you didn't bother to read the label on the product to find out what it
is and is not supposed to do. You spray it on a weed the weed may die
or may just die back to the root depending on the species and how well
established it is. Anything that tries to grow in the spot the weed
occupied, including another weed, will grow fine. If it rendered soil
infertile, which it would have to do to prevent the driveway from
being "green this spring", then it wouldn't be much use in preparing
fields for planting and every time you used it on a weed in a lawn
there would be a permanent hole in the location the weed had occupied.

Next time, after you use the Roundup, try planting something that will
displace the weeds.

The solution for these locked-in farmers is simple, get seed from a
different source. Grow seed bearing crop intentionally for their
own
use. Stop using roundup.

Stop making money as farmers who don't follow your suggestion undercut
your prices. Farmers aren't in business for fun you know--they have
bills to pay.

Somebody needs to toss some Monsanto soybeans or whatever into various
legislators' flowerbeds and then sic Monsanto on 'em.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



Would hardly classify Roundup as a true herbicide. Rather, a renewablely
needed product to temporarily eradicate most foliage. Otherwise known as a
racket, gimmick. But, only a Monsanto stock holder would do a reply as
yours.
--
Dave

Dioclese wrote:
An actual war, we can do what's been done in the past.
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Dioclese wrote:
"Jan Flora" wrote in message
...
Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

Specifically, I would like to know exactly what Monsanto's patents
are. If its genetically engineered, how is that a patent?

It's not that it's genetically engineered, it's that it's resistant
to Roundup or produces BT toxin or whatever.

How can
one patent a lifeform, good or bad for the humankind?

By going down to the patent office and filing a form.

The link kind
of said it, profit is the goal. If the law allows it, they go for
it. Lock in their patents, and attack those who don't adhere.
Mother nature, here in S. TX ain't adhering either. Sprayed half
the
dilution recommended roundup on a roadbase driveway in full sun,
the
native foliage returned in less that 2 months.

Same plants or new ones from seed? Ordinary Roundup doesn't kill
seed in the soil and it doesn't kill roots. They have formulations
that will control weeds for up to 4 months and that will kill the
root, but those features aren't in the "normal" formulation. Try
the one that kills roots and the one that is good for 4 months and
if those don't work, _then_ complain.

Also tried, at the
same time in different area of same driveway, recommended dilution
similar results. This, despite TX summer heat. Worse yet, for
Monsanto, all is green in the same treated driveway this spring
despite the severe drought.

What makes you think that Roundup is supposed to prevent this? It
doesn't permantly render soil infertile you know. Seems to me that
you didn't bother to read the label on the product to find out what
it is and is not supposed to do. You spray it on a weed the weed
may die or may just die back to the root depending on the species
and how well established it is. Anything that tries to grow in the
spot the weed occupied, including another weed, will grow fine. If
it rendered soil infertile, which it would have to do to prevent
the
driveway from being "green this spring", then it wouldn't be much
use in preparing fields for planting and every time you used it on
a
weed in a lawn there would be a permanent hole in the location the
weed had occupied.

Next time, after you use the Roundup, try planting something that
will displace the weeds.

The solution for these locked-in farmers is simple, get seed from
a
different source. Grow seed bearing crop intentionally for their
own
use. Stop using roundup.

Stop making money as farmers who don't follow your suggestion
undercut your prices. Farmers aren't in business for fun you
know--they have bills to pay.

Somebody needs to toss some Monsanto soybeans or whatever into
various legislators' flowerbeds and then sic Monsanto on 'em.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



Would hardly classify Roundup as a true herbicide. Rather, a
renewablely needed product to temporarily eradicate most foliage.
Otherwise known as a racket, gimmick. But, only a Monsanto stock
holder would do a reply as yours.

Since you choose to make a snotty personal attack, I'm done with you.
plonk

By the way, wipe the foam off your mouth and try some lead foil in
your hat, the tin isn't working.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Dioclese wrote:
An actual war, we can do what's been done in the past.
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Dioclese wrote:
"Jan Flora" wrote in message
...
Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

Specifically, I would like to know exactly what Monsanto's patents
are. If its genetically engineered, how is that a patent?

It's not that it's genetically engineered, it's that it's resistant
to Roundup or produces BT toxin or whatever.

How can
one patent a lifeform, good or bad for the humankind?

By going down to the patent office and filing a form.

The link kind
of said it, profit is the goal. If the law allows it, they go for
it. Lock in their patents, and attack those who don't adhere.
Mother nature, here in S. TX ain't adhering either. Sprayed half
the
dilution recommended roundup on a roadbase driveway in full sun,
the
native foliage returned in less that 2 months.

Same plants or new ones from seed? Ordinary Roundup doesn't kill
seed in the soil and it doesn't kill roots. They have formulations
that will control weeds for up to 4 months and that will kill the
root, but those features aren't in the "normal" formulation. Try
the one that kills roots and the one that is good for 4 months and
if those don't work, _then_ complain.

Also tried, at the
same time in different area of same driveway, recommended dilution
similar results. This, despite TX summer heat. Worse yet, for
Monsanto, all is green in the same treated driveway this spring
despite the severe drought.

What makes you think that Roundup is supposed to prevent this? It
doesn't permantly render soil infertile you know. Seems to me that
you didn't bother to read the label on the product to find out what
it is and is not supposed to do. You spray it on a weed the weed
may die or may just die back to the root depending on the species
and how well established it is. Anything that tries to grow in the
spot the weed occupied, including another weed, will grow fine. If
it rendered soil infertile, which it would have to do to prevent
the
driveway from being "green this spring", then it wouldn't be much
use in preparing fields for planting and every time you used it on
a
weed in a lawn there would be a permanent hole in the location the
weed had occupied.

Next time, after you use the Roundup, try planting something that
will displace the weeds.

The solution for these locked-in farmers is simple, get seed from
a
different source. Grow seed bearing crop intentionally for their
own
use. Stop using roundup.

Stop making money as farmers who don't follow your suggestion
undercut your prices. Farmers aren't in business for fun you
know--they have bills to pay.

Somebody needs to toss some Monsanto soybeans or whatever into
various legislators' flowerbeds and then sic Monsanto on 'em.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



Would hardly classify Roundup as a true herbicide. Rather, a
renewablely needed product to temporarily eradicate most foliage.
Otherwise known as a racket, gimmick. But, only a Monsanto stock
holder would do a reply as yours.

Since you choose to make a snotty personal attack, I'm done with you.
plonk

By the way, wipe the foam off your mouth and try some lead foil in
your hat, the tin isn't working.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



As I would expect from a Monsanto stockholder to reply...
--
Dave

I wonder if this is what is killing the bee's?