It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Monsanto announced plans to sue Maui, Hawaii after voteres passed a moratorium on GMO

page: 3
89
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




The "public's will" is a funny thing. It kept blacks out of a lot of places for a long time, kept them in chains. It kept women from voting. We are not a pure democracy for good reason.


Perhaps...but it's a slippery slope into a giant pit of distopia when a government that is supposed to be "for/of/by the people" gets too comfortable overturning the things the people actually DO get to vote on




posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: coldkidc


but it's a slippery slope into a giant pit of distopia when a government that is supposed to be "for/of/by the people" gets too comfortable overturning the things the people actually DO get to vote on

It's a slippery slope when anything the majority (especially a very slim one) wants becomes law.

edit on 11/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: Phage




The "public's will" is a funny thing. It kept blacks out of a lot of places for a long time, kept them in chains. It kept women from voting. We are not a pure democracy for good reason.


Perhaps...but it's a slippery slope into a giant pit of distopia when a government that is supposed to be "for/of/by the people" gets too comfortable overturning the things the people actually DO get to vote on


Governments are not for their people. They once were, until they were bought out.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ShadowChatter

If your not a democracy then why do you get to vote?

I'm not american. I live in a Democratic country ,Canada.

Isn't voting a democratic thing?

Why would you live in a country that is not a democracy.. You may as well should live in a dictatorship or communist country then. If your vote/opinion means nothing then it seems to me that america is not #1, frankly america is sounding more like China every day. You guys have no say in anything down there its so sad..



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: snypwsd


I live in a Democratic country ,Canada.
You live in a representative democracy, like the USA. A place where a majority cannot easily extend its will over a minority.

Canadian citizens normally elect someone to represent them in making decisions at the different levels of government. This is called a representative democracy. Countries like Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom all have representative democracies.

www.parl.gc.ca...

edit on 11/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
A corporation suing a city for not wanting the corporation's toxic products in their city. There are no words.
Maui

How do we stop Monsanto? Is it too late?


I would say it's too late, Lucidity-- because the security
details for Monsanto executives and major players are
all better than Obama's at any given time and place.

A lot better. I've eyeballed a major stockholder meeting
and it looked like the BIlderbergers were in town...
there must be a reason and I think they're worried we
might operate like they do.

Hell I don't think anybody wants to physically bust them up:
I sure don't. I want to expose them all and throw away d'key.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: derfreebie

Monsanto understands that if they can control the food production, they control the population. Unless this legal action leads to riots in Maui, there is nothing the courts can do to stop Monsanto in my opinion. The US Supreme Court has sided with Monsanto over the small farmer.

Very few are willing to see what Monsanto is doing. The have bought our elected officials and judges, they sue their competition and dissidents into submission. They are part of the Oligarchy and it seems like resistance is futile, especially when the population is ignorant of their ways and easily manipulated by the propaganda and dis-information they put out.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I found Anthony Gucciardi's coverage of this excellent; there's a lot here; Monsanto has been dropping millions to fight back and best news of all, their profits are going belly up which may just make the investors rethink where they keep their money:

Natural Society



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod


Monsanto understands that if they can control the food production, they control the population.
They don't control food production. They sell a product that farmers like to buy.




The US Supreme Court has sided with Monsanto over the small farmer.

What small farmer? The ones who have been growing GMO papayas, corn, and squash on Maui and would have to stop if this moratorium is upheld?



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm aware the islands are not once they once were and have been changed by agricultural interests forever.
But I hardly think that's a valid reason to risk everything that survived the first wave of American interests.
What those risks are exactly we don't know, it could be nothing or it could be catastrophic. Monsanto isn't going to invest the money or time to do real studies to examine those effects either.
You know as well as anyone that small, contained ecosystems like the Hawaiian islands are very fragile and even small changes will have their effects magnified.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yep. Pretty obvious what side of the fence you are on.

You twisted my words around to make it sound like my reasoning is flawed.

This is exactly what Monsanto wants to do, to control food production. They know what they are doing.

The small farmers I wrote about are the ones who were sued out of existence thanks to natural cross polinization with Monsanto's GMO plants. The US Supreme Court sided with Monsanto pretty much saying the offspring from the cross polinization of neighboring farms was Monsanto property and preventing farmers from storing the seeds they grew for next years crop. Instead seeds are to be purchased from Monsanto along with the fertilizers and pesticides that go with them. This happened years ago.

Monsanto has destroyed the family farm in the US!
edit on 16-11-2014 by jrod because: ad



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals




What those risks are exactly we don't know, it could be nothing or it could be catastrophic. Monsanto isn't going to invest the money or time to do real studies to examine those effects either.

Maybe not. Because the terms of the moratorium cannot be met, it's pointless. It cannot be proven that GM crops would have no environmental impact. Why is there no requirement that non GM crops have to meet the same requirements? Are you saying they do not had a large environmental impact?



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

You twisted my words around to make it sound like my reasoning is flawed.
I didn't twist your words.



This is exactly what Monsanto wants to do, to control food production.
No, they don't. They want to sell a product that farmers will buy. That's why they're entering the organic food market as well. Is that also evil?


The US Supreme Court sided with Monsanto pretty much saying the offspring from the cross polinization of neighboring farms was Monsanto property.
No, the SCOTUS did not say anything like that.

edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes they did!

I do not feel like finding the ruling because it is late and it is futile to attempt to engage in a debate with someone like you. It is there, perhaps someone else will dig it up.

I suggest you watch Food Inc..



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod




I do not feel like finding the ruling because it is late

Or, because you won't find it.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

How do you stop it? YOU don't but you and your neighbours can. see
goto earthjustice.org...

They stopped the oil and gas - now you need to help by sending your dollars to help support worthy causes.

There isn't 1 billionaire that will help you fight but the might be a million or more that will give a $100 to fight.

Try it -- never know you might save the world 1 acre, 1 town, 1 municipality at a time.




edit on 16-11-2014 by puzzled2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by
hage
No, the SCOTUS did not say anything like that.


This was easy to find:

Bowman v. Monsanto , the decision was made in March of 2013.

rt.com...


​The US Supreme Court upheld biotech giant Monsanto’s claims on genetically-engineered seed patents and the company’s ability to sue farmers whose fields are inadvertently contaminated with Monsanto materials.

The high court left intact Monday a federal appeals court decision that threw out a 2011 lawsuit from the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and over 80 other plaintiffs against Monsanto that sought to challenge the agrochemical company’s aggressive claims on patents of genetically-modified seeds. The suit also aimed to curb Monsanto from suing anyone whose field is contaminated by such seeds.


You just lost all credibility on this thread Phage!
edit on 16-11-2014 by jrod because: add



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No, they don't. They want to sell a product that farmers will buy. That's why they're entering the organic food market as well. Is that also evil?

cmon give me break......monsanto care about profits and their shareholders...they do not care about peoples health nor the health of the eco-systems on this planet....and as far as farmers wanting the product they did for a time when it was sold to them as gold but they are turning away from that and have for years because traditional practices are more profitable...we have had this conversation before



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod
Yes. I am aware of Bowman. There was no cross-pollination involved.
Bowman bought and replanted Monsanto soybeans. That is a clear patent violation.

But for a second planting, which Bowman said is riskier because of the weather, he said it would not be cost-effective to pay Monsanto’s premium.

So instead he bought commodity soybeans, which are usually used for feed, from the local grain elevator. He believed those beans would also be Roundup Ready because about 90 percent of soybeans grown in the country are. Bowman acknowledged that he did save seed from those crops and bought more commodity beans for subsequent plantings.

www.washingtonpost.com... 9a31f9_story.html



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

monsanto care about profits and their shareholders
Yes. That is why they want to produce a product that farmers will buy.


and as far as farmers wanting the product they did for a time when it was sold to them as gold but they are turning away from that and have for years because traditional practices are more profitable
That depends on the scale of the operation. Traditional practices don't scale up to millions of acres. But yes, Monsanto is interested in "traditional" markets as well. Working on varieties that organic farmers will want to buy.
www.wired.com...



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join