It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I watched the entire interview a bit ago as it was rerun on television and Paul's justificiation confused me. This claim that the free market would prevent people from running racist business seems to ignore the history of the United States. As Chris points out, it happened before and no one seemed to care how green the money black people had was. What was the difference between then and now other than the laws Paul wants to take back?
I am not trying to be confrontational. I have no real opinion of Paul as of yet but as I watched it, I felt like we were going in circles. He said the civil rights act is not needed because of the success of the civil rights act. That confused me.
Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser
...judge dealt a crushing blow to Farmers' Rights by ruling that Percy Schmeiser, a third generation Saskatchewan farmer, must pay Monsanto thousands of dollars for violating the corporation's monopoly patent on genetically engineered (GE) canola seed....
Percy Schmeiser did not buy Monsanto's patented seed, nor did he obtain the seed illegally. Pollen from genetically engineered canola seeds blew onto his land from neighboring farms. (Percy Schmeiser's neighbors and an estimated 40% of farmers in Western Canada grow GE canola). Monsanto's GE canola genes invaded Schmeiser's farm without his consent. Shortly thereafter, Monsanto's "gene police" invaded his farm and took seed samples without his permission. Percy Schmeiser was a victim of genetic pollution from GE crops--but the court says he must now pay Monsanto US$10,000 for licensing fees and up to US$75,000 in profits from his 1998 crop.... www.ghorganics.com...
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant...
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's protections do not apply when the searched party lacks a "reasonable expectation of privacy".en.wikipedia.org...
....The seed cleaner is the man who makes sustainable agriculture possible.
So, Monsanto is picking off seed cleaners now across the Midwest, in Missouri,
...now in Illinois where they are going after Steve Hixon.
Shortly after someone broke into Mr. Hixon's office and he found his account book on his truck seat where he would never have left it, evrey one of his remotely located and very scattered customers had three men (described as goons with "no necks") arrived at each farm, going out onto it without permission..... Mr. Hixon and state police who were called in, believe a GPS tracking device may have been put on Mr. Hixon's equipment. All of his customers being sued and are being intensely pressured to settle, with the men coming back again and again and with daily calls and letters. It appears they are being a choice between being sued or settling out of court or testifying against him that he encouraged them to clean GE-seeds.... www.opednews.com...
“One of my biggest concerns is what biotechnology has in store for family farmers”, said Dan Glickman, former Secretary of Agriculture under Bill Clinton, in his well-known speech on 13 July 1999, causing a good deal of irritation to his colleagues in the US Department of Trade. “We’re already seeing a heated argument over who owns what. Companies are suing companies over patent rights even as they merge. Farmers have been pitted against their neighbors in efforts to protect corporate intellectual property rights….. Contracts with farmers need to be fair and not result in a system that reduces farmers to mere serfs on the land.” 
The former Secretary of Agriculture was referring to Monsanto’s policy of protecting its GM technology through patents that ensure the company has total control not just over its seeds but also over the farmers who use them. When Monsanto’s researchers invented the “genetic cassette” which allowed the creation of RoundUp-resistant crops, the firm filed a patent in the US that gives it a monopoly on production of the technology until 2014. The company also introduced its “Technology Use Agreement” (TUA), a usage clause that allows it to dictate to farmers. The clause requires the payment of a “technology tax”, collected via specified seed merchants to whom the farmers must sell their crops, and also, importantly, an agreement not to save seed for use the following year. Added to this is a clause compelling “clients” to use only Monsanto’s RoundUp, and not any of the many generic alternatives on the market, after the expiry of its patent in the year 2000.
The “Enserfment” of Farmers by Monsanto
It’s essential to understand how this patenting system for biotech and its unprecedented clauses are fundamental to Monsanto’s control of the agricultural sector. The Technology Use Agreement is one in which Monsanto has all the rights, giving it control over the farmers, and hence Dan Glickman’s reference to “serfs on the land”. To illustrate this power, one only has to look a little closer at the agreement, in which one of the clauses specifies that: “If Monsanto reasonably believes that a grower has planted saved seed containing a Monsanto genetic trait, Monsanto will request invoices or otherwise confirm that fields in question have been planted with newly purchased seed. If this information is not provided within 30 days, Monsanto may inspect and test all of the grower’s fields to determine if saved cottonseed has been planted.”  But behind these politically correct phrases a much more aggressive reality is hidden, which has made Monsanto very unpopular among its own clients....
Witch hunt in the American countryside
...In November 2004, the Center for Food Safety in Washington published a report titled “Monsanto vs US Farmers”, a very well-researched document which confirmed the existence of what are known in North America as the “gene police”, effectively provided by the Pinkerton agency in the US and the Robinson agency in Canada.  It also revealed that since 1998, Monsanto had been carrying out a veritable witch hunt across the American prairies, leading to “Thousands of investigations, nearly 100 lawsuits and numerous bankruptcies”. 
..... Mendelson added that “no farmer is safe from Monsanto’s brutal investigations and implacable legal actions: some farmers have been accused after their fields were contaminated by pollen or GM seed from a neighbour’s field; or when “volunteer seed” left over from a previous crop had germinated in the following year, in the middle of a non-GM crop; some of them had never signed up to a contract for the technology at all. In all of these cases, because of the way in which the law on the patents is applied, all the farmers were considered to be technically responsible”.
....When Monsanto’s agents investigate possible offenders, they use bullying methods which are not at all appreciated by farmers, for example they come onto the farmers’ own land to threaten them or station agents outside the farmers’ homes, sometimes for several days at a time, as described by Percy Schmeiser (see the article above – Canada - The case of Schmeiser v Monsanto). These snooping agents don’t hesitate to impersonate official agricultural bodies in order to take samples of suspect crops, and if they can’t get away with that, they sneak onto the farmers’ private property illegally. People who are victims of genetic pollution therefore find themselves harassed by “Monsanto’s militia” who threaten them with hugely expensive legal action.... www.combat-monsanto.co.uk...
Also RP wasn't talking about race when he was mentioning that stuff he was talking about property rights as I stated above.. If i owned a business and wanted to put a sign up stating that no black people or Chinese people or Mexicans cant come into my shop I am able to do this because of my property rights that I have.. I can put no people with shaved heads, or no people who where green tights or someone who has writes with their right hand cant enter my store.. This is property rights.. not racism....
Originally posted by rcanem
This almost funny, everyone screaming that the government should do this or that, they can't just take away the laws what will we ever do? Ron Paul isn't saying that the laws shouldn't be there but that it is the State government not the federal government that should be the one to regulate such things. He is giving the power back to the local governments and getting the federal government back on the right track. We don't need somone in Washington D.C. deciding what we need in Sometown, USA. we need the local government to take care of local people. If one state passes a law that another finds it doesn't like or need then they don't have to ratify it or pass the same law. What may work in one part of the country may actually be detrimental to another. Let the local governments decide what is best, they are the ones that have the most to loose if they fail to to please the people of that region. So technically Ron Paul is restoring the power to the people.
end of rant.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Chris did make up a good argument on how some heroin addicted parents could go on like that forever, so there needs to be measures put in place to protect any children from class A drug addictions...otherwise, ya...let the people choose their path to happiness.
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
This is truly US Political Madness, either at it's finest or at it's worst I can't decide
I've seen MSNBC use the racist card way too often
I had posted a thread a while ago about someone on MSNBC saying "Some call Obama a socialist, socialist has become the new codeword for the N word"
Unbelievable, too much demagoguery on MSNBC
Chris is going to have a hard time sitting down on this one
And I disagree with his last statement "This is hardball it's what we do"
No it's not what you do, it's what you do to conservatives not with liberals that you want in office
I'm not trying to bring partisanship in this amazing message, but MSNBC is MSNBC
Originally posted by nvprose1
are the drug Reps for these companies paying for doctors, or asserting some other kind of influence to them so they will prescribe these new drug to patients...?
Originally posted by Cuervo
When Chris Mathews mentioned that laundromat with the "whites only" sign on it... did you think that might have just been a sign talking about laundry?
When it comes to laundry, color separation is important.