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.

 

Freedom watch: Not a single Democrat voted in favor of ending FDA raids on raw milk farmers

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
i suppose it boils down to an age old "it's not the job of the government to keep the people from falling off a cliff, but the job of the people to keep the government from falling off a cliff." i know someone wrote something to that degree and it holds true today more than ever.




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
Sorry...that wasn't nice if your question is sincere, I'm sorry. To say the reason for the bill didn't mention "raw milk" specifacilly is missing the point I think. Small dairy farms are directly in harm's way by this unreasonable "power" from the FDA...that is the point I think....


The Headline of the article : Freedom watch: Not a single Democrat voted in favor of ending FDA raids on raw milk farmers

Natural News is sensationalist crap that actually kills your brain cells.

thomas.loc.gov...:SP02143:

thomas.loc.gov...:./temp/~r112Mil4Ch
edit on 26-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)


Geez what part of the headline is untruthful? Fact: there have been armed raids on raw milk farmers and distributors. Rands amendments seeks to legalize raw milk along with other things on a federal level which will quash such raids. It seems you are the only one falling to utilize brain cells here. Are you chewing gum? Maybe if you spit out your gum out you could put two and two together and figure it out...



edit on 26-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


The Headline of the article : Freedom watch: Not a single Democrat voted in favor of ending FDA raids on raw milk farmers

Natural News is sensationalist crap that actually kills your brain cells.


No, its the flouride in your tap water that's responsible for all the dead brain cells.

ENDING ARMED FDA RAIDS is the subject. Do you deny that heavily armed FDA swat teams have been raiding raw milk producers, along with hog growers in Michigan and organic vegetable and fruit growers? Do you feel ARMED SWAT TEAMS are needed to protect you from people who don't think its a good idea to drink milk or eat processed foods that have been produced on factory farms that have been tapped repeatedly for safety violations and unsanitary conditions and transported hundreds of miles to your grocery store in tin cans and plastic bottles?

www.foodsafetynews.com...

Incidentally, there is nothing in the legislation that would force you to eat or drink any naturally grown product ~ nature being such a frightful threat to your natural self and all.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Something doesn't seem right here. Out of all of the the U.S. Senate why did only 15 people vote on this?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
The sensationalist headline didn't mention that the Republicans also didn't vote for this, overwhelmingly BOTH parties rejected this proposal, which received ONLY 15 VOTES.

The part of the proposal that would "end FDA raids on raw milk farmers" isn't the disturbing part of this proposal either. The part that got this amendment rejected was the removal of any laws governing the labeling of food stuffs and vitamins. We have enough bogus crackpots selling snake oil out there, this would give them total impunity to make any wild claims about their product under the "freedom of speech" act.


"My Amendment has three parts, first, it attempts to stop the FDA's overzealous regulation of vitamins, food and supplements by codifying the First Amendment's prohibition on prior restraint. What do I mean by that? The First Amendment says you can't prevent speech, even commercial speech, in advance of this speech. You can't tell Cheerios that they can't say that there is a health benefit to their Cheerios . . "


Rand Paul says mislabeled bad milk is Free Speech, accurate FDA label laws are censorship


Watch Senator Rand Paul try to end the FDA's ability label to accurately label food. That's right, food labels that are accurate are unconstitutional. The logic behind this is an insane rant that could come out of an Adam Sandler movie. Rand Paul is an awesome senator if you are a business or a businessman, if you are people, and I mean flesh and bone people, Senator Rand Paul is about as useful as trying to block sunburn with Capri Sun. Case in point . . .

Senator Rand Paul offered an Amendment to an FDA Bill yesterday that would end the FDA, that evil food and drug regulatory body that is restricting our constitutional freedoms, man. Your freedom to drink things and not know what is in them is at stake. Your freedom to sell products and put whatever you want on the packaging is slowly fading away.


Paul just went way overboard with this amendment. He could have made a simple proposal to exempt Amish farmers from FDA regulations and provided some criteria for how to do so, without putting all that nonsense about removing the FDA's ability to regulate food labels or that stuff about mens rea protection. This is one case where the Democrats AND a majority of Republicans acted for the public good.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by gorgi
Such a biased article and a biased news source.
Raw milk should say banned as it is.


Such an ignorant biased post. Many would say it is just a troll post or a drive by. Raw milk is not banned in most states, so much for you having any credibility.


Oh and by the way nice evidence to support your lie er ah I mean contention that the article and source are biased.



edit on 26-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


Yuor reasoning is is that if some states okay it then the fed govt should allow it to? It doesnt work like that.And besides raw milk is very unhealthy, it should be banned out right.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure corporate dairy operations have better lobbyists than organic farmers.

There is risk in consuming raw dairy, but this is America, we're supposed to be free to make these decisions.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Geez what part of the headline is untruthful?
Rands amendments seeks to legalize raw milk


No, it does NOT seek to legalize raw milk.
Please, will you monkeys stop being so damn lazy and actually go read the amendment.

link




Originally posted by hawkiye
It seems you are the only one falling to utilize brain cells here.


Taking the time to actually read the original amendment rather than take the naturalnews lies is most certainly using brain cells.
Being lazy, is not.

Once again,. yet again, I urge people to go read the actual amendment and realise for themselves how naturalnews has just tugged your chain, yet again, in the name of sensationalism.
And you fell for it.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Your post was wonderful and very wise,,,,,,,loved it....


The OP said in the beginning of this thread that both Democrats and Republicans rejected this bill...for me. why it would be relevant that Democrats, especially rejected this bill, is that the "Democrats" were thought to be on the "side" of the "working class" American, and I believe this absolutely goes against any "illusion" we ever had that the Democratic party is on the side of the "people"

LOL...anyways....I am an ex-democrat...I support Ron Paul...and it makes me smile, his kid had the "guts" to make a stand against this nonsence....I can't wait to hear Ron Paul debate Obama, and if there is any justice left in this world, this will come to pass......♥
edit on 27-5-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You've been sucked in by Mike Adams' sensationalized rubbish.

He has an agenda here, I'm not sure what it is yet but he's been caught lying and hiding facts to further this agenda...

Be wary of the lies he spews.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
I read the article you provided and it actually convinced me even more that this bill should have passed. The FDA is corrupt, and I do want thier "power" reined in.


IMHO, Rand Paul should resubmit this, but in separate parts, starting, for example with the part about disarming the FDA, but only that part by itself.
There may be many who like parts of that bill, but not other parts.


It was also to disarm DHHS. WTH do the FDA and Department of Health need paramilitary groups for? His bill should also include the Department of Education, who also have their own SWAT team.

/TOA



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
BTW, if you want to write a letter to your Senator, here is the list of who voted how:

Rand Paul Amendment to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Raiding Farms Fails, 78-15

The amendment was tabled, which is to say "we'll leave it in limbo until it rots". Here is how the voting went (YEAs voted to table it):

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---78
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blunt (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---15
Ayotte (R-NH)
Boozman (R-AR)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 7
Akaka (D-HI)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Heller (R-NV)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kirk (R-IL)
Stabenow (D-MI)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


You fail at critical thought and honesty, as well as reading comprehension. When it was pointed out that this proposed amendment made ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF THE WORD MILK OR RAW MILK, you claimed the article didnt mention milk, EVEN THOUGH ITS IN THE HEADLINE and the OP repeatedly claims it is.

Again, you CLEARLY didnt take the time to read the amendment in question.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Ok, so tried to open both links you posted, both were unavailable, sooo not feeling your "motives" here?


Try again:

CLICK HERE: ENTIRE TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT WHICH DOSNT CONTAIN THE WORD MILK ANYWHERE IN IT


edit on 27-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Rands amendments seeks to legalize raw milk along with other things on a federal level which will quash such raids.


Again, below is the link to the entire amendment. Please prove your above claim by citing the part that refers to milk.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE AMENDMENT. THE WORD MILK DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE AMENDMENT AT ALL AND IF YOU READ IT YOU WOULD KNOW THAT

edit on 27-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Since many cant seem to do a thomas.goc search to save their life, here is the text of the amendment. Note the word milk never appears anywhere in it.:


TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - May 22, 2012) [Page: S3429] --- SA 2127. Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) submitted an [Page: S3430] amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3187, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and medical devices, to establish user-fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of title XI, add the following: SEC. 11__. REGISTRATION OF FACILITIES WITH RESPECT TO DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS. (a) In General.--Section 415(a) (21 U.S.C. 350d(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(6) REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS.-- ``(A) IN GENERAL.--A facility engaged in the manufacturing processing, packing, or holding of dietary supplements that is required to register under this section shall comply with the requirements of this paragraph, in addition to the other requirements of this section. ``(B) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.--A facility described in subparagraph (A) shall submit a registration under paragraph (1) that includes, in addition to the information required under paragraph (2)-- ``(i) a description of each dietary supplement product manufactured by such facility; ``(ii) a list of all ingredients in each such dietary supplement product; and ``(iii) a copy of the label and labeling for each such product. ``(C) REGISTRATION WITH RESPECT TO NEW, REFORMULATED, AND DISCONTINUED DIETARY SUPPLEMENT PRODUCTS.-- ``(i) IN GENERAL.--Not later than the date described in clause (ii), if a facility described in subparagraph (A)-- ``(I) manufactures a dietary supplement product that the facility previously did not manufacture and for which the facility did not submit the information required under clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); ``(II) reformulates a dietary supplement product for which the facility previously submitted the information required under clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); or ``(III) no longer manufactures a dietary supplement for which the facility previously submitted the information required under clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B), such facility shall submit to the Secretary an updated registration describing the change described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) and, in the case of a facility described in subclause (I) or (II), containing the information required under clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B). ``(ii) DATE DESCRIBED.--The date described in this clause is-- ``(I) in the case of a facility described in subclause (I) of clause (i), 30 days after the date on which such facility first markets the dietary supplement product described in such subclause; ``(II) in the case of a facility described in subclause (II) of clause (i), 30 days after the date on which such facility first markets the reformulated dietary supplement product described in such subclause; or ``(III) in the case of a facility described in subclause (III) of clause (i), 30 days after the date on which such facility removes the dietary supplement product described in such subclause from the market.''. (b) Enforcement.--Section 403 (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(z) If it is a dietary supplement for which a facility is required to submit the registration information required under section 415(a)(6) and such facility has not complied with the requirements of such section 415(a)(6) with respect to such dietary supplement.''. SA 2128. Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 3187, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and medical devices, to establish user-fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of title IX, add the following: SEC. 9__. PATIENT MEDICATION INFORMATION FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Cody Miller Initiative for Safer Prescriptions Act''. (b) Patient Medication Information for Prescription Drugs.--Chapter V (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 505E, as added by this Act, the following: ``SEC. 505F. PATIENT MEDICATION INFORMATION FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. ``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue regulations regarding the authorship,


ENTIRE TEXT OF AMENDMENT HERE
edit on 27-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by frazzle
 


You fail at critical thought and honesty, as well as reading comprehension. When it was pointed out that this proposed amendment made ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF THE WORD MILK OR RAW MILK, you claimed the article didnt mention milk, EVEN THOUGH ITS IN THE HEADLINE and the OP repeatedly claims it is.

Again, you CLEARLY didnt take the time to read the amendment in question.


We already got that you don't like Mike Adams, so how about you write up your own PROPER headline and fax it over to him so he can change it to your satisfaction. Then maybe you can stop with the trollish repetition and tell us what your problem with the legislation really is.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Actually, I ave no problem with raw milk. I'm drinking raw milk. Right now. Seriously.

My contention is with the claims that this amendment has to do with raw milk. Despite what the poorly-sourced article claims, Paul's proposed amendment had nothing to do with raw milk. In fact, the word 'milk' is not anywhere in the amendment. I suspect thats why the author if the cited article gives no link to the amendment, but, lucky for you, I have, below:

Again, please show me the part of the proposed amendment that makes any mention of milk, raw or otherwise.

heres the entire text of said amendment
edit on 27-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by frazzle
 


Your post was wonderful and very wise,,,,,,,loved it....


The OP said in the beginning of this thread that both Democrats and Republicans rejected this bill...for me. why it would be relevant that Democrats, especially rejected this bill, is that the "Democrats" were thought to be on the "side" of the "working class" American, and I believe this absolutely goes against any "illusion" we ever had that the Democratic party is on the side of the "people"

LOL...anyways....I am an ex-democrat...I support Ron Paul...and it makes me smile, his kid had the "guts" to make a stand against this nonsence....I can't wait to hear Ron Paul debate Obama, and if there is any justice left in this world, this will come to pass......♥
edit on 27-5-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)


I give a senator's (or representative's) party affiliation far less credence than who his primary campaign donors are, even though they make it so easy to look like its all based on the letter behind their names. Republicans and Democrats alike represent the corporations that make their stay in office so lucrative and that isn't the working class. Never was and never will be and they keep getting away with it because people can't see past the empty promises and lies while they're munching down on high fructose corn syrup and MSG. But you'd think the regulators would get dizzy from all that swinging through the revolving door between big ag, big oil, big pharma, big insurance and government.

I've tried out every party in existence over time and now I'm a charter member of the Party of NO and as such, I also support Ron Paul.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by frazzle
 


Actually, I ave no problem with raw milk. I'm drinking raw milk. Right now. Seriously.

My contention is with the claims that this amendment has to do with raw milk. Despite what the poorly-sourced article claims, Paul's proposed amendment had nothing to do with raw milk. In fact, the word 'milk' is not anywhere in the amendment. I suspect thats why the author if the cited article gives no link to the amendment, but, lucky for you, I have, below:

Again, please show me the part of the proposed amendment that makes any mention of milk, raw or otherwise.

heres the entire text of said amendment
edit on 27-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)


What if one considers milk a dietary supplement, which IS mentioned in the legislation repeatedly.

That kind of reminds me of an incident when drinking a large quantity of milk to counteract the effects of an accidental overdose of flouride in a young child was recommended to me by a POISON CONTROL facility. It worked, too. Of course they didn't make a distinction between raw milk and processed milk, just using milk as an antidote. I guess that would make milk a health product and a health issue.

Incidentally, your links all lead to a "timed out" error message.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join