hell yea. another F YOU to monsanto

I'm sorry MaggieMae you can't win this fight. I've spent most of my day scouring the web looking for legitimate sites that these two would take into consideration but to no avail I can't find any. So it comes to this either the company has successfully covered their asses or there isn't any. As Doc has said if the farmers signed an agreement and they broke it then they deserve to have the "book" thrown at them, matter of fact most of the cases I read the farmers did breach their contract(there is a case or two out there where I believe the farmer though).
That said I still see Monsanto as an unethical corporation, I still can't get pass this;
In December 2000, Dutch journalist Marjon Van Royen investigated local health reports in Colombia and found that there had been "consistent health complaints," including "burning eyes, dizziness and respiratory problems."
According to Elsa Nivia, a Colombian agronomist who works with the Pesticide Action Network, local authorities reported 4,289 humans suffering skin or gastric disorders in the first two months of 2001. Some 178,377 animals (cattle, horses, pigs, dogs, ducks, hens and fish) were reported killed by the spraying.
Digging further, Van Royen found something alarming: another additive called Cosmo-Flux 411 F was being added to increase the toxicity of Roundup Ultra The Roundup/Cosmo-Flux mixture has never been scientifically evaluated nor has the public - either in the US or in Colombia - been informed of this practice.
In a talk at the University of California at Davis in May 2001, Nivia said: "The mixture with the Cosmo Flux 411 F surfactant can increase the herbicide's biological action four-fold, producing relative exposure levels which are 104 times higher than the recommended doses for normal agricultural applications in the United States; doses which, according to the study mentioned, can intoxicate and even kill ruminants." The use of this enhanced Roundup would not be acceptable in the US without prior testing and scientific evaluation.
The Roundup label warns: "Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application."
"Drift" is a major issue, as Senator Wellstone discovered first hand. The small crop duster airplanes and helicopters that spray chemical herbicides in Colombia often fly too high to accurately target the drug crops. Labels warn that spraying must be done on windless days. But nature does not often provide windless days in the tropical Andean valleys. A small plane flying as low as 65 feet is subject to high crosswinds that characterize rainforest ecology. These winds easily blow the herbicide toward non-target areas, contaminating crops, rainforests or bodies of water.
Last spring, the German government lodged complaints against the fumigation program when chemical "drift" destroyed Colombian aquaculture projects they had underwritten- fishponds meant to provide protein for campesino subsistence.
Monsanto and the 'Drug War'

Covering their asses says it all. They get to unenlightened farmers by sharp sales practices, sell them a "license agreement" written, of course, by a team of lawyers, and therein it states in a long paragraph of fine print that said farmer must buy from Monsanto every succeeding year. When said farmer doesn't comply, said farmer gets sued. Monsanto - Typical All American Company. Bullshit.
 
Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Conservatives = always fully in support of Big Business (trickle-down; major employers)
and therefore protect corporate welfare (yes, even Monsanto gets subsidized).

Conservatives = always fully in support of small business owners (the "backbone of Americanism").

Better? You can't take sides on this particular issue, it would seem.

Here yuh go idiot. Read away you hypocrite. You people are so easy. ~BH

- Obama Gives Key Agriculture Post to Monsanto Man

That is a terrible mistake, and I intend to write my Senators urging them not to approve this nomination. See that? You didn't need to call me all those ugly names after all, asshole.
 
Conservatives = always fully in support of Big Business (trickle-down; major employers)
and therefore protect corporate welfare (yes, even Monsanto gets subsidized).

Conservatives = always fully in support of small business owners (the "backbone of Americanism").

Better? You can't take sides on this particular issue, it would seem.

Here yuh go idiot. Read away you hypocrite. You people are so easy. ~BH

- Obama Gives Key Agriculture Post to Monsanto Man

That is a terrible mistake, and I intend to write my Senators urging them not to approve this nomination. See that? You didn't need to call me all those ugly names after all, asshole.

Ugly names? I think "asshole" tops anything I called you. Turns out you need a bar of soap yourself sister. ~BH
 
So you don't care about the facts of the matter?


and how is it their fault that they had the innovative idea, and the finances and innovative vision to do extensive research and development before any other company did, and spent 6 billion on it, and are now benefitting from it. Intellectual property is a huge things, especially this day and age of new technologies and innovation, that must be protected if we want more innovation, as its risky, costs lots of money, and requires hard work.

They are not stopping other companies from developing better seeds, are they? Granted, they have a huge advantage cause they have a huge market share and lots of resources.

Or poor, poor Monsanto. You don't think they haven't recouped their $6 billion ten times or more over?

Facts of the matter aside, I can't say enough times that what they are doing by putting small farmers out of business is wrong, no matter how they or you try to spin it. IF they treated these farmers as actual partners instead of potential enemy competitors, it may not have turned out so ugly. But this is corporate greed, plain and simple. Monsanto doesn't give a shit about food supply, world hunger, or anything else other than it's own profit.

What's the matter Maggie, Cat get your toungue? What about your herO Obama's connections to Monsanto, You got nothing to say? Well that would be a fucking first eh? ~BH

- Obama Gives Key Agriculture Post to Monsanto Man

I've already responded to you. Do you think people here wait with bated breath to get into a fucking debate with you?
 
The source of the OP is such a clear piece of propaganda, that's why. If you can't see that, then you have your head up your ass. I've posted several factual articles, and even court cases to show that many of the claims in these articles are not factual. IN the OP, some of the references they cite are group emails. HOw is that evidence? The layman person who doesn't care about what the facts are probably won't even check what the actual source is. Amazing you can't see how that article is biased. And his links were what I linked anyway, and it never says that they are forcing Haiti to buy their seeds. THey don't have to buy them if they don't want to. THey are getting a free round of seeds in tough times.

The only truth in the OP article is that the Haitians are burning the seeds. The other shit about Monstanto is not factual nor supported by any evidence, just claims

I didn't even read the OP. I am, however, surprised you wouldn't suck up every word, since Truthout is a "leftist" Internet outlet.

I'm very, VERY familiar with this particular issue, and I suggest you do further research yourself and stop being so fucking argumentative over sources.

No offense, Maggie, but you wondered why Monsanto didn't just plant soybean. That sort of shoots a bit of a hole in your actual knowledge of this subject.

No offense.

No, I said IF they were at all interested in agriculture (or something like that). Of course they're not.
 
Again, their claims, that can't be proven, that comes from a biased documentary that has an agenda. Like people don't lie, get real. Where is there evidence of this? A documentary doesn't get all the facts, court cases hear both sides and make a decision. And what kind of deal were they looking for? cHeaper than the normal license? Free seeds? Paying the licensing fee would be much cheaper than infringement and being sued.

I'll still look, but nothing I've seen so far shows actual evidnece and proof of all these claims, and seriously, a documentary is about as biased as you get. I like Michael Moore documentaries, but even I realize its totally slanted

I'm still looking for actual proof of what these people claim.

Oh okay, they made it all up and Monsanto doesn't twist the law and lie :eusa_angel:. Happy?

Now shaddap.
The courts didn't think Monsanto twisted the law and lied.

Can we tell you to 'shaddup' now?

Nah, I'm gone. Martini time. As you well know, however, nothing irritates me more than someone who continues to make the same point over and over and over, which is what Gregg has been doing. I got sick of countering by having to make my point over and over and over in response to him. It gets old after awhile.
 
Here yuh go idiot. Read away you hypocrite. You people are so easy. ~BH

- Obama Gives Key Agriculture Post to Monsanto Man

That is a terrible mistake, and I intend to write my Senators urging them not to approve this nomination. See that? You didn't need to call me all those ugly names after all, asshole.

Ugly names? I think "asshole" tops anything I called you. Turns out you need a bar of soap yourself sister. ~BH

When someone flings shit at me, I can sling it right back. Son.
 
Or poor, poor Monsanto. You don't think they haven't recouped their $6 billion ten times or more over?

Facts of the matter aside, I can't say enough times that what they are doing by putting small farmers out of business is wrong, no matter how they or you try to spin it. IF they treated these farmers as actual partners instead of potential enemy competitors, it may not have turned out so ugly. But this is corporate greed, plain and simple. Monsanto doesn't give a shit about food supply, world hunger, or anything else other than it's own profit.

What's the matter Maggie, Cat get your toungue? What about your herO Obama's connections to Monsanto, You got nothing to say? Well that would be a fucking first eh? ~BH

- Obama Gives Key Agriculture Post to Monsanto Man

I've already responded to you. Do you think people here wait with bated breath to get into a fucking debate with you?

Definitely not you. I expose your hypocrisy whenever we meet. I don't blame yuh though. :razz: ~BH
 
That is a terrible mistake, and I intend to write my Senators urging them not to approve this nomination. See that? You didn't need to call me all those ugly names after all, asshole.

Ugly names? I think "asshole" tops anything I called you. Turns out you need a bar of soap yourself sister. ~BH

When someone flings shit at me, I can sling it right back. Son.

That's good Maggie! There yuh go, I knew you had some fight in yuh. For a Liberal anyway. Enjoy your Martini though. 5 o clock rule? Don't go away mad now. ~BH
 
When someone flings shit at me, I can sling it right back. Son.

That's good Maggie! There yuh go, I knew you had some fight in yuh. For a Liberal anyway. Enjoy your Martini though. 5 o clock rule? Don't go away mad now. ~BH

There's a 5 o'clock rule!?! :happy-1:

smiley_drinkbeerbong.gif
~BH
 
I don't know why you've got your ass in the air over Nate's "source" when the same information can be found at just about every news outlet, and then some. Go find a source more suitable to your liking, if you don't accept Truthout.

The source of the OP is such a clear piece of propaganda, that's why. If you can't see that, then you have your head up your ass. I've posted several factual articles, and even court cases to show that many of the claims in these articles are not factual. IN the OP, some of the references they cite are group emails. HOw is that evidence? The layman person who doesn't care about what the facts are probably won't even check what the actual source is. Amazing you can't see how that article is biased. And his links were what I linked anyway, and it never says that they are forcing Haiti to buy their seeds. THey don't have to buy them if they don't want to. THey are getting a free round of seeds in tough times.

The only truth in the OP article is that the Haitians are burning the seeds. The other shit about Monstanto is not factual nor supported by any evidence, just claims

I didn't even read the OP. I am, however, surprised you wouldn't suck up every word, since Truthout is a "leftist" Internet outlet.

I'm very, VERY familiar with this particular issue, and I suggest you do further research yourself and stop being so fucking argumentative over sources.

Sure you are, yet you can't post any factual evidence other than "some farmer said on a documentary" sorry you don't know the difference between facts and spin and someone's opinion.

fuck do I care if its leftist website or not, bullshit is bullshit no matter what the slant, and ultra liberals are just as dishonest as ultra conservatives
 
I'm saying I don't know of many people who died or got sick from non genetically altered soybeans. There was nothing wrong with the ones farmers used for decades before Monsanto discovered a huge profit base.

Farmers certainly CAN plant non-Monsanto seeds any time they wish to do so.

Obviously, they don't wish to do so.

I wonder why?

You're not reading links I've posted. It explains what happens when they try to plant their own seed. Monsanto sends out inspectors and 'miraculously' finds some of their own, then sues.

But, it's not their own seed.
 
Oh okay, they made it all up and Monsanto doesn't twist the law and lie :eusa_angel:. Happy?

Now shaddap.
The courts didn't think Monsanto twisted the law and lied.

Can we tell you to 'shaddup' now?

Nah, I'm gone. Martini time. As you well know, however, nothing irritates me more than someone who continues to make the same point over and over and over, which is what Gregg has been doing. I got sick of countering by having to make my point over and over and over in response to him. It gets old after awhile.

You have not countered shit, hence why I continually had to bring it up. Give me a break, you spout off something as fact based on documentary, clearly biased websites which I even addressed the problems with, and I support mine with court cases that brings up both sides, and other facts. YOu just keep denying it. Yeah, people who purposely remain ignorant of a topic and continue to spout the lies over and over again does get pretty old.
 
Farmers certainly CAN plant non-Monsanto seeds any time they wish to do so.

Obviously, they don't wish to do so.

I wonder why?

You're not reading links I've posted. It explains what happens when they try to plant their own seed. Monsanto sends out inspectors and 'miraculously' finds some of their own, then sues.

But, it's not their own seed.

exactly, they are not their own seeds but have the monsanto genetically engineered genome. And spreading of seeds wouldn't cause 95% of the crops to be monsanto genomes as the court case showed.
 
If these monsters could put a marker in the atmosphere they would try to charge every living being for the air that you breath.

I frequently dream of them having bad accidents.
Don't lose any sleep, Huggy. I would bet good money that when they finally get down the list of organisms to clone, you'll be long gone.
 
Yup. Not a monopoly.

Sigh, Si...

Definitions of monopoly (n)
Control of market supply: a situation in which one company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service
When 90 = 100, you'll let us know, right?

Microsoft eventually lost the lawsuit for violation of Antitrust laws. It also did not have 100% of the market share at the time the suit was filed, but damned near all of it. I see no difference. Antitrust laws exist for the sole purpose of protecting fair competition, which is really what this country's business landscape is all about.

United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Forum List

Back
Top