HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » He failed us - Obama sign...

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:31 PM

He failed us - Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act! It's Time to Label GMOs!

This will affect each and everyone of you and your families...............

Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act! It's Time to Label GMOs!

We regret to inform you that late last night President Barack Obama signed H.R. 993, which contained the Monsanto Protection Act into law. President Obama knowingly signed the Monsanto Protection Act over the urgent pleas of more than 250,000 Americans who asked that he use his executive authority to veto it. President Obama failed to live up to his oath to protect the American people and our constitution.

Today we’re calling on President Obama to issue an executive order to call for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.

Not only is GMO labeling a reasonable and common sense solution to the continued controversy that corporations like Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical have created by subverting our basic democratic rights, but it is a basic right that citizens in 62 other countries around the world already enjoy, including Europe, Russia, China, India, South Africa and Saudi Arabia.

Join us in demanding mandatory labeling of GMO foods. Now's the time!


Please take action now:

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/obama_signs_monsanto_protection_act_time_to_label_gmos/?akid=807.703867.cdshjh&rd=1&t=3

91 replies, 25796 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 91 replies Author Time Post
Reply He failed us - Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act! It's Time to Label GMOs! (Original post)
Smilo Mar 2013 OP
Javaman Mar 2013 #1
dipsydoodle Mar 2013 #2
Mass Mar 2013 #5
Mass Mar 2013 #10
progressoid Mar 2013 #12
Javaman Mar 2013 #61
Honeycombe8 Mar 2013 #80
2naSalit Mar 2013 #18
freshwest Mar 2013 #65
kelliekat44 Mar 2013 #81
freshwest Mar 2013 #89
Bennyboy Mar 2013 #3
woodsprite Mar 2013 #4
2naSalit Mar 2013 #6
Mass Mar 2013 #7
amandabeech Mar 2013 #14
xtraxritical Mar 2013 #43
amandabeech Mar 2013 #50
onenote Mar 2013 #82
amandabeech Mar 2013 #91
abelenkpe Mar 2013 #44
G_j Mar 2013 #8
Berlum Mar 2013 #9
SidDithers Mar 2013 #23
MineralMan Mar 2013 #11
G_j Mar 2013 #13
MineralMan Mar 2013 #16
msongs Mar 2013 #19
Ichingcarpenter Mar 2013 #20
MineralMan Mar 2013 #22
cprise Mar 2013 #28
JEB Mar 2013 #29
MineralMan Mar 2013 #35
druidity33 Mar 2013 #72
sunwyn Mar 2013 #78
frylock Mar 2013 #56
MineralMan Mar 2013 #57
robinlynne Mar 2013 #64
frylock Mar 2013 #55
onenote Mar 2013 #83
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #26
JEB Mar 2013 #30
MineralMan Mar 2013 #36
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #38
onenote Mar 2013 #84
cheapdate Mar 2013 #67
Zoeisright Mar 2013 #15
AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #76
FreeBC Mar 2013 #17
Dark n Stormy Knight Mar 2013 #21
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #24
littlewolf Mar 2013 #41
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #42
littlewolf Mar 2013 #45
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #46
littlewolf Mar 2013 #51
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #52
onenote Mar 2013 #85
Generation_Why Mar 2013 #25
Ichingcarpenter Mar 2013 #27
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #31
xtraxritical Mar 2013 #47
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #48
xtraxritical Mar 2013 #62
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #63
truebrit71 Mar 2013 #58
Berlum Mar 2013 #32
cprise Mar 2013 #34
SidDithers Mar 2013 #71
Dryvinwhileblind Mar 2013 #37
cprise Mar 2013 #33
forestpath Mar 2013 #39
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #40
99Forever Mar 2013 #49
ProSense Mar 2013 #53
freshwest Mar 2013 #70
MFM008 Mar 2013 #54
donheld Mar 2013 #75
blackspade Mar 2013 #59
cheapdate Mar 2013 #60
karynnj Mar 2013 #66
freshwest Mar 2013 #90
bvar22 Mar 2013 #68
ProSense Mar 2013 #69
Faryn Balyncd Mar 2013 #73
onenote Mar 2013 #86
Doctor_J Mar 2013 #74
graham4anything Mar 2013 #77
onenote Mar 2013 #87
darkangel218 Mar 2013 #79
spanone Mar 2013 #88

Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:38 PM

1. H.R. 933

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.993:

Here is the bill...(I see nothing in it about monsanto, Let me know if I'm looking at the wrong bill and I will correct it)

HR 993 IH


113th CONGRESS


1st Session



H. R. 993

To provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of National Forest System land to the city of Fruit Heights, Utah.



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


March 6, 2013

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself and Mr. STEWART) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of National Forest System land to the city of Fruit Heights, Utah.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Fruit Heights Land Conveyance Act'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) CITY- The term `City' means the city of Fruit Heights, Utah.
(2) MAP- The term `map' means the map entitled `Proposed Fruit Heights City Conveyance' and dated September 13, 2012.
(3) NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND- The term `National Forest System land' means the approximately 100 acres of National Forest System land, as depicted on the map.
(4) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Agriculture.

SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN LAND TO THE CITY OF FRUIT HEIGHTS, UTAH.

(a) In General- The Secretary shall convey to the City, without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the National Forest System land.
(b) Survey-
(1) IN GENERAL- If determined by the Secretary to be necessary, the exact acreage and legal description of the National Forest System land shall be determined by a survey approved by the Secretary.
(2) COSTS- The City shall pay the reasonable survey and other administrative costs associated with a survey conducted under paragraph (1).
(c) Easement- As a condition of the conveyance under subsection (a), the Secretary shall reserve an easement to the National Forest System land for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.
(d) Use of National Forest System Land- As a condition of the conveyance under subsection (a), the City shall use the National Forest System land only for public purposes.
(e) Reversionary Interest- In the quitclaim deed to the City for the National Forest System land, the Secretary shall provide that the National Forest System land shall revert to the Secretary, at the election of the Secretary, if the National Forest System land is used for other than a public purpose.
END

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:50 PM

2. Most odd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #1)


Response to Javaman (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:33 PM

10. Here is the bill the article is referring to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:38 PM

12. There are 6 versions of Bill Number H.R.933 for the 113th Congress.

This is the final version:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:6:./temp/~c113wV6omF::

It's 240 pages long. This refers to Section 735.


They are calling the Monsanto protection act because it mainly concerns Monsanto. Their patented genes are inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 04:04 PM

61. Thanks for the correction. :)

cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 08:04 AM

80. That's an appropriations bill. I don't find any reference to Monsanto or food labeling in it.

????? It's a standard budget appropriations bill. I didn't see anything concerning labeling or the like, or anything regarding Monsanto or protection of current labeling, or anything of the sort.

Of course he had to sign an appropriations bill for the budgets of the various departments to continue to run. ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:52 PM

18. That's all I could find on Thomas

but the web site for Food Democracy Now says this...


"Section 735, the Monsanto Protection Act in a short-term spending bill ..."

I haven't been able to find that yet and now I have to go take care of some obligations so I don't have more time to look further...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 06:55 PM

65. Tacked into a spending bill? Yuk, so much gets added in these with no line item veto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #65)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 08:20 AM

81. Total BS...all of this. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #81)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:22 PM

89. Yes, it's all been disproven. See Will Pitt's thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:02 PM

3. Huge fail.. Not just Obama, but

 

Congress for even getting the bill there. End CORPORATE PERSONHOOD. unless that changes, NOTHING CHANGES.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:06 PM

4. It was in the local (DE) paper today that DuPont and Monsanto kissed and made up. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:31 PM

6. Ooops

I didn't see this thread, was way down the list when I checked, so I also posted a thread on this awful news...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022574577#post2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:32 PM

7. Here is more history (it was part of the bill to fund the government)

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-congress-silently-slips-830/

The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week - including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.

The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.

The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:41 PM

14. This sort of sleazy procedure needs to stop.

It is the source of many extremely objectionable corporate give-aways.

This time it could be a give-away of the nation's health.

Sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:00 PM

43. Our complicit corporate enamored President does not have to sign these bills.

 

Maybe Obama can find a place for Jack Walsh and Lee Iaocca in his cabinet. Maybe he should find a place for Monsanto Inc. in his cabinet, they're a person you know. Give up on this President, he's a shill and were being conned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #43)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:14 PM

50. I've given up criticizing the President.

He's deaf to anyone who isn't in his little circle, and I'm not in it.

And yes, I think that Romney would be worse, for those who are strong supporters of the President no matter what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 08:35 AM

82. What is your alternative. That every single provision in a several hundred page bill

be voted on separately?

I don't like the Monsanto provision but I have to chuckle at the claims that it was added "silently." Are there provisions in the legislation that were added "noisily?" The provision included in the 2013 Ag appropriations bill last June (essentially the same one that was in the CR that was enacted last week) was there in writing in a discussion draft that was put out at the same time the day before the subcommittee mark up (standard procedure), went through another vote in the full committee but the Ag bill never made it to the floor of the House and it never became law. But given that the Monsanto provision was included in the House version in 2012, anyone who is surprised that it was included in the Senate's 2013 Ag appropriations bill is naive.

The process by which laws are passed is messy. But especially when you are talking about extremely detailed bills that govern literally hundreds of government programs, that's inevitable. Of course the repubs have a solution -- stop funding government programs. That's not my solution nor do I imagine its yours. So we have the system we have -- horse trading, in which members agree to support various programs in return for support for other programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #82)


Response to Mass (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:00 PM

44. "...strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically

modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns."

WTF? Why would the government even consider giving up the authority to protect it's citizens?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:33 PM

8. Surprised?

Not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:33 PM

9. Monsanto + Obama = Massive Dangerous screwjob for Americans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:01 PM

23. "Smirk"...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:37 PM

11. Advocacy websites are not a very good source for complete

information. For example, the bill being referred to is actually a general funding bill. It is not called the "Monsanto Protection Act." But, you'd never know that, based on this distorted story from this advocacy group.

Thanks for trying, though.

And, yes, President Obama did sign it.

Here's the CRS Summary for this bill:

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/4/2013--Introduced.
Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 - Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013 - Appropriates funds for FY2013 to the Department of Defense (DOD) for: (1) military personnel; (2) operation and maintenance, including for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, environmental restoration, overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid, former Soviet Union cooperative threat reduction, and the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund; (3) procurement, including for aircraft, missiles, weapons, tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, shipbuilding and conversion, and purchases under the Defense Production Act of 1950; (4) research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (5) Defense Working Capital Funds and the National Defense Sealift Fund; (6) the Defense Health Program; (7) chemical agents and munitions destruction; (8) drug interdiction and counter-drug activities; (9) the Office of the Inspector General; (10) the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund; (11) the Intelligence Community Management Account; and (12) overseas contingency operations, including regular, reserve, and National Guard personnel, operation and maintenance, the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund, the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund, the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, procurement, RDT&E, and the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.

Specifies authorized, restricted, and prohibited uses of appropriated funds. Rescinds specified funds from various accounts under prior defense appropriations Acts.

Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 - Appropriates funds for FY2013 for DOD for: (1) military construction for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and Air Force (military departments), DOD, the Army and Air National Guard, and the Army, Navy, and Air Force reserves; (2) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program; (3) family housing construction and related operation and maintenance for the military departments and DOD; (4) the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund; (5) DOD chemical demilitarization construction; and (6) the Department of Defense Base Closure Accounts of 1990 and 2005.

Appropriates funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for: (1) the Veterans Benefits Administration; (2) readjustment benefits; (3) veterans insurance and indemnities; (4) the Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund; (5) the Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program; (6) the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program; (7) the Veterans Health Administration; (8) the National Cemetery Administration; (9) the Office of Inspector General; (10) construction for major and minor projects; and (11) grants for the construction of extended care facilities and veterans cemeteries.

Appropriates funds for: (1) the American Battle Monuments Commission, (2) the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, (3) DOD cemeterial expenses, (4) the Armed Forces Retirement Home, and (5) overseas contingency operations for military construction for the Navy and Marine Corps.

Specifies restrictions and authorities regarding the use of funds appropriated in this Act.

Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 - Makes continuing appropriations for FY2013.

Appropriates amounts for continuing operations, projects, or activities which were conducted in FY2012 and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in: (1) the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012; (2) the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012; (3) the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012; (4) the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012; (5) the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012; (6) the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012; (7) the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012; (8) the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2012; (9) the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012; (10) the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012; and (11) the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012. Establishes levels of funding for FY2013 for departments and agencies included under such Acts.

Specifies authorized, restricted, and prohibited uses of appropriated funds.

Rescinds, except as specified, defined applicable percentages of: (1) the budget authority provided (or obligation limit imposed) for FY2013 for any of the preceding discretionary accounts, (2) the budget authority provided in any advance appropriation for FY2013 for any discretionary account in any prior fiscal year appropriation Act, and (3) the contract authority provided in FY2013 for any program subject to limitation incorporated or otherwise contained in the preceding provisions this Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:40 PM

13. for clarity,

The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.

The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-congress-silently-slips-830/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:46 PM

16. OK, but that was just a small part of this bill.

The bulk of the bill funds government agencies of all kinds. It's, you know, a budget bill. These spending bills are always full of stuff that gets put in there because the bill has to be passed and signed. Obama signed the whole bill, not just the part dealing with GMO seeds. There is no line item veto for these things.

There are many specific issues that we can argue about. GMO is one of them. The government deals with lots of things. That's what needs changing. President Obama is not The Great Satan for signing this bill. He had little choice, really, but to sign it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:53 PM

19. poor helpless obama, the man with little choice nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:58 PM

20. 'A small part of the bill'

Which effects the entire population of the United States


Obama hired a Monsanto guy anyway so I'm not surprised.

OBAMA APPOINTS MONSANTO’S VICE PRESIDENT AS SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE COMMISSIONER AT THE FDA

Michael Taylor, MONSANTO’S VICE PRESIDENT, was just appointed senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. This is the same man that was in charge of FDA policy when GMO’s were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety. He “had been Monsanto’s attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA he became Monsanto’s Vice President and chief lobbyist. This month became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America’s food safety czar. This is no joke.”

Here’s the full story:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/858

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:00 PM

22. OK. GMO is not one of my issues at all.

It never has been. I suspect that's true of very, very many people, including very, very many Democrats.

It's an issue of interest to you, apparently. That's fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:16 PM

28. Its not about you, and your suspicion may be wrong.

"Very many" people who buy organic produce do so because its GMO-free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:17 PM

29. I think every person

has a right to know what is in the food they are buying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEB (Reply #29)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:30 PM

35. Yes, they do. My assumption is that both

soybeans and corn are GMO. That's because it's pretty much true. So, do I eat soybean products and corn? Yup. I'm not worried about that corn or soybean product. The real issue with GMO soybeans and corn is that it is limiting the variety of those two things that is being grown, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not concerned about eating the actual corn or soybean ingredients in my food. I do worry about agricultural diversity, though.

By the same token, however, before GMO technology, the hybrid seed business was underway for decades. The technology has changed, but not the attempts to limit variety to monopolize the agriculture industry.

The whole thing is an economic issue for me, not a food safety issue.

So, I know what's in the food I am buying. Tacking a GMO label on that food won't have any effect on my product choices, and wouldn't really have any effect on the choices made by a vast majority of people. I'd be more concerned with pesticide residues and produce that might be contaminated with human wastes in the country where it was grown.

You may think I know nothing about GMO technology. You'd be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #35)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 07:29 PM

72. I'm sorry Mineral Man...

But if you are comparing GMOs to selective breeding... you really don't know anything about GMOs. There are actual reasons to be concerned about this unfortunate turn of legislation, not least of which is the underhanded way in which it was included.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #72)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 06:27 AM

78. And even more to the point, Section 735 allowsthe Ag Sec

to fast track products made by companies like Monsanto with out the usual enviromental studies. While GMO's are a big concern, pesticides are an even more urgent problem as can be evidenced by the massive death of the bee population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:27 PM

56. and gay marriage and equal rights aren't much of an issue to some people either..

so let's just shitcan that, shall we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #56)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:31 PM

57. Hmm. As it happens those things are issues of mine.

Everyone has issues they devote time and money too. GMO is not one of those for me. Marriage equality is. If GMO is one of your issues, then you should certainly devote whatever time and money to it that you feel appropriate.

The thing is that I don't think GMO foods are harmful to human beings. It's an economic issue, as far as I can see. So, after looking at it from several different angles, I'm not taking up that cause. I have other causes. Marriage equality and civil rights are some of the issues I'm working on. There doesn't seem to be a connection between those and GMO foods, though. Maybe you know of one, but I haven't heard that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #57)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 06:50 PM

64. and yet Europe does think it is harmful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:25 PM

55. that kernal of genitically modified corn is just a small part of the turd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 08:54 AM

83. I don't like the provision, but the claim that it was unknown to most senators is BS

It was in the Senate version of the AG approps bill from the moment it was submitted by Mikulski on March 11 and was the subject of an amendment introduced by Tester, with six co-sponsors, on March 13. It also was in the House committee-passed version of the Ag approps bill from last June.

It is unfortunate that the Tester amendment, like the overwhelming majority of the more than 100 amendments submitted with respect to the continuing resolution, didn't get a vote. But the advocacy groups that say this provision was added "silently" have been sounding the alarm about it since last June and swung into action the moment that Mikulski's bill became public two weeks ago. If seven Senators actually put their names on an amendment to strip the provision, the only way that the other members of the Senate don't know about it is if the groups supporting that amendment weren't doing their job in terms of contacting the other Senate office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:14 PM

26. Try reading the article again. It did NOT say 'the bill' was named

the Monsanto Protection Act. And it is a news site, btw, one of the better ones sadly.

This is what the article said which you apparently misread:

The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.


The title 'Monsanto Protection Act' as the article clearly states, is a derisive title given to the rider by opponents, mostly Democrats btw, of allowing Monsanto to deprive the courts of the right to prevent them from planting health threatening GMO seeds in the event that they do so.

The article correctly named the bill by its official title.

RT is one of the most informative media outlets. I would recommend them as an additional source to anyone who wants actual news that is not the usual Corporate handouts on important issues,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #26)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:20 PM

30. Could not agree more. Well stated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #26)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:31 PM

36. Fooddemocracynow is NOT a news site.

It is an advocacy site. Perhaps you were not aware of that. RT? RT is sort of a news site, but has its own built-in bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #36)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:41 PM

38. The site was accurate in its reporting contrary to what you claimed.

The story was also reported on RT, also accurately.

And yes, RT does have that 'liberal bias' so long missing from our own Corporate Media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 09:05 AM

84. There is no "officially titled" bill called the "Farmer Assurance Provision."

At least not that I can find. (I'm not saying that Section 735 doesn't exist, just that it doesn't have an "official title" anywhere that I can find.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 06:58 PM

67. Here is section 735:

"Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into"

As far as I can tell, the provisions in section 735 place some limits on the manner in which the Secretary of Argiculture can use his power to regulate GMOs as "plant pests" under the Plant Protection Act. It doesn't eliminate the Secretary's power to regulate "plant pests". It proscribes how the Secretary must act when his department's regulations are disputed by a grower.

It's hardly the end of the fight against GMOs and Monsanto, and the president's signing rather than vetoing the comprehensive appropriations bill doesn't justify the kind of bitter recriminations that some people here are declaring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:42 PM

15. There is a silver lining.

This Monsanto rule is only good until the end of September, because it's part of the stopgap measure to fund the government through September 30. GMO opponents haven't lost the war yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #15)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 03:40 AM

76. And then what happens when, according to some, he is powerless to stop the inclusion of a similar

 

provision in the next funding bill?

It's amazing how little power this seven-dimension chess-master has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:51 PM

17. Is there a whitehouse.gov petition?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:58 PM

21. Poor, frail little Monsanto. Thank goodness the big, strong government came along to protect them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:03 PM

24. Somebody should introduce the "powerless" Obama to his veto pen and explain its usefulness.

And, inform him that he actually does have a lot of power to make choices that are not detrimental to the environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:52 PM

41. based upon reading the discussion here it appears that

this was a rider on the budget bill. so unless you want the gov't to shut down.
and this hung around the Presidents & Dem's neck. yes he had to sign it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to littlewolf (Reply #41)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:57 PM

42. So, how else can the executive exercise the power given to his office?

Baleful looks? Sighs? Tantrums? Holding his breath?

Do tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:01 PM

45. like I said he could have veto'd the spending bill.

over a rider that was attached to it. and then let the gov't shut down
and watch the GOP hang that around the Democratic party in the
election. is that the price you are willing to pay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to littlewolf (Reply #45)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:06 PM

46. I'm willing to take a risk rather than be bullied by the corporations and the GOP.

The Republicans have as much, or more, to lose if they shut down the government to protect Monsanto. The see-saw tilts both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #46)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:16 PM

51. well it appears the President is of a different mind set. nt


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to littlewolf (Reply #51)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:21 PM

52. Yes, he is willing to be bullied and intimidated by the corporations and GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #52)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 09:09 AM

85. The spending bill passed with majority Democratic support

in both Houses. It passed with a veto proof majority. It passed with the support of six of the seven Senators who went on record with an amendment that would have stripped out the monsanto provision.

So explain to me how the President was supposed to veto the bill and put the issue of a government shutdown back on the table without making the entire Democratic party look like a bunch of clowns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)


Response to Generation_Why (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:15 PM

27. 'anti-science kooks operating on the left.'



If you say so now praise jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generation_Why (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:20 PM

31. From one of those 'leftie kooks' 'Welcome to DU'!

I take it you are a supporter of depriving the public of the right to information about what they are eating.

We Americans are so helpless we need our government to hide these things from us, after all, the Government knows best. Europeans otoh, apparently are allowed to know what they are eating. Poor Europeans, if only their Governments would protect them the way ours does!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:07 PM

47. So gm food should have a diagram of the gnome on the package? Wow that helps me a lot.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #47)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:09 PM

48. So maybe we could do what Europe does, label foods so that grown ups

can make their own determination of what to eat and what not to eat. What a radical idea. Grown ups being treated like grown ups in the Land of the Free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #48)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 05:28 PM

62. Show me some of these labels that will help me make decisions.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #62)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 05:44 PM

63. I wish I could, but we don't have them here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:40 PM

58. ^^Yup....

.."anti-science leftie kooks" indeed....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generation_Why (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:20 PM

32. You are welcome to your own opinion of GMOs, but not your own facts

Safe or unsafe? This is a debate that can go on in this thread for a long, long time.

But there is no dispute that there is altogether INADEQUATE SCIENCE to support the wishful WOO WOO thinking of Monsanto & Allied Corporate Cronies. They control the so-called 'research' and it is altogether specious, despite the claims of rabid Scientific Materialists.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/05/genetically-modified-food-unsafe-scientists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #32)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:27 PM

34. Unsafe

Not only did biotechs like Monsanto forgo safety testing of their products, but they routinely eschew ecological perspectives on their research. As such, they are as much in the business of pushing pseudo-science as any major fossil fuel company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #32)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 07:12 PM

71. The Toronto Sun is a right-wing tabloid...

which is written at approximately a 5th Grade reading comprehension level.

Their "science" reporting is as sensational as their Page 3 type Sunhine Girl.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generation_Why (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:41 PM

37. You might want to take a look at...

www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

And, ahem, hey there G_W?, your colors are showing.........meats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:22 PM

33. One way around this is to simply buy organic

At least the stuff that is labeled 100% organic has to be GMO-free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:43 PM

39. When has he ever not put the interests of corporations over the public interest?

 

Rhetorical question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:47 PM

40. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:09 PM

49. Obama sides with the 1%er Corporations, instead of...

.. We the People?

I'm shocked I tell ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:24 PM

53. "Please take action now:"

Dear President Obama,

I'm outraged that Congress allowed Section 735, the Monsanto Protection Act in a short-term spending bill and passed it and that you have now signed it into law. This is a deep betrayal of our most basic constitutional rights and by signing H.R. 933 without issuing a signing statement or taking other actions to block this provision you have allowed great harm to America's family farmers, our environment and our democracy.


Here's the Senate vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00044

The bill passed 73 to 26

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #53)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 07:09 PM

70. The yeas and the nays list:

XML U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress - 1st Session

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 933 As Amended)

"An Act making consolidated appropriations and further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013."

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Nay
Baldwin (D-WI), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Cowan (D-MA), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Cruz (R-TX), Nay
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fischer (R-NE), Nay
Flake (R-AZ), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Yea
Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Nay
Hirono (D-HI), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Kaine (D-VA), Yea
King (I-ME), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murphy (D-CT), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Scott (R-SC), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Warren (D-MA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Most of the Senate didn't dare to say no, like Senators Franken, Sanders, Warren, Wyden, etc. These people are not looking to be corporate shills but saw the bigger picture and it was all or nothing, which is a big problem.

We should have let all of them know we didn't want this tacked onto a bill. The bill was huge, a continuing appropriations bill that affects millions of people, and we've been done again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:24 PM

54. hes going to allow the Keystone Pipeline

except,we know that dont we.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #54)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 03:14 AM

75. Some of us do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:44 PM

59. That's just great.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:48 PM

60. Take a breath...

Last edited Wed Mar 27, 2013, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

As far as I can tell, the provisions in section 735 place some limits on the manner in which the Secretary of Argiculture can use his power to regulate GMOs as "plant pests" under the Plant Protection Act.

Is it a loss for opponents of Monsanto? Yes, but for goodness sake, the war is not lost. This was a minor battle.

I loathe Monsanto. I think what they're doing to the living world is morally equal to an act of war.

But I also think that excoriating the president for not vetoing the comprehensive appropriations bill over this single provision is foolish. The magnitude of this minor loss is being greatly exaggerated here, and the measure of recrimination being directed at the president is unwarranted and unrealistic.

Here is section 735:

"Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 06:55 PM

66. can't veto JUST the provision that you name - and he was not going to veto the continuing

resolution that funds the government until September. That is what he would have to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #66)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:25 PM

90. Agreed. Not signing it would defund VAWA, etc. We have 6 months to go after this for the next

round of GOP dirty tricks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 06:58 PM

68. Well, its your own fault!

If you believed that labeling our food with GMO and Country of Origin information was important,
you should have voted for THIS guy!!!



Whatever happened to that guy?
He would have made a great president.






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 07:01 PM

69. Here:

More information on the Monsanto rider. Also Democratic budget supports labeling
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022576338

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 01:51 AM

73. What the president did was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Reply #73)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 09:12 AM

86. Signing a bill passed by a veto proof majority to keep the government running was wrong?

What should he have done? Keep in mind that a majority of House Democrats opposed the version of the continuing resolution that was originally passed by the House, while every Democratic senator except one supported the version that included not only the Monsanto provision, but a couple of hundred pages of additional provisions that weren't in the House version -- presumably provisions very attractive to Democrats, so much so that when the longer version made it back to the House, instead of a majority of Democrats opposing it as they had the original version, a majority supported it.

So I ask again, what exactly should the president have done?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 05:27 PM

74. You don't understand chess

and you're probably a racist. And you never liked him. And you don't understand the constitution. Wait - I forgot the newest DU insult - you liberals hate america

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 04:05 AM

77. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren voted FOR this bill. Repeat-voted FOR this bill.

 

How many of the same people complaining about this are doing so after complaining that
their right to drink 48 ounce sodas with a full free refill, and two tubs of fake butter popcorn
is being denied, and are happy to have the poor indulge in over 3000 calories in a 90 minute movie.

Isn't this a wellness issue? And if so, well, I don't get it.

Sometimes it is spot-on easy to see.

What was that remark Bing Crosby 's character said in White Christmas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #77)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 09:13 AM

87. more than that: 6 of 7 Democrats who sponsored an amendment to kill the monsanto

provision still voted for the bill even though they didn't get a vote on their amendment and the provision was in the bill they voted for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 07:29 AM

79. What the hell..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Original post)

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 09:15 AM

88. no, congress FUCKED us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread