Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The “Monsanto Protection Act”, and why you were duped [View all]AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)34. Strawman: "They’d even have you believe that the President slipped section 735 in there himself."
Really?
Could it be that "entities like A.L.E.C., the Heritage Foundation and shadow groups funded by the Koch brothers" would have you believe that? Have they made an effort to do so?
Actually, the way that this got into the Bill has repeatedly explained on various web sites, including DU:
"Section 735 "Monsanto Rider" is reported by NY Daily News to have been written in concert with Mosanto by Sen. Roy Blount (R-MO), perhaps Monsantos biggest Senate contribution beneficiary. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) allowed the language to stand without consultation with the Agriculture Subcommittee, or any others, for that matter."
http://election.democraticunderground.com/11593033
If there has been any effort by anyone re: "Theyd even have you believe that the President slipped section 735 in there himself," where is it?
Why isn't the truth good enough? Why is it necessary to build strawmen to denigrate legitimate criticism? Is Obama above legitimate criticism?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
98 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And yet nothing here dispels the specifics about how Monsanto is indemnified against the havoc
villager
Mar 2013
#1
Sort of like the "temporary" Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay detentions, tax cuts for the rich, etc.?
villager
Mar 2013
#10
Oh, the message here is that we librul Obama-haters better vote for anything with
djean111
Mar 2013
#3
That's it? He's helpless because he "doesn't have one item Veto Powers"?
AnotherMcIntosh
Mar 2013
#52
And some here wanted him to veto the entire bill to keep governent going past the 27th.
freshwest
Mar 2013
#25
Gotta think two steps ahead. Panic eliminates reflection, turns it into reaction without reason.
freshwest
Mar 2013
#43
The way you've done that twice on this thread (and more elsewhere that I can recall)
Occulus
Mar 2013
#13
I'm also part of the same conspiracy of retired anonymous posters who appreciate good posts.
freshwest
Mar 2013
#24
Strawman: "Defeatists say those who don't sneer at Obama are fools". Why isn't the truth good enough
AnotherMcIntosh
Mar 2013
#54
The section in question prohibits Monsanto suing farmers from selling cross pollinated crops.
freshwest
Mar 2013
#48
I googled the hell out of this yesterday and there are numerous threads. Sorry.
freshwest
Mar 2013
#55
I know - but if I'm gonna complain about them not doing it, I'm gonna have to point that out. (nt)
jeff47
Mar 2013
#85
This is important, if true. Do you have a link to that? A link to the actual language in the Act
AnotherMcIntosh
Mar 2013
#53
Strawman: "They’d even have you believe that the President slipped section 735 in there himself."
AnotherMcIntosh
Mar 2013
#34
Why don't you take your own advice and read the thread plus related information?
AnotherMcIntosh
Mar 2013
#51
STRAWMAN: Until someone other than you claims that Tayor and Vilsack wrote the bill, you are just
AnotherMcIntosh
Mar 2013
#88