Obama Want's To Put Monsanto In Charge Of Food Safety?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Jul 25, 2009.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Genetically modified foods are not safe. The only reason they're in our food supply is because government bureaucrats with ties to industry suppressed or manipulated scientific research and deprived consumers of the information they need to make informed choices about whether or not to eat genetically modified foods.

    Now, the Obama Administration is putting two notorious biotech bullies in charge of food safety! Former Monsanto lobbyist Michael Taylor has been appointed as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety. And, rBGH-using dairy farmer and Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff is rumored to be President Obama's choice for Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety. Wolfe spearheaded anti-consumer legislation in Pennsylvania that would have taken away the rights of consumers to know whether their milk and dairy products were contaminated with Monsanto's (now Eli Lilly's) genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).

    SOURCE

    I'm begining to wonder (even more) if Obama is playing with a full deck of cards.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am somewhat confused. First, your title makes no sense. "Obama want's to Put Monsanto in Charge of Food Safety?" is grammatically unintelligible.

    Second, Monsanto seems only to be mentioned once and that only in terms of a former employee.

    So perhaps you can back up and take another run at this.
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Sorry PL I wasn't educated in a liberal college or anything so my posts will probably remain "grammatically unitelligible" for the rest of my time here.

    I just felt like posting some information make of it what you will. :smilewinkgrin:

    BTW, I am somewhat confused about this as well. That's why I put the question mark (?) at the end of the title. Hope that clears up some of your confusion.
     
    #3 poncho, Jul 25, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2009
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Knowing how to form a contraction is elementary school stuff. It doesn't take a college education.

    Not at all. YOu said that Obama want's [sic] to put Monsanto in charge of food safety, and cite and article that says nothing of the sort. So how does that create a question? If you read the article, there is no question. The article says nothing about Obama putting Monsanto in charge of anything.
     
  5. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Don't Let Obama Put GMO Boosters in Charge of Food Safety!

    I wasn't a very good student in elementary school either. What can I say?

    How about I just post the original title to the article will that be to your satisfaction? I'll give you permission to change the main title if you care to PL, seeing as how you have the control and the education to do so. :smilewinkgrin:

    (I'm still a bit confused about how confusion isn't confusing. Guess it'll take a greater mind than mine to figure that one out.) :laugh:
     
    #5 poncho, Jul 25, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2009
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can if you want. But the article is not really about that either. The article is a diatribe against certain food practices. It may or may not be accurate. It isn't really about who is being put in a certain government position.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    So in other words nothing I could do would be to your satisfaction. It's good that had this conversation PL.

    Did I tell you that the soy wax I use to make all my candles is made from non GM soy beans, grown by American farmers on American soil and processed right here in the great state of Tennessee then made with love in my little manufacturing (kitchen) plant?

    What's my point in bringing this up? I dunno, just seemed like the thing to do. :)

    See ya round PL.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    My satisfaction is irrelevant. I don't live by that and I don't expect anyone else to. But you said something that was grammatically unintelligible (which I would think you would have fixed ... I don't have the power to fix it), and you said something that appears to be factually untrue. You see, it was a matter of truth, and that was what I was responding to. It doesn't appear to matter to you, but it does to some of us.
     
  9. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I don't think Obama is playing with a full deck either. I do believe that he knows exactly what he is doing, destroying the country.
     
  10. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    If a person is not playing with a full deck how can they "know exactly what" they are doing?
     
  11. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    PL, as long as I've knwon you there has never been an inconvenient fact you wouldn't overlook in order to keep reciting mainstream establishment propaganda. That's just another one of those inconvenient facts you'll overlook I'm sure. So, don't lecture me me on honesty.

    If I happen to make a factually untrue statement I do it by mistake, you on the other hand do it because it's a habit long programed. But anyway this is leading to some place I'd rather not go. I've let you bait me to far into another one of your infantile insult swapping contests and I ain't a gonna go no farther with it. Go try and convince people who don't know you that your honesty is beyond reproach. Here on BB some of us already know better.

    So there! :tongue3:
     
    #11 poncho, Jul 25, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2009
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you know me? I wasn't aware of that.

    What fact have I overlooked?

    I'm not. I am pointing out that the title was untrue ... Obama is not (according to the article you cite) putting Monsanto in charge of food safety.

    Okay.

    And how do you know this?

    You already went there.

    I haven't never started an infantile insult swapping contest. But look at your own respond here. You have called me a liar, a long programmed habitual maker of factually untrue statements, dishonest, etc. And you accuse me of insults? I haven't said anything like that about you. It seems to me that you are the one giving insults, not me.

    On page 1, I said I don't know whether the article is true or not. I do know that nothing in the article indicates that Obama is putting Monsanto in charge of food safety.

    I am not trying to convince anyone. I will let what I say and do stand. So far, you haven't pointed out any actual dishonesty, have you?

    If you can point out anywhere that I have been dishonest (not a different interpretation of available evidence, and not something I don't know like this issue of food safety, but actual dishonesty), I will gladly apologize and make it right. Of course, that has been a long standing position of mine, and I don't recall anyone ever actually showing a place.

    So perhaps, you might be better off to back off a bit and not get personal. The fact that I don't share your conspiracy theories doesn't make me dishonest, and the fact that I pointed out a grammatical error that rendered your title nonsensical, and a factual error (that the article does not do what you insinuate it does) is no reason for you to respond as you have. If you want to address the facts, then fine. But don't make this about me to try to remove the heat from your OP.
     
  13. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! Who stuck a burr under your saddle blanket, PL?

    I mean..... regardless of education.... we all make mistakes, typos, and have to read between the lines at times.... to get along.
     
  14. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can one person be both singular (a person) and plural (they) at the same time?
     

Share This Page

Loading...