[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 73 KB, 620x350, monsantoa1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5476214 No.5476214[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>Farmers complain that monsanto sues them for using their product in a way they don't approve of
>instead of buying seeds from a different company they continue to buy from monsanto

If farmer's truely believed that Monsanto was an evil company they would have switched, but since over 90% of the soybean, corn and cotton in the country are monsanto brands they must not feel so strongly about it.

Or could it be that they decided that they prefer the more profitable product monsanto provides? Most of the complaining is the policy against reusing seed.

>> No.5476224

>>5476214
The farmers are jews.

>> No.5476285

>>5476214
>Monsanto sues farmers for having fields that get wind pollinated by other fields that had Monsanto seed crops in them.
You can't grow non-GMO corn next to GMO corn because it'll end up being GMO corn. It doesn't even have to be next to. Monsanto has sued farmers when only border plants have tested positively for their patents, even though the majority of the crop hasn't. Winds can carry pollen a long fucking way. Thankfully, much of Monsanto's shittery in that respect has been halted, but not before they took out a lot of farmers just on threat of legal action. Monsanto has plenty of other shittery up their sleeves, though.
for example:
(India)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947

>> No.5476308

>%90

Tell me America. Why does capitalism start looking like communism after a while?

>> No.5476319

>>5476308
Marxist teleology.

>> No.5476325

>>5476308
Because after a while someone learns how to abuse any system.

>> No.5476335

>>5476308
Notice how the right wing has been in love with Putin lately? They love plutocratic dictatorships with a nicely cultivated cult of personality that focuses on machoism and power.

>> No.5476340

>>5476308
that's one statistic that I think OP got wrong
monsanto has 90% of the GMO crop, but not total crop
Closer to 40% total, according to some accounts. Though I'm not sure that has been verified, it is still a fuckton.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28059.cfm

>> No.5476344

>>5476285
That was one lawsuit in the 90s filed by an overzealous lawyer that was fired.
Almost 2,decades later you still don't hear the end of it.

>> No.5476352

>>5476344
wrong
even Monsanto admits to 144 filings, which you can verify if you want (public records)
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx
problem is filings do not equate to threats

>> No.5476358

OP, I call you out. Are you really stupid enough to think that basic "I buy what I like" economics is enough to understand what company a farmer buys his seed from?

Do you really think that ... small?

>> No.5476372

>>5476358
clearly its seems the better choice for them if they buy

>> No.5476386

>>5476372
Of course it's a better choice for them. Why do you think Monstanto has successfully conquered a big chunk of 1st world food production? They understand economics. A lot better than any faggot on this forum.

>> No.5476407

>>5476352
Those were for saving seed. Violation of contract.
I am talking pollen drift.

>> No.5476421

>>5476386
no one on this forum that hates monsato cares about economics, they care about long term sustainability and breaking monsato's monopoly, monsato doesn't even give a fuck about long term sustainability, otherwise they wouldnt be buying out government and breaking farmland and otherwise acting like a obesse person at a buffet.

>> No.5476428

>>5476407
because it's the same shit in Monsanto stratagem
>find some border plants that were wind pollinated
>test them to get confirmed lab results
>threaten
http://www.cooperativegrocer.coop/articles/2012-12-04/farmers-continue-fight-monsanto%E2%80%99s-threats-intimidation
"Every year Monsanto investigates over 500 farmers for patent infringement with their now-notorious “seed police.“ To date, according to OSGATA, 144 farmers without a binding contract with the multinational corporation have had lawsuits brought against them by Monsanto, while another 700 farmers have been forced to settle out of court for undisclosed sums."

>> No.5476435

>>5476421
I disagree.

I think that this forum represents an unusual and unpredictable cross-section of English-speaking humanity that has some interest in food and cooking. As was intended, no?

This is an international board. If it wasn't, I would have gotten bored of it a long time ago. Well, if that's the case ...

>> No.5476441

>>5476435
... please don't allow to your country what I allowed to mine.

>> No.5476459

>>5476435
you are a fucking retard, learn to read.

>> No.5476473

>>5476214
wind exists

>> No.5476476

>>5476214
A large portion of crops (particularly industrial cash crops like corn and soybeans) are grown by large food/agricultural conglomerates. Those can not be said to be 'farmers'.

Not saying that there's anything inherently wrong with GM crops, or that Monsanto isn't a shit-tier corporation. Just saying that the small family farm feeding the world is a myth.

>> No.5476488

>>5476308
>Capitalism
Because you're not seeing capitalism. America hasn't had a free market for decades. What you're seeing is more akin to mercantilism, where the government is in collusion with large corporations. Which naturally looks like communism because it's functionally the same thing (where the rich people running the economy and the powerful people running the government are all one united oligarchy).

>> No.5476494

>>5476459
I'm an amerifat, and I'm humbly asking you guys. The pressure will mount, what little incentives you've encountered so far will be nothing compared to what you'll see in the future. We'll offer you the world--an end to world hunger and a virtual utopia in the making, if you'll only open your markets to our GMOs.

Please, in the name of all that is holy, DO NOT ACCEPT.

Shitstorm incoming? Nahhh, no way.

>> No.5476501

>>5476214
>defending Monsanto
stop being a little bitch.

>> No.5476521

There is literally nothing wrong with GM crops.

>> No.5476552

>>5476521

as far as we know currently, yes

>inb4 seralini

>> No.5476563

>>5476521
I don't know. A consistent low dose of pesticide could induce more pesticide-resistant strains of pests, bringing us back to where we started, except with a whole class of pesticides rendered useless.

>> No.5476580

>>5476521
>>5476563
Not only that, but, as most of current Monsanto business practice is based off of increasing the purchase of their pesticide, and combined with the current practices in large monoculture, which Monsanto encourages, leading to increased use of fertilizers, pollution increases greatly as well.

>> No.5476591

>>5476580
That's a problem with Monsanto though, not GM crops.
Every single canola plant in the world is a GM crop.

>> No.5476595

>>5476580
*herbicide

>> No.5476616

>>5476591
/ck/ hates monstanto, that's fairly universal. It's for their business practices though, not the theory behind their company. We don't hate genetic modification, we hate one-party control over the food supply.

>> No.5476617

>>5476591
Agreed
it's not genetic modification in and of itself that is the entirety of the issue, but the practices and applications of the technique
I liken it to reservations many had about developing nuclear tech. Lots of potential and lots of hazard.

>> No.5476618

>>5476616
Hate is a very strong word, anon

>> No.5476626

I fail to see how the court not threw the suit out the moment these faggot bring it up. How the fuck do you argue that someone stole your pollens??

What about counterarguements: wind pollination, insect pollination, nature pollination, unintended dispersal etc. It's not like planting shit is an exact science. They literally spray the field w/ seeds, how fucking dense these midwest lawyers are to not see such obvious fagotry??

>> No.5476645

>>5476618
Do you disagree with my assessment?

>> No.5476646

>>5476308
because capitalism is a shit system

>> No.5476651

>>5476646
yet it's the most non-shit

>> No.5476670

>>5476651
socialism is better

>> No.5476676

>>5476670
Visit a poor community in America where... people... are bartering food bought through EBT or similar programs for cigarettes and alcohol and then come back.

Socialism only works in a community of productive people.

>> No.5476692

Amusing to watch ideologies attempt to poorly direct this thread.

Euroanons ... we Amerifats have already faced this battle and we lost. We got blindsided by the issue and we're too busy trying to decide if a leaker was a hero or a traitor. This really important shit is going to slip under our radar over the next several years, as was intended.

Don't fall for the same tricks that we fell for.

>> No.5477007

>>5476335
What planet are you on?? It's the LEFT wing that has gone out of its way to pretend that the Ukrainians are a bunch of neonazis for not wanting Russia to invade.

>> No.5477010

>>5476494
>DO NOT ACCEPT.
>let your populations starve and develop deficiency diseases
>help keep America strong and in first place
Do you leftard moonbats ever follow your arguments through to their logical conclusions?

>> No.5477011

>>5476563
Except that the chemicals Monsanto is protecting crops against are HERBICIDES, you moron. And the genes they're splicing into corn and soybeans are from OTHER PLANTS THAT WE ALREADY EAT.

>but but but GMO!
>but but but muh cancers!!!
>but but but Jesus!

>> No.5477031

>>5477011
>Except that the chemicals Monsanto is protecting crops against are HERBICIDES, you moron. And the genes they're splicing into corn and soybeans are from OTHER PLANTS THAT WE ALREADY EAT.

Not true.

The Roundup Ready genes come from a bacterium, not another plant.

Also, in BT-Corn, the new genes are from another bacterium.

>> No.5477037

>>5476285
>You can't grow non-GMO corn next to GMO corn because it'll end up being GMO corn. It doesn't even have to be next to.

Not a farmer, are you.

In reality, you can grow all the non-GMO corn you wish next to GMO corn and not have to worry about violating patents.

Even if the genes do cross, it doesn't matter because those seeds are never going to be planted again anyway.

If you are not familiar with them term "F1 Hybrid", look up the term. Apart from the occasional heirloom corn grown in limited amounts in a garden and corn grown by the seed companies used to produce the corn that they grow, commercial corn grown for human and/or animal production is an F1 Hybrid. None of the crop is saved for seed.

If you actually do some research on the matter, you will find that the enforcement efforts by Monsanto and other seed companies do not involve F1 Hybrids.

>> No.5477039

>>5476476
>A large portion of crops (particularly industrial cash crops like corn and soybeans) are grown by large food/agricultural conglomerates. Those can not be said to be 'farmers'.

We have an enormous number of corn crops grown around here and they are all grown by farmers.

Perhaps you are misled by the fact that farmers often incorporate their farms.

>> No.5477043

>>5476626
>They literally spray the field w/ seeds

Huh?

Actually, they plant the seed in the ground by mechanical means. Just throwing it around on top of the ground would accomplish very little.

>> No.5477050

>>5477011
capslock != true.

>> No.5477323

>>5477011

A herbicide is a pesticide.

Fungicides, algicides, insecticides, herbicides and bactericides are all pesticides, by definition. When people refer to pesticides, they are referring to any one of these

>> No.5477329

>>5477043
To be fair he's right that some farmers spray their fields with seeds. Planes are still sometimes used to seed and people still run Gleaners.

>> No.5477338

>>5477011
Herbicides are pesticides and Roundup Ready soy and corn contain genes from Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a virus, and another plant. They overexpress the shikimic acid pathway, making them resistant to glyphosate. This allows farmers to spray more glyphosate on their fields without worrying about drift.

>> No.5477354

>>5476214
>If farmer's truely believed that Monsanto was an evil company they would have switched
The product is highly superior to everything else in terms of production output, most people would not be able to compete without it.

>> No.5477359

>>5477354
Yield of roundup ready crops isn't necessarily higher (in fact, it has been found to be somewhat lower in some studies). But using non-RR crops means farmers have to put more time and effort into proper application, which of course has a value.

It's funny how America has such cheap and plentiful food, yet these cultivars are now seen as necessities.

>> No.5477366

>>5476214
>what is a monopoly

>> No.5477398

>>5476488
America never had a free market. The only reason it survived initially was slavery, and ever since it's fought wars over the way it subsidises its industries.

There isn't a single industry in the US not accepting Federal or State money for fucking nothing. Free Market my ass.

>>5476308
Because you've been conditioned to see Communism everywhere by decades of propaganda from Washington, to the point that even supposedly politically savvy people think you can simplify political thought into left and right and vilify concepts based on that.

Everyone shouting about their freedom, nobody actually listening to a word anyone else says. America: land of the fucknuts.

>> No.5477402

>>5477007
Well to be fair a lot of people in the Ukrainian government as was were neo-nazis. Literally.

Funnily enough people have strong feelings about collaborating with them, and it's a useful divisory point for all kinds of interest groups, left and right.

The fact you think it's all the left's doing speaks volumes about you, though. Christ almighty, get out more.

>> No.5477437
File: 507 KB, 1024x859, wallpaper-216471.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5477437

>>5476214

I'm against Monsanto because I despise the idea of a mega corporation controlling the food supply on that scale.

The idea of patenting nature is fucked in my eyes, especially when they have such enormous lobbying power in politics.

>> No.5477457

>>5477329
>Planes are still sometimes used to seed and people still run Gleaners.

Can you name a single crop that is sprayed on fields instead of planted?

>> No.5477460

>>5477437
this

>> No.5477476

>>5476344
don't try to down play it or say it was a long time ago, and don't you even say that it happened only once you stupid fool.

>> No.5477477

>>5477037
doesn't matter if they save it or not. didn't you pay attention? cross contamination happens weather they want it to or not. who loses? the farmer.

>> No.5477478

>>5477437
I bet you shop at walmart though.

>> No.5477479

>>5476308
I dont give a fuck about monopolies if they're doing it right. People support Monsanto products because they're good and normally priced. You think a monopoly would last in this day and age if they were overpriced and dicks about it?

>> No.5477481

>>5476616
more or less kind of this.

I'm not against genetic modification but I can't trust the irresponsible use of them. they couldn't just keep to themselves and experiment in a lab to help humanity learn more about genetic modification, they want to use us all as guinea pigs first.

aside from that, they don't even modify crops to bare more, or even better tasting fruit. they just modify all the crops to be able to withstand more pesticides so that our previously pesticide loaded food has even MORE poison on it.

rage inducing.

>> No.5477483

>>5476595
it falls under the category of pesticide, and both weed killer and pest killer is often used in these type of companies.

>> No.5477485

>>5476618
why do you think people feel that way about monsanto? is it not obvious to you?

>> No.5477488

>>5477010
are you stupid?

>> No.5477491

>>5477011
>Except that the chemicals Monsanto is protecting crops against are HERBICIDES, you moron. And the genes they're splicing into corn and soybeans are from OTHER PLANTS THAT WE ALREADY EAT.

>forgets to mention all the other bugs bacteria and fungi used
>doesn't care that this is all used towards making the plants more resistant to PESTICIDE that they dump even more of on our food.

>> No.5477503
File: 536 KB, 640x360, jb2.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5477503

>>5477457
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_seeding

Were you really in doubt of this? It's not common but it certainly still occurs. The Gleaner thing is an inside joke.

>>5477338
It's all about consolidating your chemical usage. When we spray corn now we use name brand RoundUp and AMS. That's it. With proper timing that's all you need. In the past my dad was mixing several chemicals per batch and spraying twice as frequently. The old chemicals were fairly fucking toxic because spraying insecticides is actually dangerous while I could crawl under the sprayer today, open the spigot, and drink the mixture out of the tank.

>> No.5477504

>>5477354
>The product is highly superior to everything else in terms of production output, most people would not be able to compete without it.

total lie

>>5477359
this

>> No.5477506

>>5477437
spot on

>> No.5477511
File: 46 KB, 640x480, 23453253.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5477511

>>5477479
uuuuuuuuuuu woooooooooooooooot m88888888888888

that is the worst logic I have ever heard

>> No.5477512
File: 526 KB, 800x4158, 34534253425234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5477512

>>5477437
>>>/pol/ incomminnnngg

freaky huh?

>> No.5477514

>>5477504
Have to spend less time and effort on crops = having more time for planting crops = more crops = higher production output

Or you can at least pay less for workers which has the same result, more money for less work.

>> No.5477556

>>5477514
>Have to spend less time and effort on crops = having more time for planting crops = more crops = higher production output

in the end all farmers get their crops planted and in the ground and growing. I rather it take me a few days and do it right than slightly less days and do it wrong. the difference isn't significant enough to warrant doing it in such a way, not that I would ever be okay with that kind of conduct otherwise.

>Or you can at least pay less for workers which has the same result, more money for less work.

>pay less for workers with same result

>more money for less work

what...

>> No.5477560

>>5477511
So provide a counterargument instead of a stupid fucking picture and post.

>> No.5477564

>>5477514
they only have so much land, planting them all really really fast wont mean a bigger output if they are all planted within the same reasonable time, which farmers are very good at already.

why do you say that monsanto products are superior in your previous post and why does that equate to less time and effort?

>> No.5477570

>>5477560
I just couldn't think of a stupid enough response to stoop low enough to meet it. sorry bro.

>> No.5477581
File: 317 KB, 555x560, 45623454.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5477581

>>5477479
>People support Monsanto products because they're good and normally priced.

>"they're good and normally priced."

>good
>in any way


>You think a monopoly would last in this day and age if they were overpriced and dicks about it?

I don't know where you got overpriced from because I didn't scroll up far enough, but monsanto has a bad habit of being jerks about mostly everything, and the whole funny thing about monopolies is that it doesn't matter if they are jerks because they made themselves in charge of it all anyway. the whole point and meaning of what and why a monopoly is, is related with the fact that they became too powerful and do irresponsible things with that power instead of well, being responsible.

you really don't get it.

>> No.5477586

>>5477511

Milton Friedman - Monopoly: http://youtu.be/tdLBzfFGFQU

>> No.5477605

ITT: idiots who don't understand politics.
ITT: idiots who don't understand the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.
ITT: idiots who don't understand that with subsidies farmers HAVE to use and grow what the government tells them and how much. They can't grow any more or less or they lose their gubmint money. Which is a liberal(Democrat) policy. Keep blaming the GOP though. They're at fault for a lot but not anything in this thread.

Go back to arguing about blue steak and stop trying to talk about politics /ck/.

>> No.5477611

>>5477605
besides all this political stuff that busted out, lots of farmers that don't even try to get involved with monsanto get totally screwed over by them.

so there's that, and nobody is an idiot for discussing that topic.

>> No.5477625

>>5477605
>farm subsidies
>liberal policy
It may have begun during the New Deal era, but rural areas all vote republican and have for decades, so they could have ended it at any time. Never going to happen, even if the party lie is "small government and free markets"

>> No.5477632

>>5477625
>liberals not moving goalposts in an attempt to cover their incompetence and childish policies.

>> No.5477646

>>5477625
Are you retarded? It doesn't matter who votes republican or democrat and no one even said anything one way or the other. Subsidies for individuals are almost always liberal policies. This is no exception.

Omgz our welfare system makes slaves out of its recipients but they all vote democrat so it's not a liberal policy.

That's your logic. If your logic were applied to everything, we're all corporate welfare and individual welfare loving lobbyists. Doesn't work like that boss.

>> No.5477650

>>5477586

Milton Friedman on How Government Regulations Enc…: http://youtu.be/Biu7bJAfVNI

>> No.5477663

>>5477646
I ask you the same question. You just deliberately avoided my point by claiming it's still a Democrat policy even though Republicans champion it.

>> No.5477742

>>5477398
> The only reason it survived initially was slavery

Let's not forget that the Pilgrim Fathers were also the first recipients of wellfare. The colony would've failed pretty hard if not for First Nation handounts.

>> No.5477776
File: 160 KB, 900x691, 876547956.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5477776

>>5477646
>>5477663
>>>/pol/

>> No.5477822

>>5477479
>You think a monopoly would last in this day and age if they were overpriced and dicks about it?
comcast

>> No.5477827

>>5477777

>> No.5477832

>>5477822
while they are a horrible company, they always seem to have the nicest people working for them.

I find it very strange, like most technicians and people on the phone are total bro's but the company itself sucks soooo bad.

they did improve in some ways a little, but customers are always bumping into reasons to be really upset.

>> No.5477849

>>5476521
It's not the GMO that is the issue, it's the company practice.

>> No.5477910

>>5476521
I'm not okay with eating even more poison in and on my food.

if everything they genetically modify is so that they can put more poison on it, I don't want it.

they sound like they don't even care about people and they try to downplay everything "nahhh its probably fine you wont get sick nahhh it doesn't need safety testing"

screw those morons. I will grow my own stuff or eat organic.

>> No.5477930
File: 13 KB, 480x360, 0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5477930

>>5477910
Would you be OK with Jews rubbing their filthy uncut cocks all over your produce ?
Cause that's what I'm hearing from you.

>> No.5477938

>>5477503
awe man, wheres that webm from? shits hilarious

>> No.5477947

>>5477930
>jews
>uncut

what

we all know jews sexually mutilate their young as a sacrifice to Moloch, the actual god jews worship, an ancient sumerian demon that requires the sacrifice of the innocent.

>> No.5477953

>>5476358
That is literally the foundation for free market economics, "I buy what I like"

>> No.5477954

>>5476428
Monsanto has a estoppel defense preventing them from even suing about cross pollination

Furthermore they have a service that will remove any infestation of their plants for farmers.

>> No.5477955

>>5477947
That is what they want you to believe anon.
The truth is far more sinister and at the higher levels the cocks are uncut.

>> No.5477961

>>5476563
>Let's not use pesticides
>Because if we use pesticides, we won't be able to use them anymore

You are this retarded

>> No.5478041

>>5477955
the higher ups that are in charge of corporations are probably NOT cut because they are only pretending to be jewish so that people don't like jewish people and fight more and cause chaos.

we should all be friends with each other and stop trusting these corporations and the government so much.

>> No.5478045

>>5477961
except that isn't implied at all.

pesticides are awful, meanwhile there are many plants in nature that are natural pest repellents.

>> No.5478079

>>5478045
Like corn or soybeans

>> No.5478099

>>5476214

You have to believe in survival of the fittest. Do you really believe that the fittest should be someone who succeeds with a bunch of strings and Lilliputians? I do not interfere with the affairs of others, and whining about Monsanto planting more seeds than you do doesn't make you part of something special, you're just riding the Monsanto wake and being a jackass.

>> No.5478100

>>5478079
corn and soy are not natural pest repellents, to the best of my knowledge they only do that when they have been genetically modified to produce gmo enzymes inside of themselves.

>> No.5478108

>>5478099
if only it was that simple, people are angry with monsanto because what monsanto does affects them and their very way of life. if it didn't effect them in one way or another there would be way less people (probably down to some hipsters) whining about them, but the issue is far greater since what they do causes trouble for other innocent people who just want to eat healthy and know what is in their food, as well as farmers who just want to grow crops in piece.

there is not a huge storm for no reason.

>> No.5478119

Pretty sure its only that 10% who refuse Monsanto that complain

>> No.5478121

>>5478099
Monsanto could, at the extreme end of theory, end up being responsible for the extinction of the human race. Of course, the Large Hadron Collider could have also done so, again, at the extreme end of theory.

There's nothing wrong with discussing these types of threats that have the potential to indirectly end my life.

>> No.5478153

>>5478119
why make assumptions? huge amounts of people are pissed off about monsanto.

>> No.5478157

>>5478121
THIS.

>> No.5478208

>>5477961
It's been shown that Roundup Ready crops have increased glyphosate usage and, subsequently, glyphosate-resistance in weeds.

This would not have happened as rapidly if farmers were applying glyphosate like they did in the pre-Roundup Ready days (i.e.: carefully).

>> No.5478214

>>5478208
all this extra garbage making its way into my food supply makes me want to just get into a hydroponic spaceship ark and fly far away to claim my own homeworld free of the disgusting disease upon this earth that is monsanto.

>> No.5478270

>>5478208
Increased rates would hamper the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds because the weeds would die before they could seed out. But you get farmers like my neighbor who don't know chemical management attempting to apply cut rates to save money and allowing these weeds to get away from them and develop those resistances.

>>5478214
Your opinions on this?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23983455

>> No.5478283

>>5478270
>Increased rates would hamper the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds because the weeds would die before they could seed out.
It would still be selecting for weeds that overexpress the shikimic acid pathway. Not to mention glyphosate can have negative effects on soil microbial populations.

The answer isn't to drench all agriculture land in as much glyphosate as possible. It is responsible usage.

It is expected though. Same reason why non-therapeutic antibiotic usage in the agriculture sector is driving antibiotic resistance.

>> No.5478284

>>5478270
>Your opinions on this?
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23983455
Chemotherapy drugs aren't necessarily things you want to ingest at low levels all the time. This article is irrelevant.

>> No.5478394

>>5477037
No, fuck you, you aren't a farmer, are you?
Explain how Monsanto keeps bringing these suits, if what you say is the way these laws are working.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/25/percy-schmeiser-farmer-who-beat-monsanto.aspx
How many other farmers are there out there that know how deep the pockets of Monsanto are and are essentially paying them off via settling, mob protection money style, whenever Monsanto threatens legal action to some arbitrary tune of money, then offers to settle for 1/4 the sum?

>> No.5478526

>>5478394
>inb4 someone doesn't even read it just because its mercola talking about it.

>> No.5478776

>>5478394
Tin foil hat for you anon.

>> No.5478921

>>5478394
>you aren't a farmer, are you?

Not any more.

I grew up on a farm and still live on it, but I no longer farm. My brothers still farm as does a number of my friends I grew up with.

In your case, it is clear that you know nothing at all about farming since you think that planting a GMO corn crop next to a non-GMO corn crop will magically make that non-GMO crop GMO.

>> No.5478980

>>5478526

Can you blame them?

>> No.5478989

>>5478921

Also, it would be better for Monsanto if farmers planted about 80% of their corn GMO (BT-Corn to be specific) and 20% non-GMO and rotate which fields are GMO and which are non-GMO. Unfortunately, few farmers actually follow those guidelines and plant their entire fields as BT-Corn. The result will likely accelerate the evolution of the insects to not be susceptible to the GMO BT-Corn.

Anyone who thinks that Monsanto is going to file lawsuits against farmers for growing the two next to each other clearly knows nothing about farming.

>> No.5479010

>>5478989

For what it's worth, if I took up raising corn on my 1/4 section, I would be most likely to make my first couple of rounds with BT-Corn and then alternate between BT-Corn and non-GMO corn across the field and see what happens.

The logic is that the insects coming in from outside tend to work their way across the field. Ideally the more expensive BT-Corn on the outside would stop many of them before getting to the non-GMO corn.

>> No.5479025

>>5478989
We're already required to plant refuge for that reason.

>> No.5479029

Monsanto is bad. This isn't even up for debate.

>> No.5479049

>>5479025
>We're already required to plant refuge for that reason.

Yes, but more and more farmers are resisting those regulations and plant only BT corn.

>> No.5479107

>>5479049
Sounds like bullshit to me. Way too easy to get caught.

>> No.5479149

>>5479107

Who is going to catch them? The corn police?

>> No.5479163

>>5479149
The gubmint. Refuge is EPA mandated. All they need to do is look at which seed you bought.

>> No.5479167

>>5479163

Do they look at which seed you returned?

Suppose that you have four sections of land so you buy enough GMO corn to plant four sections and non-GMO corn to plant one section. After planting the GMO corn first, you have no room to plant the non-GMO corn and so you return it to the seed company.

If someone asks, you show that you bought 80% GMO seed and 20% non-GMO seed.

>> No.5479249

>>5476428
If that were all it took, don't you think more than 144 lawsuits would have been filed, and more than 11 would have gone to court? They sell seed to over 250000 farmers a year. 144 lawsuits in, what, a decade? Is nothing at all. I bet Disney files more copyright lawsuits than that each year.

>> No.5479257

>>5479167
All that shit is invoiced and in a computer. "Hey we sold this much Bt shit and the refuge to match but we got a lot of refuge returned I wonder which joker it was. Oh it's this guy let's go out and test his fields and then fine the fuck out of him."

Lots of guys just run stacked RIB anyway.

>>5479249
Woah dude hold on you're not using enough hyperbole when referring to Monsanto's litigious tendencies. Here let me assist you: "Monsanto is putting THOUSANDS of farmers a year out of business through patent violation lawsuits while they continue to poison our food, infiltrate our government and buy anyone not yet in their pocket!"

>> No.5479260

>>5478153
No, tiny amounts of people are pissed off about monsanto, but they're really annoying and loud when they do it.

>> No.5479284

>>5478394
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx

Percy Schmeiser intentionally isolated Monsanto crops by killing everything around them with Roundup, then saved the GMO plant seeds and replanted them the next year.

What the judges ruled was that Canadian law forbids patenting higher life forms, like plants. Not that he "accidentally" planted 320 hectares of the stuff.

>> No.5479876 [DELETED] 

>>5478394

The case referenced was canola (aka rapeseed), not corn.

You aren't going to find many commercial farmers, if any at all, who save corn to plant for the next crop.

>> No.5479879

>>5478394

The case referenced was canola (aka rapeseed), not corn.

You aren't going to find many commercial farmers, if any at all, who save corn to plant for the next crop and it has absolutely nothing at all to do with lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, from Monsanto or other seed companies.

>> No.5480340

>>5479029
agreed.

>> No.5480342

>>5479879
>"it has nothing to do with monsanto really guis really"

nice try

>> No.5480344

hmmm what do we have here?

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/eat-it-up-monsanto/blog/39002/

http://www.infowars.com/monsanto-employees-dont-eat-gmos/

http://gizadeathstar.com/2012/02/monsanto-cafeteria-bans-gmo-foods/

http://boards.dailymail.co.uk/news-board-moderated/10251615-why-does-monsantos-staff-demand-organic-their-canteen.html


even monsanto doesn't want to eat monsanto.

>> No.5480368

>>5480344
those are some quality sources you got there

>> No.5480371

>>5480368
>Although it has never been proved, Monsanto constantly claims that GE food is harmless
my fucking sides
Greenpeace is really shameless
>you haven't PROVEN that it's not harmful!
nobody has shown that they ARE

>> No.5480389

>>5480371
so you are saying that you are okay with eating something that had its genes modified in a lab and has NOT been tested for safety? dumbass.

its their responsibility towards the customer to make sure that the food is SAFE for them to eat! they shouldn't be selling an untested product!

>> No.5480391

>>5480371
>genetically modified in a laboratory
>resistant to pesticide so that more can be dumped on it
>produces its own pesticide inside of itself
>"its safe peple we pramis"
>"did you test it?"
>"nah it doesn't need testing"

SCREW YOU

>> No.5480393

>>5480389
>>5480391
they are tested you fucking retards

>> No.5480395

>>5480389
No, not the way the United States works right now. Gotta let that economy do it's magic, you know? If Monsanto was that bad, people would be smart enough to not eat it. (kek) Free market will totally sort everything out.

>> No.5480400

>>5480395
if Monsanto was that bad, the fuckload of scientific research done on GMOs would reveal that they are harmful.

http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/executivesummary/default.asp

>> No.5480402

>>5480393
[citation needed]

>> No.5480403

>>5480402
[citation given]
>>5480400

>> No.5480404

>>5480393
if they are tested (you haven't given a source) tested by who then? if monsanto tests it than the results are as good as crap. it needs to be a series of tests completely unrelated to them or the government in any way.

>> No.5480406

>>5480403
>>5480400
>mentions nothing at all related to health and safety

>> No.5480407

>>5480404
>(you haven't given a source)
this just in: you are illiterate

>> No.5480410

>>5480407
comment posted before your "source" was given. learn to read.

additionally the source proves nothing in regards to the citation that was requested based on the premise of weather they are tested or not. the source mentions that it is tested but for what? some percentages of crop growth in some area? nothing about health or safety testing.

>> No.5480413

this just in: don't get scared when some shill posts a big scary link. read it and you will often see its full of big scary paragraphs that prove nothing. skim through it and prove them wrong.

>> No.5480414

>>5480400
Nice try, but that's not a proper citation.

And no scientific research has been done on the effects of eating gmo over a lifetime. Hasn't been time yet.

>> No.5480419

>>5480414
together we fight the scourge. you me and the people.

*brofist* momma said to eat your fruits and vegetables, but momma didn't know about monsatan.

we will eat our fruits and vegetables and eat them healthy too! screw monsatan!

>> No.5480457

>>5480371
>nobody has shown that they ARE
Yeah, that's not how the public safety paradigm should work. Especially when the majority of testing is the responsibility of the company manufacturing the product. And, even if ethically wrong, it is completely legal to bury negative results and not publish them, especially if you outsource the research to a so-called third-party lab that essential gets paid to only report positive things.

I'm a PhD student and have more understanding of the publishing game than most of the public. The idea that it is all open access and ethical and reproducible is pretty naive. It's the best system we have right now, but it is very flawed.

>> No.5480469

>>5480342

Let me try to explain it again.

It is extremely unlikely that Monsanto is at all concerned that some farmer might save GMO corn to plant again the next year. They are certainly concerned with things like canola/rape and soybeans.

But not corn. Also not grain sorghum.

Why?

Because it would be highly unusual for any commercial farmer to save corn (or grain sorghum) to plant the next year. The seed corn that commercial farms is an F1 Hybrid. That is, its parents are of two different varieties of corn and the seed is a first generation hybrid of the two. If a farmer were to plant the corn and then save some of the corn from that crop to use as seed for the next crop, he would almost surely lose money on the crop because the production would fall off. He is better off financially to spend the extra money to buy good F1 Hybrid seed instead of trying to squeak by on an F2 Hybrid.

Monsanto knows this -- they aren't stupid by any means. I cannot imagine them being concerned about someone saving corn seed because it doesn't make sense.

Any lawsuits involving corn for Monsanto are more likely to be with Monsanto as the defendant rather than the plaintiff filed by those who don't want to see genetic drift from the GMO corn affecting heirloom corn or non-GMO corn they are growing in their gardens.

Canola/rape is much different. With canola/rape, the seed that is harvested could be planted again the next year with excellent results. That is the kind of activity that Monsanto will target. While it would be a big waste of time and money to worry about farmers saving corn to plant again the next year, it is hardly a waste of time and money to make sure that farmers don't save their GMO canola/rape to plant again the next year.

In other words, farmers do not save corn to plant again the next year because they are worried about Monsanto suing them -- they do not save corn to plant again the next year because it is not economically feasible to do so.

>> No.5480499

>>5480469
I don't particularly agree. you haven't heard the stories... the horrors.

>> No.5480503

>>5480499

Find one case where Monsanto has filed suit against a farmer for saving corn to plant again the next year.

Just one.

Want to know something? You won't be able to do it.

There may be horror stories out there about Monsanto suing people, but they aren't over saving corn to plant the next year. The ones I've specifically heard of were over soybeans and canola. There may have been some over other crops as well. But it is extremely unlikely that they have ever felt the need to sue any farmer over saving corn to plant again the next day.

You may not particularly agree with me on this, but it is likely because your disagreement is based on stories not fact.

So let's see a citation for a lawsuit filed by Monsanto against a farmer for saving corn to plant again the next year.

Can you do it?

>> No.5480593

>>5480503
>Find one case where Monsanto has filed suit against a farmer for saving corn to plant again the next year.
>Just one.

while I simply said I didn't agree with you, I have no doubts that a friendly anon will post one, or even a few.

monsanto has sued people for far more stupid reasons and I am not about to foolishly become more trusting in them or change my point of view over what you say.

>> No.5480662

>>5480593

What possible advantage could a farmer get by saving GMO corn during harvest to plant again next year?

If you don't understand the reason that farmers buy corn to plant every year instead of saving corn to plant for the next crop then you need to read up on F1 Hybrids.

>> No.5480676

>>5480593
>I have no doubts that a friendly anon will post one, or even a few.

Looking for citations for such lawsuits would be much like looking for bigfoot.

>> No.5480681

>>5480503
>Find one case where Monsanto has filed suit against a farmer for saving corn to plant again the next year.
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/38991/index.do

>> No.5480692
File: 670 KB, 1600x1074, canola_seed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5480692

>>5480681

>[1] This is an action heard in Saskatoon, against the defendants, pursuant to the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 (the "Act"), for alleged infringement of the plaintiffs' Canadian Letters Patent No. 1,313,830. The infringement alleged is by the defendants using, reproducing and creating genes, cells and canola seeds and plants containing genes and cells claimed in the plaintiffs' patent, and by selling the canola seed they harvested, all without the consent or licence of the plaintiffs. The commercial product resulting from the plaintiffs' development, from its patent and licensing agreements, is known as "Roundup Ready Canola", a canola seed that is tolerant of glyphosate herbicides including the plaintiffs' "Roundup".


>[2] On consideration of the evidence adduced, and the submissions, oral and written, on behalf of the parties I conclude that the plaintiffs' action is allowed and some of the remedies they seek should be granted. These reasons set out the bases for my conclusions, in particular my finding that, on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffs' Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffs' patent. By selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffs' patent.

Look at the picture and tell me that that is corn.

>> No.5480697

>>5480662
F1 hybrids don't have much to do with genetically modified plants which will produce progeny with the same beneficial trait that it was created for.

>>5480503
>http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

>> No.5480699

>>5480692

Canola on the cob?

>> No.5480701

>>5480692
I didn't see the stipulation of a corn lawsuit.

Why do you think corn is different? why do you think Monsanto would not pursue a lawsuit because the farmer saved Bt-corn?

>> No.5480703

>>5480697
>F1 hybrids don't have much to do with genetically modified plants which will produce progeny with the same beneficial trait that it was created for.

It doesn't matter whether it is GMO corn or non-GMO corn, the corn grown by farmers commercialy IS an F1 Hybrid.

>> No.5480711

>>5480703
A GMO cultivar can be sown for many generations without alterations to the desired characteristics. It is not the same as the heterosis phenomenon in hybrids.

>> No.5480721

>>5480701
>I didn't see the stipulation of a corn lawsuit.

I have not tried to argue that Monsanto does not sue farmers for saving seed for the next season. That would be stupid and exceedingly easy to disprove. What I have argued is that claims that they sue farmers for saving corn to plant the next year are incorrect because it is highly unlikely to have ever happened.

>Why do you think corn is different? why do you think Monsanto would not pursue a lawsuit because the farmer saved Bt-corn?

Because no farmer in his right mind would save the seed. There would be no economic benefit to doing so. The difference in production between an F1 Hybrid and an F2 Hybrid would be far greater than what it would cost to buy the seed.

Since there is no benefit to saving corn to replant the next year, it is doubtful that Monsanto even pays attention and would ever notice if you did so. If you were a farmer and was saving your corn to replant the next year, your would probably be bankrupt far more quickly than they could ever get you into a courtroom. Filing suit against you for saving corn would be an exercise in futility.

>> No.5480724

>>5480711
>A GMO cultivar can be sown for many generations without alterations to the desired characteristics. It is not the same as the heterosis phenomenon in hybrids.

Are you trying to claim that GMO corn sold for commercial production is NOT an F1 Hybrid?

>> No.5480760

>>5480662
>>5480676

>farmer minding their own business
>gmo pollen blows over and creates gmo plants on farmers land
>monsanto screws over their life and sues them

do you know how often this happens? are you defending monsanto by saying that they only sue when someone messes with canola?

are you saying that justifies all the other suing they do? what kind of logic is that?

>> No.5480775

One way to settle this would be to send an e-mail to Monsanto and ask them how big a problem they have with farmers saving corn and grain sorghum to replant the next year and whether they have ever had to file suit or threaten to file suit against anyone for doing so.

The problem is that this discussion will probably be gone before receiving an answer to the question.

I believe their e-mail address is fortherecord@monsanto.com if anyone wants to ask them whether the GMO corn they sell to farmers is an F1 Hybrid.

There is also a contact form at
http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/contact-us.aspx

>> No.5480794

>>5480760

None of the above.

I was specifically addressing the many claims about GMO corn here that are highly inaccurate.

>> No.5480825

>>5480760

From what I read a few years ago about Monsanto checking crops to see if a farmer who bought GMO canola one year but not the next is to fly over the field and drop a balloon containing roundup and record its precise location. Then they would fly over again a week later to see if the canola where they dropped the balloon was dead. If it wasn't, then they had reason to believe that the farmer had saved the seed and replanted, contrary to their contract where they agreed not to do so.

I do not think that they fly over the canola fields of people who never bought roundup read canola and drop balloons of roundup.

In the case above, it was explicitly brought out that the defendants had bought and planted roundup ready canola in 1997 but had no license for it in 1998. The only logical explanation is that they saved the seed and replanted it in spite of their contract.

So I seriously doubt that it was a case of gmo pollen pollinating his entire non-roundup ready canola crop.

>> No.5480844

Also, for what it's worth, I object to Monsanto's practice of using contracts as a way to keep farmers from saving and replanting seed. I do not approve of the US Supreme Court creating new law by enabling the patenting of seeds.

Congress passed the Plant Variety Protection Act which quite explicitly guaranteed farmers the right to save and replant seed that is subject to that act. I'm of the firm opinion that the GMO crops should be subject to the Plant Variety Protection Act rather than the Supreme Court's arbitrary extension of patent law to cover sexually reproducing plants.

In addition, I am also not opposed to GMO crops.

That said, I dislike it when people spread gross misinformation about a subject as is being done in this thread and any other thread about GMO on /ck/. The vast majority of people here, whether pro-GMO or anti-GMO, really have no clue about what they are talking about and that is pathetic.

>> No.5480851

>>5480844
I object to the Supreme Court's arbitrary ruling to allow anonymous donors the ability to wage massive election campaign wars with no accountability.

When are we going to amend our Constitution to put less power in the hands of the Supreme Court? As it is, the greatest lasting legacy a President possesses is in the people he puts into the Supreme Court. His laws can be easily repealed in a shifting political environment, but going against the rulings of his Justices is quite ... challenging.

>> No.5480907

all the disinfo in this thread...

>> No.5480913

>>5480907
It's a /pol/ thread that's barely /ck/ relevant. What do you expect?

>> No.5481259

>>5480913

It doesn't bother me that someone doesn't understand the subject. After all, how many people here are familiar with farming? What does bother me is that instead of trying to learn something about it, they insist on repeating nonsense they picked up from web blogs of the ignorant.

>> No.5481302

>>5481259
I'm terribly sorry anon. Living in this world must be terribly painful for you. I truly do feel your pain.

>> No.5481315

>>5481259
NOBODY CARESSSSS

jesus christ i see you nerds everywhere. NOBODY CARES ABOUT FACTS, KNOWLEDGE, SCIENCE, YOUR INFORMATION.

shut the FUCK UP. Im saying this as a friend, a brother, and a third person. Stop trying to prove to the world that you're valuable by forcing them to listen to your bullshit.

No, im sorry. I dont want to learn about the farming industry. DEAL WITH IT. Paris Hilton is, by all accounts, more interesting then you. Shes rich, she's famous, she's constantly getting into trouble. Your life is worthless compared to Paris Hilton's.

> fucking teaching me about farmign STFU .

>> No.5481328

>>5481315
You see, anon, this is how most people feel. And there's nothing wrong with that. When you consider the information overload that all of us must deal with on a daily basis, this is completely 100% understandable. It's also the feelings of the majority of the voting public.

>> No.5481337

>>5481328
> And there's nothing wrong with that.
> this is completely 100% understandable
Thanks man. That actually made me feel a little better. I'm going through some shit lol.

>> No.5481360

>>5481337
Sokay, I'll be aware of the public threats to your health and I'll be loud enough that you'll hear my opinion whether you like it or not.

Just vote, that's all I care about. Democracy ain't worth jack fucking shit if the populace doesn't vote once every few years. I don't care who you vote for, just fucking vote.

>> No.5481401

>>5481360
> Just vote, that's all I care about. Democracy ain't worth jack fucking shit if the populace doesn't vote once every few years. I don't care who you vote for, just fucking vote.

haha... i literally never vote. Tell me why I should waste my entire day going to a vote booth or filling out the mailin, if i live in California which is gonna be blue no matter what...

you know how the electoral college works? the popular vote is complete trash
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70

>> No.5481407

>>5481401
It doesn't take a whole day, it takes about 5 minutes.

And it's the culture I'm trying to cultivate, not your dumb ass. You're just a part of the culture. If 100% of Americans voted, the world would not look as it does. But the elderly are the ones that vote, with their out-dated understandings. As a result, they have a heavy hand in ruling our country.

Wanna smoke weed freely? Then stop letting your fucking grandma's vote outweigh yours. And not just you, but everyone. The problem is everyone uses some form of the same exact excuse you use. It's all a bunch of bullshit. But since you're the one right here in front of me over the internet, you're the one I'm going to yell at.

GET OUT AND FUCKING VOTE YOU STUPID FUCKING FAGGOT.

:)

>> No.5481419

>>5481407
> Wanna smoke weed freely?
not really. there's enough 420 blaze it faggots from the med marijuana. if it was made totally legal california would turn into Bobmarlia

i smoke, i keep it low key. i dont really care about the culture. it was cool when i was 17 on summer break... but now... i just see it as a drug that i (if i had any) would keep my kids away from. (if i had any of those too)

>> No.5481428
File: 198 KB, 1421x857, stupidyoungpeople.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5481428

>>5481407

also, you're basically saying that the nice old people and reasonable minded (like me) are keeping the country down from "young people"

haev you seen "young people" they are the exact kind of people i DONT want to vote. you want 4chan to vote... are you the antichrist?

> picrelated, the voters of america in 2020
> google agrees with me, since all i did was search "young peopel today" and found a photo of some retards

>> No.5481429

>>5481419
I'd keep my kids away from weed in the same way I'd keep them away from alcohol and tobacco.

>>5481428
Yes I want 4chan to vote. I want everyone to vote. I want a motherfucking democracy. Is that too much to ask for?

>> No.5481434

>>5481429
> Yes I want 4chan to vote. I want everyone to vote. I want a motherfucking democracy. Is that too much to ask for?

yeah, dude. A true democracy where we all decide would never work.

Life - my friend - is a pyramid scheme. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you can start being successful.

If you want to change the pyramid in to some kind of hippy semicircle, go to coachella. Is that too much to ask for?

#rekd

>> No.5481440

>>5481434
I own my own fucking business and I do fine. But I'm also sick of old school understandings that can't keep up with modern technology ruling our entire populace. I want to fucking smoke weed legally. I want people who want to get married that have nothing to do with me to get fucking married. I'm sick of the US playing Earth-cops at the expense of my tax dollars. Does this bother you?

>> No.5481449

>>5481434
How about world governments fucking up net neutrality? Does that bother you?

Our people need to fucking vote. Over half our population seems to think their vote is useless. Fuck that bullshit.

>> No.5481456

>>5481449
You know who champions our shit because most of those that care are too lazy to go to the polls? Google. Fucking Google is fighting for your right to a laissez-faire internet while you sit on your ass and eat cheetos. There's a special place in hell for faggots that can't even fight for what they believe in.

>> No.5481461

>>5481440
> Does this bother you?

yeah, sorta. I'm pretty liberal myself. I don't care if gays get married or of people are gay.

But i don't want the gay agenda to be so supported. It's these attention seeking faggots and all this bullshit. Gay rights is NOT an issue. And those that make it an issue, on either side are fags. (the religious idiots and the stupid black trannies that used to hit on me when i was like 15)

> I'm sick of the US playing Earth-cops at the expense of my tax dollars.
thats a stupid statement.... again im pretty liberal, but the only reason the taxes arent MORE is because we kill people to keep them low.

if you pulled all the drug smuggling, government overthrowing, drone striking stuff out of the equation, you'd save billions of dollars but probably bankrupt the country. You have no idea how much of our defense budget comes from the defense itself... its a business, like anything in america. The us defense forces are a profitable organization. (if you look at the big picture)

We could just chill out like Canada, right?
> Hey, hows it goin? Anyone wanna come hang out?
Not shoot anyone, not invade anyone, not make all this crap in the media.

I see putin facepalming every week now.
> No, American people, we assure you, we are not evil aliens from outer space, even though thats what CNN said.
> No, we are not going to eat your souls.

journalism is dead, democracy is dead. American capitalism rules the world now, and it's going to continue until it implodes. Recession was nothing. We're going to have a second depression, and the riches people in America have already fore told it.

and we were just talking about military but this is all aspects of the US government. They're all for-profit businesses with aggressive goals.

The Fed makes 90 billion a year
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/20/warren-buffett-says-federal-reserve-is-greatest-hedge-fund-in-history/

>> No.5481468

>>5481456
> You know who champions our shit because most of those that care are too lazy to go to the polls? Google. Fucking Google is fighting for your right to a laissez-faire internet while you sit on your ass and eat cheetos. There's a special place in hell for faggots that can't even fight for what they believe in.

HAHAHAHAH what a fucking kid, dude. Go ride a bike, you have to be 18 to be on this board.

Google is the biggest collector of data in the world. It IS sky net. You're crazy if you think google gives a shit about you.

They know how to do business. Thats pay your employees well, be innovative, and market a positive image.

But if they were so great, why didn't they offer Americans the ability to do that same shit brits are getting? The "rigght to forget" stuff. Don't you want control over your private info? Brits have it. Its THE LAW. Google only allowed them after the law made them.

Fuck google youre crazy.

>> No.5481478

>>5481461
If you think that we are at the height of human achievement, please shoot yourself.

Yes, journalism is dead. Kinda maybe, American style democracy is dead. Yes, our brand of capitalism does seem to have swept the world. I don't know about the federal reserve, I haven't yet come to an opinion on that.

You said one thing that I'd really like to seize on that really pissed me off, though:

>the only reason the taxes arent MORE is because we kill people to keep them low

Really?

>> No.5481488
File: 58 KB, 328x857, listofenemies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5481488

>>5481478
>the only reason the taxes arent MORE is because we kill people to keep them low

yes. the reason americans are so powerful is because we have military superiority. we have bigger guns. And the reason we have bigger guns is because we constantly push our agenda, and are contsantly swindling other countries, completely overtaking them, etc.

Look. This is how we make our money:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

We pretend to be friends, then we pay terrorists to overthrow the government. Look at how long the list is bro. LOOK.

>> No.5481507

>>5481488
What percentage of our government income do you think comes from these sources? Remember that while our corporations have a very long reach, we don't tax them very heavily. Very little of that money actually reaches the pockets of our public.

You wanna know why we're so powerful? Because we're fucking rich. Do you honestly think we're only rich because we exploit other people? I wish it were that easy.

>> No.5481526
File: 11 KB, 250x276, taxes.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5481526

>>5481507
> What percentage of our government income do you think comes from these sources?

we can find out in a second with a little bit of "dumb math"

But first you need to understand that the CIA budget... (the black budget) is the one that funds these same black ops. The government doesnt use official money for these undercover ops.

Like i said - everything is a business. The CIA is in charge of black ops, they are a profitable business. They make connections, they use diplomats, they VERY often allign themselves with certain "enemies/gray area types" and use it to their advantage.

The money they make from that goes right back into the CIA.

The US has an OFFICIAL budget. The income comes from ... TAXES duh.

>> No.5481531
File: 75 KB, 870x628, stupidshit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5481531

>>5481526
then they spend it on

>> No.5481535

>>5481526
I imagine that the CIA is quite profitable.

So we're talking about that that little 9% slice called "Other Revenues" right?

How does this pertain to any point you're trying to make?

Nice spending chart. Where'd you find it?

>> No.5481541

>>5481488

ok, time for some dumb math. If the Defense budget of the united states is 18%... i'd say that that it's at least twice that much from the other sources (since its the onle expense).

obviously those numbers have nothing to do with each other, but im speculating based on teh fact that the US spends SO much money on defense already, they obviously consider it one of the most important things. So... since there's no "black ops social security" operations, and no "black ops tax collectors", its pretty obvious any of the direct money made goes rigth back into more guns, and any positive, indirect results in a better economy.

i mean why do you think we're still alive with such a debt? shouldn't everything collapse? no. we're in a catch 22 with the rest of the world.
> well, we really hate america and it owes us a lot of money, but... if we fuck with it, we're going to get fucked back. fuck.

>> No.5481544

>>5481535
> So we're talking about that that little 9% slice called "Other Revenues" right?
no. we're talking about something THATS NOT ON THE CHART. Thats why they call them "black ops"... "covert ops".... they are super duper secret.

>> No.5481548

>>5481544
Fair enough. If that's the case, then I can't argue with you. We're at an impasse. It was originally proposed (to my limited understanding) that US overseas military operations were generating revenue. If it can't be documented, then there's no point in discussing it, right?

>> No.5481549
File: 86 KB, 1413x809, coolbeans.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5481549

>>5481544
>>5481535

woah, cool. i found a whole website with cool graphics that explains it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/black-budget/
it also claims its 52 billion.

>> No.5481553
File: 79 KB, 1183x697, blackbudget.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5481553

>>5481549
better image..

>> No.5481557

>Black budget

B-But that's racist!

>> No.5481558

>>5481549
>>5481553
I'm just enough /pol/ that I distrust major media organizations. Thank you though. The budget itself is public domain, and that's good enough.

>> No.5481559
File: 25 KB, 600x400, lel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5481559

>>5481557

>> No.5481574

>>5481440
>I'm sick of the US playing Earth-cops at the expense of my tax dollars. Does this bother you?
Seems to be my most divisive statement. C'mon you stupid faggots. You can't have given up this easily. What kind of American are you that you can't handle a little debate? Bring it.

>> No.5481579

>>5481574
read the thread dude we were way passed that. we came to... like.. an understanding of ignorance.

Like a bully and a victim that get transported to a different galaxy all of a sudden.... are like... woah man. We better stick together...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAurGIs0lo4

>> No.5481584

>>5481579
Fair enough, I'll take my attention elsewhere.

I couldn't really read most of the thread, the rampant stupidity made me want to throw my computer out a window too often. Too much weak thought, I simply couldn't handle it. Thx for checking me tho.

>> No.5481629

>>5477479
>overpriced

Modern monopolies, and not some silly robber baron caricature in your head, are not about overpricing their goods because they're usually smart enough to know that invites competition and trouble with governments. What they do instead is price things cheap as fuck(undercutting the primary competitors) to get as many customers as possible and eventually the economic scale is so large that they're making billions no matter how low the profit margin(walmart is a prime example).

It's also in a nutshell why modern consumerism is unsustainable, most shit should cost more than it currently does.