Forum Post: Meet Monsanto's Number 1 Lobbyist: Obama
Posted 12 years ago on Sept. 24, 2012, 8:17 p.m. EST by john23
(-272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/meet-monsantos-number-one-lobbyist-barack-obama/
No doubt Mitt won't be any different. Check out your choice for a third party candidate to make a difference.
Also - New study done on GMO foods found it caused tumors in upwards of 75% of female rats tested on along with organ problems. Newly released study:
http://sustainablepulse.com/2012/09/19/criigen-study-links-gm-maize-roundup-premature-death-cancer/
Great video at the bottom of this article with one of the scientists involved in the study and his view of the findings:
http://www.naturalnews.com/037262_GMO_Monsanto_debate.html#ixzz27EtWp6SM
And Monsanto even gets paid for all this.
Obomination, with super villains MonDiablo and HydroFracker, have already done irreparable damage to the planet. No end in sight.
Obama's also the first American President to directly order the assassination of an American citizen. First American president to sign indefinite detention of American citizens into law. He's prosecuted a record number of whisteblowers who have come clean about covernment corruption. And then there's Guantanamo...
Mitt Romney is horrible...but so is Obama. And the hypnotized members of each party refuse to be intellectually honest with themselves.
The only reasonable choice in 2012 is to not vote. Don't consent to corruption by voting for it.
There are more than two candidates running for president. I will vote for one of them.
Vote for a 3rd party. There are literally dozens to chose from depending on your state.
I am not Obama supporter, far from it, but I highly doubt he is the first President to have an American citizen assassinated, we might just not know about the others.
You may be right about what past presidents have done, nonetheless, it is shocking and frightening, that Obama is the first to openly assassinate Americans citizens.
Agreed.
He's the first president to have overtly ordered it. He's set the precedent.
Third parties are just a detour. If you believe that changing the hood ornament on the car that is slowly running you over will set you free.... go for it!
I don't think it will "set me free" but I am sure whatever you plan to do (nothing) will "set me free" either.
Oh? Did I say to do nothing? No. I said "Don't vote". Big difference. I think government should be actively, non-violently resisted at every chance; which includes voting.
Vote 3rd party....strip the repubs and dems of the popular vote. The more people who do it....the more credence you give that 3rd party is a viable option for people...then they start to think that if they to voted third party they wouldn't be wasting their vote.
vote loss will alert the 2 main parties
The 3rd party would just get incorporated into the establishment the same way the 2 parties already have. And how would that fix anything?
You're living in a fantasy.
So give up? That's ur suggestion?
My suggestion is non-violent resistance. The refusal to participate is the first step. Just like Occupy is willing to occupy non-violently. In that direction, only more focused. Alternative currencies. Local food production, etc. All of those kinds of things are vastly more productive efforts than voting or getting involved in politics.
A lot of us don't have time to actively resist the government at every chance.
I don't really have a problem with government, it is just corrupt government that I don't like.
That is such hogwash. You don't have time to actively resist the government? It takes more time to vote than to not vote. It takes more time to go fill out all their paperwork than to not. It takes much more time to invest yourself into complying with all the hurdles than to not. That's just not true. You're rationalizing lazyness and uncreativity by saying it takes a ton of time, but circumventing a middleman is ALWAYS easier and faster.
So if power corrupts, and government is ever increasing power, then it's ever increasing corruption.
"I don't really have a problem with government, it is just corrupt government that I don't like."
So what's the difference?
So you are advocating doing nothing?
You know, you're welcome to vote in whatever corrupt government you want. And I'd respect your right to vote, your right to live in that place, and your right to be a slave to whatever master you want to choose. I'd never advocate violence over you for wanting to live as a peasant on any plantation you like.
But if I disagree with the government, and I want to abstain, not live as a slave, and be left alone, you would disagree, and further, you would advocate that the government should send me to jail or kill me for simply not wanting to participate.
Is that the appropriate summation?