I'm thrilled that the President didn't veto the spending bill (updated)

[ProSense]

Yes, thrilled!

If the President had vetoed the bill, it would set up yet another hostage situation for Republicans and the deadline for a government shut down would have passed (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022580015).

Everyone knows damn well that many of those criticizing the President, against logic, for not vetoing a spending bill that was crucial to funding the government would have joined the Republicans in piling the blame on him for allowing the situation to come to that.

Vetoing the bill would have been a stupid and irrational move.

And that's not making light of concerns about the Monsanto provision.

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

The Monsanto bill is a perfect example of focusing on a Presidential veto FAIL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022575349


Updated to add: In June 2012, the Senate voted down a genetically engineered food labeling bill 26 to 73

Statement of Purpose:

To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00161

YEAs ---26
Akaka (D-HI)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

[ProSense]

1. Kick for

common sense!

[spanone]

2. k&r...

[sabrina 1]

3. Of course if you stop paying ransoma out, blackmail doesn't work. However, since

Republicans can count on the ransom being paid, they will continue to blackmail the people and the people will continue to be shafted.

Paying a ransom isn't winning. It means the Blackmailers won.

And since it's always Democrats who find themselves in this position, maybe they should try standing up to the Blackmailers. But that's hard to do when you appoint some of them to your own administration I suppose.

This rider was being prepared nearly a year ago. There was plenty of time to warn the Blackmailers not to even try it. But I've searched and can only find a few Democrats who actually tried to the right thing.

Why is it that it is always Democrats who find themselves being blackmailed like this?

I'm glad you're thrilled that the Republicans won again. I hate it when Republicans and their Corporate masters back Democrats into a corner. And I hate it even more when Democrats back down and say 'thank you'.

[ProSense]

4. All the

"This rider was being prepared nearly a year ago. There was plenty of time to warn the Blackmailers not to even try it. But I've searched and can only find a few Democrats who actually tried to the right thing."

...details are here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022576338

Congress could have stopped it, but they didn't. Yes, I'm thrilled, and my reasoning in the OP still stands.

[sabrina 1]

12. Monsanto and the Republicans are thrilled also, Democrats and consumers

not so much.

[ProSense]

15. Again,

"Monsanto and the Republicans are thrilled also, Democrats and consumers not so much."

...Congress could have stopped this.

While there are no definite fingerprints for whoever is responsible for the rider, the earmark was allowed under the direction of Senator Barbara Mikulski, the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee (D-MD). Congress has held no hearings on this controversial biotech rider and many Democrats in the Committee were unaware of its presence in the CR. Additionally, Mikulski and the Senate Appropriations Committee failed to bring this rider in front of the Agriculture or Judiciary Committees, disregarding their expertise and jurisdiction and in blatant violation of common practice.

“In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Senator Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022576338

It's utterly ridiculous to think that the President was going to veto a spending bill over this. Ludicrous.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

5. Thankfully, the President is more pragmatic than his armchair critics. K&R. nt

[99Forever]

6. And the Culture of Personality serves ..

... up it's weak sauce excuse of the day.

Kinda pitiful to watch actually.

[ProSense]

7. LOL!

Drivel!

[pintobean]

9. A jury voted to leave this post 6-0. nt

[ProSense]

10. Good

because it made me laugh.

[woo me with science]

32. Good jury.

It's worth a hide sometimes to speak the truth.

[ProSense]

58. And that's

"It's worth a hide sometimes to speak the truth."

...worth another laugh.

[sabrina 1]

13. Yes, and that is why we keep losing. I admire the Republicans and their Corporate

Employers in a way, envy them to be honest, because they know how to get what they want.

But sit back and relax. Monsanto and Republicans win again. And in a Corporate state, that is how things are SUPPOSED to work, and we are supposed to enjoy it!

Still, I would love to know how it feels to be on the winning side once in a while. It must be a wonderful feeling. I just can't get into the celebration mood of this OP though when I think of the ramifications of this latest Corporate victory. We Dems are such party poopers, aren't we?

[ProSense]

14. Yeah,

"I admire the Republicans and their Corporate Employers in a way, envy them to be honest, because they know how to get what they want."

...Democrats should be just like them: obstruct and sneak proposals into bills. Why aren't you happy?

[sabrina 1]

16. Sneak? They didn't sneak anything into the bill. In fact

they were quite open and confident about winning since at least last July.

No, I think Democrats should support people like Sen. Tester and Rep. Defazio who actually DID try to stop Monsanto. It really isn't that hard, but you have to want something badly enough in order to win. Apparently Republicans and Corporations have that desire.

Nope, Corporations do not and did not sneak this rider into the bill, they obviously have no need to be sneaky. They have support in Congresss and even some of their own in powerful positions in our Government.

What made you think they were sneaky about it btw? Is that a talking point, or did you really think no one knew about it until it was too late?

See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12526879

[ProSense]

18. What exactly

"Sneak? They didn't sneak anything into the bill. In fact they were quite open and confident about winning since at least last July."

...are you arguing? Congress put it in the bill and then passed it 73 to 26. That is a fact.

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

The Monsanto bill is a perfect example of focusing on a Presidential veto FAIL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022575349

Expecting the President to veto a bill to avert a government shut down is absurd.

[sabrina 1]

35. Vetoing the bill would avert a Government shut down?

Lol, I don't think that's what you meant to say, although who knows? It might have worked. But if no one tries, we'll never know, will we?

That's okay, Monsanto won again, so all is well. And Congress gets to look bi-partisan, that's what the people want, just so long as they pass something, anything. Corporate America says the people don't want to see Congress fighting, for them! So it must be so.

Let's just join the Corporations otherwise we might look like 'obstructionists'. Isn't it great to live in a Corporate state, so long as you don't belong to the working class!

[ProSense]

38. LOL! Read it again. n/t

[ProSense]

31. FYI:

DeFazio voted for the bill: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll089.xml

He also voted for the House bill before the Senate amendments: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll062.xml

[99Forever]

20. So you are saying that Obama and staff...

.. are so incompetent or too damn lazy to actually know what is in the bills he signs into law?

That's a real confidence builder.

[ProSense]

21. No,

"So you are saying that Obama and staff... are so incompetent or too damn lazy to actually know what is in the bills he signs into law?"

...that's your silly comment. My point in the OP is clear.

[99Forever]

22. Your words, mam:

"Democrats should be just like them: obstruct and sneak proposals into bills."

[ProSense]

24. Your point makes no sense. n/t

[99Forever]

25. Not when you live in a constant state of denial, I'm sure.

[ProSense]

26. How's the weather there?

[99Forever]

27. Again you have nothing.

Another constant.

[ProSense]

29. Drivel!

Your trademark.

[treestar]

19. I've never admired people who know what they want and know how to get it

As our culture does. Who says getting what you want should be the only standard? You admire that? Why not become a Republican then? You can be in a group that does what it has to in order to get what it wants.

[sabrina 1]

23. I've never admired anyone who works against the people, whether

on purpose or out of weakness.

I admire people like DeFazio and a, tragically few other Democrats, who are willing to fight for the people who elected them, but they don't get the support of their party's leadership, every time!

I guess you don't admire the founding fathers, or FDR or anyone who fights for OUR side then?? So now it's 'unseemly' to fight for what is right.

You admire the weak, the failures, the cavers, the easily defeated, the cowards who are afraid to fight the bullies? Is that what we worked for, to get people who are afraid to fight for the people elected? That certainly isn't what they tell us when they want our support, is it?

I hope you will repeat this sentiment during the next election cycle. 'Vote for us, we won't fight for you because we think that is unseemly, but we are the good guys, we have great ideas, but we don't believe in fighting for them'.

Yes, that will get Dems elected. THAT is what you are promoting. THAT is NOT what the people were told, but if that is the 'way it is' as you say, I think they better at least be honest when the next election comes up so at least we know what we are voting for.

[ProSense]

61. Isn't that

"I've never admired anyone who works against the people, whether on purpose or out of weakness."

...statement contradictory to your previous comment:

"I admire the Republicans and their Corporate Employers in a way, envy them to be honest, because they know how to get what they want."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2583119

[sabrina 1]

62. No, not at all. I admire their ability to get what they want, not THEM. Because

Democrats are so incapable, it seems, of getting what WE elected them to do. If only they could do for us, what Republicans do for Corporations. If only Dems could force Republicans into a position where WE could blackmail THEM. But for some reason Dems always seem to be cornered, or so we are told. Always pushed to vote for terrible policies, because of threats from Republicans to shut down the Government or something.

What I envy, admire, wish for, is that WE could threaten THEM with shutting down the government and blaming it on them, if we don't get some good policies passed.

I see no reason why that cannot happen. We used to have Dems who could mae it happen. So either Dems agree with Repubs or they are voting deliberately for BAD legislation. Either way the people lose and the corporations win.

[ProSense]

66. So it's

"No, not at all. I admire their ability to get what they want, not THEM. "

...the "ability" you "admire"?

"What I envy, admire, wish for, is that WE could threaten THEM with shutting down the government and blaming it on them, if we don't get some good policies passed. "

That reads like you want Democrats to be assholes and play with people's lives. I mean, it seems you want them to use the same tactics Republicans use.

[SwampG8r]

72. to make it as easy as possible you should just

explain what "in a way" means
since that seems to be the part of your previous statement that isnt being understood

[sabrina 1]

80. The comment is a response to the constant claims that Republicans cannot be

challenged by Democrats because if they WERE they would 'do this, or that' and ultimately win. So the logic appears to be that they are so incredibly good at winning, so completely unbeatable, that there is simply no point in Democrats even trying. That the best strategy for Democrats is to simply not fight at all, otherwise the Republicans will make them look 'uncooperative' or 'like obstructionists' etc. etc.

'In a way', meaning if this were true, how enviable to be so powerful! Wouldn't anyone want to be that good at striking fear into the other side so successfully that they will not even fight? In that one way, if it were true, which btw, it is not imho, if only we had those superior powers! It is going along with the claim that Dems are best to just roll over.

[SwampG8r]

97. we agree

those disagreeing seem caught up in what you wrote ignoring that the phrase "in a way" changes the context
i am not surprised
context is lost on so many blockheads

[Mnpaul]

34. They take a knife to a gun fight

"but it is a big knife"

[Cha]

83. And, there you are.. hurling insults again.

[99Forever]

87. Thanks for putting an exclamation point on my comment.

Considering I don't recollect ever having exchanged a single word with you, nor would i know you if I tripped over you, I'll give your little bit of wisdom exactly as much credit as it deserves.

Have a nice live. Bye bye.

[Cha]

88. I know you.. you're always flinging ignorant personal attacks.

[jazzimov]

91. FACTS are a "weak sauce excuse"?

The anti-Obamites really should do more to educate themselves, rather than relying on name-calling.

[99Forever]

93. anti-Obamites???

Who the fuck is that?

[SidDithers]

8. DU Rec...nt

Sid

[grantcart]

11. Only those oblivious to the disasterous effects of the sequestering action could advocate shutting

down the government over the Monsanto rider.


My small business had hired two people earlier this year and we had to let them both go until the sequestering is over.

The letters have only just gone out and the furloughs will start incrementally in April.

It could take about 2 months for people to see what happens.

Until we get the majority of the House back you should expect to see corporate welfare and corporate appeasing legislation added to other 'must pass' legislation, like the continuing resolution to keep the government running.

[treestar]

17. There's a threat of government shut down every time

The Republicans cause this do or die knife edge situation every time, to get something they want. They even did it in the Clinton years. But now it's their answer to every single situation. They must be voted out of office.

[onenote]

28. Right. There isn't a single politically savvy person that would have advised a veto

and that includes Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, and loads of progressive members of Congress.

A bit of history.

The budget resolution was introduced in the House on March 4. It passed the House on March 6 by a vote of 267-151, with a substantial majority of Democrats opposing the bill as then drafted (and virtually all repubs supporting it). It did not, as I understand it, contain the Monstanto provision.

The bill then went to the Senate, where an amended version (including the Monsanto language) passed by 73-26 on March 20. The only Democrat to oppose this amended version was Tester of Montana.

The bill then went back to the House, which passed the Senate version by a vote of 318-109 on March 21. Unlike the original version, this version garnered the support of a majority of House Democrats (going from 53 in support to 115 in support).

The version that originally passed the House over Democratic opposition was around 270 pages long. The revised version that passed with majority Democratic support was nearly 500 pages long. The additional language reflected a number of compromises, including but far from limited to the inclusion of the Monsanto language. There was enough "good stuff" added to the bill that a majority of the House Democrats were willing to support it, even with the Monsanto language, even though a majority had opposed it before the various compromises.

That's how legislation is made. Its not pretty, but its the process of give and take by which things get done if and when they get done.

So at this point, the bill is sent to the WH. Now, in theory, the president could've singled out the Monsanto provision and, notwithstanding the other things in the bill (not the least of which was keeping the government running), he could've vetoed it. Now, at this point, both Houses were in the process of adjourning for the Easter week. But, in theory, the president could've forced them back to work at the risk of shutting down the government.

The veto override would not give members an opportunity to vote on a version without the Monsanto language. It would have been an up or down vote on the bill as passed and vetoed. If Democrats switched their vote and sustained the veto, the government would have faced the threat of shutdown and there is absolutely no doubt who would take the heat for creating that situation -- the Democrats who had voted to fund the government and then switched their votes not to fund the government.

As for the process of then going about getting a vote on a Monsanto-less version, keep in mind that there are literally dozens of provisions that were included in the final version as part of various compromises. Pull one string, and the whole thing begins to unravel. The odds of putting humpty-dumpty back together again in the amount of time available would not be great. The repubs would have no reason to help avoid a shutdown since blame for it would clearly fall on the Democrats this time (for having reversed position).

Again, no one with an ounce of political savvy was going to suggest the President veto the bill. No. One.

[woo me with science]

30. You're thrilled when the President takes a dump.

Let's be honest here.

[ProSense]

33. Vile disgusting drivel.

Typical!

[woo me with science]

36. Sometimes the incessant, shameless, vile commercials

for political behavior that is driving millions into poverty and despair get very, very, very, very tiresome.

I try to spend my time ignoring the corporate-political talking points, or pointing out the shilling for what it is, but every so often the enormity of the betrayal hits home. Every once in a while, you look around and you see with clear eyes the misery and the despair and the dismantling of our country and our futures that all of this greed is causing.

Sometimes the truth is well worth an occasional hidden post, because, you know what, Prosense? This isn't a fucking game. This is our country, our lives, and our children being sold down the river, for profit. Professional apologism for that, IMO, is about as low as you can go.

[ProSense]

37. "You're thrilled when the President takes a dump."

Vile. Stop pretending to have credibility. All you are is anti-Democrats.

"Sometimes the truth is well worth an occasional hidden post, because, you know what, Prosense? This isn't a fucking game. This is our country, our lives, and our children being sold down the river, for profit. Professional apologism for that, IMO, is about as low as you can go. "

Get the fuck over yourself.

[2naSalit]

45. +1 nt

[ProSense]

48. Kick for

the hilarious responses to this thread.

[2naSalit]

50. I kicked that

response because I think that your OP misses a major point and that the respondent nailed it. There seems to be an epidemic of overlooking some major concerns that many of us see as becoming dangerous to us as a nation and I think your OP does exactly that.

There were measures the pres could have taken with regard to this issue and you seem to have made a myopic argument with regard to what is going on. A veto may have been unacceptable to many (and most of us weren't arguing for one even though you seem to think that was what many of us were arguing for regardless of any discussion we made against an actual veto that you must have missed) but it wasn't the only option the pres had in his toolbox. I think he has dropped the ball on a number of issues that are becoming a larger sack of sh*t for us to swallow. Yeah, he might be a nice guy and have class and intellect but he is also selling us out incrementally and I am fed up with it. The Dems are losing the war and all the small battles in the interim... all to avoid some discomfort?

Laugh all you want and call us names and berate us for noticing the warts and hairs that collectively make an ogre out all this but when it's way beyond correction, none of us will be laughing, not even you.

Pay attention here, mental masturbation and gushing about how Obama can do no wrong because, well he's such an awesome dude, will get you little when the whole empire comes crashing down. (not that I am happy about this being an empire but it is what it has become... with our foot on the gas toward ruination.) Go ahead and laugh... because that sense of mirth won't last for long.

[ProSense]

51. Oh,

"There seems to be an epidemic of overlooking some major concerns that many of us see as becoming dangerous to us as a nation and I think your OP does exactly that. "

...the OP isn't "overlooking some major concerns," it's stating that it's absolutely ridiculous to expect the President to veto a spending bill over the provision in question given the circumstances that led to its inclusion and the purpose of the bill.

"Pay attention here, mental masturbation and gushing about how Obama can do no wrong because, well he's such an awesome dude, will get you little when the whole empire comes crashing down. (not that I am happy about this being an empire but it is what it has become... with our foot on the gas toward ruination.) Go ahead and laugh... because that sense of mirth won't last for long."

Thanks, I will, on your advice, take a moment after that ridiculously silly comment to LMAO.

[2naSalit]

53. Obviously, you've missed the point

again. Not that I care whether you do... now. Go ahead, LYAO, it's supposedly a free country and you are welcome to do so... better get to it while you still can.

[ProSense]

54. No,

"Obviously, you've missed the point"

...I didn't, but if it makes you feel better to think that your point was hard to understand, go for it.

"Go ahead, LYAO, it's supposedly a free country and you are welcome to do so... better get to it while you still can. "

Thanks, again.

[2naSalit]

56. and now

we're both at each other.

have a nice day.

[ProSense]

57. LOL!

[SwampG8r]

71. +1000

like the pigs in animal farm who shouted up ever "accomplishment" of napoleon while threatening how bad things will be if snowball comes back
lol edited to reference the correct storyline

[ProSense]

76. "like the pigs in animal farm who shouted up ever 'accomplishment' of napoleon"

Are you comparing the President to "Napoleon" in Animal Farm?

Too bad there isn't a law against stupid.

[SidDithers]

92. ^^^ This...

"Too bad there isn't a law against stupid. "



Sid

[SwampG8r]

96. no i was not

if there were a law against such you would bemoan it before i

[truebrit71]

75. ^^^ This

...i cannot tell you how sick of the cheerleading I have become regardless of the reality of the administrations' actions..

[SwampG8r]

70. first thought

that crossed my mind when i read the title and saw the authors name lol

[Marr]

39. By law, aren't you supposed to have one of those "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message"

lines at the end of these kinds of ads?

You might add it as your signature. Would save time.

[woo me with science]

40. +1

[ProSense]

42. Peanut gallery?

"+1"

Don't you have anything substantive to add to your vile comment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2583511

[ProSense]

41. It's too bad there isn't a law against stupid. n/t

[Marr]

43. Sorry, but sometimes your shilling is just comedic.

This is one of those times.

[ProSense]

44. LOL!

"Sorry, but sometimes your shilling is just comedic. This is one of those times."

I suppose your are "sorry." Do you really think I give a shit?

Like I said, too bad there isn't a law against stupid.

[Egalitarian Thug]

46. I am utterly shocked that you are thrilled.

The President is just so dreamy, you could just eat him up with a spoon.

[ProSense]

47. I'm shocked that you're "shocked"

"The President is just so dreamy, you could just eat him up with a spoon."

Can't think of any new silly material?

[Egalitarian Thug]

59. I don't believe it is possible to top your sadly desperate, and inappropriate adulation.

When the bar has been set so low that merely sucking less than the idiot child from Crawford is cause enough to excuse literally anything, something is just terribly wrong with the people making the excuses.

It's very like those trying to tell the board that a Nobel Laureate in economics is delusional and just doesn't understand economics.

[ProSense]

60. Here you are worrying about me and

"When the bar has been set so low that merely sucking less than the idiot child from Crawford is cause enough to excuse literally anything, something is just terribly wrong with the people making the excuses. "

...spewing drivel.

I mean, what on earth gives you the impression that I care what you "believe"?

[Egalitarian Thug]

69. The fact that you are seemingly compelled to reply again and again to any and every comment

that can be interpreted to be even slightly disparaging the the President. That you reply with unsubstantiated press releases, other times with wholly fictitious claims, and frequently with blizzards of links to posts of links that link to other posts that link to articles that don't say what you claim they say (and sometimes say exactly the opposite of what you claim). And when that fails, you reply with non sequiturs and ad homonym, but you always reply.

So it is obvious that you do indeed care a great deal about anything even remotely Obama-related no matter how insignificant. You are a very caring person when it comes to the President and anyone that says anything about him.

[ProSense]

78. And

"The fact that you are seemingly compelled to reply again and again to any and every comment that can be interpreted to be even slightly disparaging the the President. That you reply with unsubstantiated press releases, other times with wholly fictitious claims, and frequently with blizzards of links to posts of links that link to other posts that link to articles that don't say what you claim they say (and sometimes say exactly the opposite of what you claim). And when that fails, you reply with non sequiturs and ad homonym, but you always reply. "

...all you have is "blizzard" of silly claims. Why the hell are you following me so closely? Am I your obsession?

[Egalitarian Thug]

81. Once again, no evidence, no reply, and no sense.

The "silly claims" are self evident to everybody but, apparently, you. I am not following you at all, it's just that you are omnipresent in any thread or post that mentions the President.

You're thrilled that what are possibly the most evil corporations on earth, have been granted permanent legal permission to conceal ingredients from unwary consumers that would otherwise ensure a dramatic drop in sales, as even the most dim-witted people, given a choice, choose to stick with natural organisms.

Do you have the capacity to understand what you you've written?

[ProSense]

85. Actually,

"Once again, no evidence, no reply, and no sense."

....I did respond to your comment

"The fact that you are seemingly compelled to reply again and again to any and every comment that can be interpreted to be even slightly disparaging the the President. That you reply with unsubstantiated press releases, other times with wholly fictitious claims, and frequently with blizzards of links to posts of links that link to other posts that link to articles that don't say what you claim they say (and sometimes say exactly the opposite of what you claim). And when that fails, you reply with non sequiturs and ad homonym, but you always reply. "

...all you have is "blizzard" of silly claims. Why the hell are you following me so closely? Am I your obsession?

"You're thrilled that what are possibly the most evil corporations on earth, have been granted permanent legal permission to conceal ingredients from unwary consumers that would otherwise ensure a dramatic drop in sales, as even the most dim-witted people, given a choice, choose to stick with natural organisms. "

No, I'm thrilled the President used common sense, which evidently is in short supply.

The “Monsanto Protection Act”, and why you were duped
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022590655

Before you jump on Obama over the Monsanto amendment, take a minute and read this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022580015

Snopes has already tackled the "Monsanto Protection Act" claim.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022582251

[Egalitarian Thug]

94. Completely and utterly hopeless.

I'm just grateful that your primary occupation seems to be posting here and thereby limits the potential damage.

[ProSense]

95. It's

"I'm just grateful that your primary occupation seems to be posting here and thereby limits the potential damage. "

...good to know you've made peace with my freedom. I was worried that my posting here was eating away at you.

[ProSense]

49. Adding this:

In June 2012, the Senate voted down a genetically engineered food labeling bill 26 to 73 http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022583957

Not sure why this thread is getting all the love.

[LWolf]

52. Has he ever done anything that you AREN'T thrilled by?

[ProSense]

55. Senator Cruz?

[Logical]

65. So true! +1000

[ProSense]

67. What's "true"?

"So true! +1000"

It was a question. Looks like the gallery is running out of peanuts.

[SwampG8r]

73. from upthread it seems

she is proud when the potus takes a dump but doesnt want to talk about it

[MoclipsHumptulips]

63. 1%ers are of course thrilled.

no surprise here.

Transparent but not surprising.

[ProSense]

64. Are you a one percenter?

I think there are few of them here. You'll fit right in.

Welcome to DU.

[ProSense]

79. Gone so soon?

[Cha]

89. 1%ers are thrilled by the gopricks? Yeah.

[freshwest]

68. K&R

[ProSense]

77. Obviously

Of course you are...what's surprising is how long it took you to come up with this tripe..

Still, as long as you get paid, who gives a shit about the food supply, right?

posting moronic comments based on the silly theories is your thing.

Thrilled!

[Cha]

86. Glad that one got hidden. If they only knew how

ignorant they sound with their little "you get paid wah wah wah" "nobody would be this dedicated to Democracy wah wah wah wah" because they can't handle the facts.

It messes with their agenda so insulting the messenger is all they have.

[ProSense]

82. More info

The “Monsanto Protection Act”, and why you were duped
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022590655

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

[Hekate]

84. KnR

Good luck!

[burrowowl]

90. Kick for the night!